Block Chain — Bitcoin

Ultimate glossary of crypto currency terms, acronyms and abbreviations

I thought it would be really cool to have an ultimate guide for those new to crypto currencies and the terms used. I made this mostly for beginner’s and veterans alike. I’m not sure how much use you will get out of this. Stuff gets lost on Reddit quite easily so I hope this finds its way to you. Included in this list, I have included most of the terms used in crypto-communities. I have compiled this list from a multitude of sources. The list is in alphabetical order and may include some words/terms not exclusive to the crypto world but may be helpful regardless.
2FA
Two factor authentication. I highly advise that you use it.
51% Attack:
A situation where a single malicious individual or group gains control of more than half of a cryptocurrency network’s computing power. Theoretically, it could allow perpetrators to manipulate the system and spend the same coin multiple times, stop other users from completing blocks and make conflicting transactions to a chain that could harm the network.
Address (or Addy):
A unique string of numbers and letters (both upper and lower case) used to send, receive or store cryptocurrency on the network. It is also the public key in a pair of keys needed to sign a digital transaction. Addresses can be shared publicly as a text or in the form of a scannable QR code. They differ between cryptocurrencies. You can’t send Bitcoin to an Ethereum address, for example.
Altcoin (alternative coin): Any digital currency other than Bitcoin. These other currencies are alternatives to Bitcoin regarding features and functionalities (e.g. faster confirmation time, lower price, improved mining algorithm, higher total coin supply). There are hundreds of altcoins, including Ether, Ripple, Litecoin and many many others.
AIRDROP:
An event where the investors/participants are able to receive free tokens or coins into their digital wallet.
AML: Defines Anti-Money Laundering laws**.**
ARBITRAGE:
Getting risk-free profits by trading (simultaneous buying and selling of the cryptocurrency) on two different exchanges which have different prices for the same asset.
Ashdraked:
Being Ashdraked is essentially a more detailed version of being Zhoutonged. It is when you lose all of your invested capital, but you do so specifically by shorting Bitcoin. The expression “Ashdraked” comes from a story of a Romanian cryptocurrency investor who insisted upon shorting BTC, as he had done so successfully in the past. When the price of BTC rose from USD 300 to USD 500, the Romanian investor lost all of his money.
ATH (All Time High):
The highest price ever achieved by a cryptocurrency in its entire history. Alternatively, ATL is all time low
Bearish:
A tendency of prices to fall; a pessimistic expectation that the value of a coin is going to drop.
Bear trap:
A manipulation of a stock or commodity by investors.
Bitcoin:
The very first, and the highest ever valued, mass-market open source and decentralized cryptocurrency and digital payment system that runs on a worldwide peer to peer network. It operates independently of any centralized authorities
Bitconnect:
One of the biggest scams in the crypto world. it was made popular in the meme world by screaming idiot Carlos Matos, who infamously proclaimed," hey hey heeeey” and “what's a what's a what's up wasssssssssuuuuuuuuuuuuup, BitConneeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeect!”. He is now in the mentally ill meme hall of fame.
Block:
A package of permanently recorded data about transactions occurring every time period (typically about 10 minutes) on the blockchain network. Once a record has been completed and verified, it goes into a blockchain and gives way to the next block. Each block also contains a complex mathematical puzzle with a unique answer, without which new blocks can’t be added to the chain.
Blockchain:
An unchangeable digital record of all transactions ever made in a particular cryptocurrency and shared across thousands of computers worldwide. It has no central authority governing it. Records, or blocks, are chained to each other using a cryptographic signature. They are stored publicly and chronologically, from the genesis block to the latest block, hence the term blockchain. Anyone can have access to the database and yet it remains incredibly difficult to hack.
Bullish:
A tendency of prices to rise; an optimistic expectation that a specific cryptocurrency will do well and its value is going to increase.
BTFD:
Buy the fucking dip. This advise was bestowed upon us by the gods themselves. It is the iron code to crypto enthusiasts.
Bull market:
A market that Cryptos are going up.
Consensus:
An agreement among blockchain participants on the validity of data. Consensus is reached when the majority of nodes on the network verify that the transaction is 100% valid.
Crypto bubble:
The instability of cryptocurrencies in terms of price value
Cryptocurrency:
A type of digital currency, secured by strong computer code (cryptography), that operates independently of any middlemen or central authoritie
Cryptography:
The art of converting sensitive data into a format unreadable for unauthorized users, which when decoded would result in a meaningful statement.
Cryptojacking:
The use of someone else’s device and profiting from its computational power to mine cryptocurrency without their knowledge and consent.
Crypto-Valhalla:
When HODLers(holders) eventually cash out they go to a place called crypto-Valhalla. The strong will be separated from the weak and the strong will then be given lambos.
DAO:
Decentralized Autonomous Organizations. It defines A blockchain technology inspired organization or corporation that exists and operates without human intervention.
Dapp (decentralized application):
An open-source application that runs and stores its data on a blockchain network (instead of a central server) to prevent a single failure point. This software is not controlled by the single body – information comes from people providing other people with data or computing power.
Decentralized:
A system with no fundamental control authority that governs the network. Instead, it is jointly managed by all users to the system.
Desktop wallet:
A wallet that stores the private keys on your computer, which allow the spending and management of your bitcoins.
DILDO:
Long red or green candles. This is a crypto signal that tells you that it is not favorable to trade at the moment. Found on candlestick charts.
Digital Signature:
An encrypted digital code attached to an electronic document to prove that the sender is who they say they are and confirm that a transaction is valid and should be accepted by the network.
Double Spending:
An attack on the blockchain where a malicious user manipulates the network by sending digital money to two different recipients at exactly the same time.
DYOR:
Means do your own research.
Encryption:
Converting data into code to protect it from unauthorized access, so that only the intended recipient(s) can decode it.
Eskrow:
the practice of having a third party act as an intermediary in a transaction. This third party holds the funds on and sends them off when the transaction is completed.
Ethereum:
Ethereum is an open source, public, blockchain-based platform that runs smart contracts and allows you to build dapps on it. Ethereum is fueled by the cryptocurrency Ether.
Exchange:
A platform (centralized or decentralized) for exchanging (trading) different forms of cryptocurrencies. These exchanges allow you to exchange cryptos for local currency. Some popular exchanges are Coinbase, Bittrex, Kraken and more.
Faucet:
A website which gives away free cryptocurrencies.
Fiat money:
Fiat currency is legal tender whose value is backed by the government that issued it, such as the US dollar or UK pound.
Fork:
A split in the blockchain, resulting in two separate branches, an original and a new alternate version of the cryptocurrency. As a single blockchain forks into two, they will both run simultaneously on different parts of the network. For example, Bitcoin Cash is a Bitcoin fork.
FOMO:
Fear of missing out.
Frictionless:
A system is frictionless when there are zero transaction costs or trading retraints.
FUD:
Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt regarding the crypto market.
Gas:
A fee paid to run transactions, dapps and smart contracts on Ethereum.
Halving:
A 50% decrease in block reward after the mining of a pre-specified number of blocks. Every 4 years, the “reward” for successfully mining a block of bitcoin is reduced by half. This is referred to as “Halving”.
Hardware wallet:
Physical wallet devices that can securely store cryptocurrency maximally. Some examples are Ledger Nano S**,** Digital Bitbox and more**.**
Hash:
The process that takes input data of varying sizes, performs an operation on it and converts it into a fixed size output. It cannot be reversed.
Hashing:
The process by which you mine bitcoin or similar cryptocurrency, by trying to solve the mathematical problem within it, using cryptographic hash functions.
HODL:
A Bitcoin enthusiast once accidentally misspelled the word HOLD and it is now part of the bitcoin legend. It can also mean hold on for dear life.
ICO (Initial Coin Offering):
A blockchain-based fundraising mechanism, or a public crowd sale of a new digital coin, used to raise capital from supporters for an early stage crypto venture. Beware of these as there have been quite a few scams in the past.
John mcAfee:
A man who will one day eat his balls on live television for falsely predicting bitcoin going to 100k. He has also become a small meme within the crypto community for his outlandish claims.
JOMO:
Joy of missing out. For those who are so depressed about missing out their sadness becomes joy.
KYC:
Know your customer(alternatively consumer).
Lambo:
This stands for Lamborghini. A small meme within the investing community where the moment someone gets rich they spend their earnings on a lambo. One day we will all have lambos in crypto-valhalla.
Ledger:
Away from Blockchain, it is a book of financial transactions and balances. In the world of crypto, the blockchain functions as a ledger. A digital currency’s ledger records all transactions which took place on a certain block chain network.
Leverage:
Trading with borrowed capital (margin) in order to increase the potential return of an investment.
Liquidity:
The availability of an asset to be bought and sold easily, without affecting its market price.
of the coins.
Margin trading:
The trading of assets or securities bought with borrowed money.
Market cap/MCAP:
A short-term for Market Capitalization. Market Capitalization refers to the market value of a particular cryptocurrency. It is computed by multiplying the Price of an individual unit of coins by the total circulating supply.
Miner:
A computer participating in any cryptocurrency network performing proof of work. This is usually done to receive block rewards.
Mining:
The act of solving a complex math equation to validate a blockchain transaction using computer processing power and specialized hardware.
Mining contract:
A method of investing in bitcoin mining hardware, allowing anyone to rent out a pre-specified amount of hashing power, for an agreed amount of time. The mining service takes care of hardware maintenance, hosting and electricity costs, making it simpler for investors.
Mining rig:
A computer specially designed for mining cryptocurrencies.
Mooning:
A situation the price of a coin rapidly increases in value. Can also be used as: “I hope bitcoin goes to the moon”
Node:
Any computing device that connects to the blockchain network.
Open source:
The practice of sharing the source code for a piece of computer software, allowing it to be distributed and altered by anyone.
OTC:
Over the counter. Trading is done directly between parties.
P2P (Peer to Peer):
A type of network connection where participants interact directly with each other rather than through a centralized third party. The system allows the exchange of resources from A to B, without having to go through a separate server.
Paper wallet:
A form of “cold storage” where the private keys are printed onto a piece of paper and stored offline. Considered as one of the safest crypto wallets, the truth is that it majors in sweeping coins from your wallets.
Pre mining:
The mining of a cryptocurrency by its developers before it is released to the public.
Proof of stake (POS):
A consensus distribution algorithm which essentially rewards you based upon the amount of the coin that you own. In other words, more investment in the coin will leads to more gain when you mine with this protocol In Proof of Stake, the resource held by the “miner” is their stake in the currency.
PROOF OF WORK (POW) :
The competition of computers competing to solve a tough crypto math problem. The first computer that does this is allowed to create new blocks and record information.” The miner is then usually rewarded via transaction fees.
Protocol:
A standardized set of rules for formatting and processing data.
Public key / private key:
A cryptographic code that allows a user to receive cryptocurrencies into an account. The public key is made available to everyone via a publicly accessible directory, and the private key remains confidential to its respective owner. Because the key pair is mathematically related, whatever is encrypted with a public key may only be decrypted by its corresponding private key.
Pump and dump:
Massive buying and selling activity of cryptocurrencies (sometimes organized and to one’s benefit) which essentially result in a phenomenon where the significant surge in the value of coin followed by a huge crash take place in a short time frame.
Recovery phrase:
A set of phrases you are given whereby you can regain or access your wallet should you lose the private key to your wallets — paper, mobile, desktop, and hardware wallet. These phrases are some random 12–24 words. A recovery Phrase can also be called as Recovery seed, Seed Key, Recovery Key, or Seed Phrase.
REKT:
Referring to the word “wrecked”. It defines a situation whereby an investor or trader who has been ruined utterly following the massive losses suffered in crypto industry.
Ripple:
An alternative payment network to Bitcoin based on similar cryptography. The ripple network uses XRP as currency and is capable of sending any asset type.
ROI:
Return on investment.
Safu:
A crypto term for safe popularized by the Bizonnaci YouTube channel after the CEO of Binance tweeted
“Funds are safe."
“the exchage I use got hacked!”“Oh no, are your funds safu?”
“My coins better be safu!”


Sats/Satoshi:
The smallest fraction of a bitcoin is called a “satoshi” or “sat”. It represents one hundred-millionth of a bitcoin and is named after Satoshi Nakamoto.
Satoshi Nakamoto:
This was the pseudonym for the mysterious creator of Bitcoin.
Scalability:
The ability of a cryptocurrency to contain the massive use of its Blockchain.
Sharding:
A scaling solution for the Blockchain. It is generally a method that allows nodes to have partial copies of the complete blockchain in order to increase overall network performance and consensus speeds.
Shitcoin:
Coin with little potential or future prospects.
Shill:
Spreading buzz by heavily promoting a particular coin in the community to create awareness.
Short position:
Selling of a specific cryptocurrency with an expectation that it will drop in value.
Silk road:
The online marketplace where drugs and other illicit items were traded for Bitcoin. This marketplace is using accessed through “TOR”, and VPNs. In October 2013, a Silk Road was shut down in by the FBI.
Smart Contract:
Certain computational benchmarks or barriers that have to be met in turn for money or data to be deposited or even be used to verify things such as land rights.
Software Wallet:
A crypto wallet that exists purely as software files on a computer. Usually, software wallets can be generated for free from a variety of sources.
Solidity:
A contract-oriented coding language for implementing smart contracts on Ethereum. Its syntax is similar to that of JavaScript.
Stable coin:
A cryptocoin with an extremely low volatility that can be used to trade against the overall market.
Staking:
Staking is the process of actively participating in transaction validation (similar to mining) on a proof-of-stake (PoS) blockchain. On these blockchains, anyone with a minimum-required balance of a specific cryptocurrency can validate transactions and earn Staking rewards.
Surge:
When a crypto currency appreciates or goes up in price.
Tank:
The opposite of mooning. When a coin tanks it can also be described as crashing.
Tendies
For traders , the chief prize is “tendies” (chicken tenders, the treat an overgrown man-child receives for being a “Good Boy”) .
Token:
A unit of value that represents a digital asset built on a blockchain system. A token is usually considered as a “coin” of a cryptocurrency, but it really has a wider functionality.
TOR: “The Onion Router” is a free web browser designed to protect users’ anonymity and resist censorship. Tor is usually used surfing the web anonymously and access sites on the “Darkweb”.
Transaction fee:
An amount of money users are charged from their transaction when sending cryptocurrencies.
Volatility:
A measure of fluctuations in the price of a financial instrument over time. High volatility in bitcoin is seen as risky since its shifting value discourages people from spending or accepting it.
Wallet:
A file that stores all your private keys and communicates with the blockchain to perform transactions. It allows you to send and receive bitcoins securely as well as view your balance and transaction history.
Whale:
An investor that holds a tremendous amount of cryptocurrency. Their extraordinary large holdings allow them to control prices and manipulate the market.
Whitepaper:

A comprehensive report or guide made to understand an issue or help decision making. It is also seen as a technical write up that most cryptocurrencies provide to take a deep look into the structure and plan of the cryptocurrency/Blockchain project. Satoshi Nakamoto was the first to release a whitepaper on Bitcoin, titled “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System” in late 2008.
And with that I finally complete my odyssey. I sincerely hope that this helped you and if you are new, I welcome you to crypto. If you read all of that I hope it increased, you in knowledge.
my final definition:
Crypto-Family:
A collection of all the HODLers and crypto fanatics. A place where all people alike unite over a love for crypto.
We are all in this together as we pioneer the new world that is crypto currency. I wish you a great day and Happy HODLing.
-u/flacciduck
feel free to comment words or terms that you feel should be included or about any errors I made.
Edit1:some fixes were made and added words.
submitted by flacciduck to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Proposal: The Sia Foundation

Vision Statement

A common sentiment is brewing online; a shared desire for the internet that might have been. After decades of corporate encroachment, you don't need to be a power user to realize that something has gone very wrong.
In the early days of the internet, the future was bright. In that future, when you sent an instant message, it traveled directly to the recipient. When you needed to pay a friend, you announced a transfer of value to their public key. When an app was missing a feature you wanted, you opened up the source code and implemented it. When you took a picture on your phone, it was immediately encrypted and backed up to storage that you controlled. In that future, people would laugh at the idea of having to authenticate themselves to some corporation before doing these things.
What did we get instead? Rather than a network of human-sized communities, we have a handful of enormous commons, each controlled by a faceless corporate entity. Hey user, want to send a message? You can, but we'll store a copy of it indefinitely, unencrypted, for our preference-learning algorithms to pore over; how else could we slap targeted ads on every piece of content you see? Want to pay a friend? You can—in our Monopoly money. Want a new feature? Submit a request to our Support Center and we'll totally maybe think about it. Want to backup a photo? You can—inside our walled garden, which only we (and the NSA, of course) can access. Just be careful what you share, because merely locking you out of your account and deleting all your data is far from the worst thing we could do.
You rationalize this: "MEGACORP would never do such a thing; it would be bad for business." But we all know, at some level, that this state of affairs, this inversion of power, is not merely "unfortunate" or "suboptimal" – No. It is degrading. Even if MEGACORP were purely benevolent, it is degrading that we must ask its permission to talk to our friends; that we must rely on it to safeguard our treasured memories; that our digital lives are completely beholden to those who seek only to extract value from us.
At the root of this issue is the centralization of data. MEGACORP can surveil you—because your emails and video chats flow through their servers. And MEGACORP can control you—because they hold your data hostage. But centralization is a solution to a technical problem: How can we make the user's data accessible from anywhere in the world, on any device? For a long time, no alternative solution to this problem was forthcoming.
Today, thanks to a confluence of established techniques and recent innovations, we have solved the accessibility problem without resorting to centralization. Hashing, encryption, and erasure encoding got us most of the way, but one barrier remained: incentives. How do you incentivize an anonymous stranger to store your data? Earlier protocols like BitTorrent worked around this limitation by relying on altruism, tit-for-tat requirements, or "points" – in other words, nothing you could pay your electric bill with. Finally, in 2009, a solution appeared: Bitcoin. Not long after, Sia was born.
Cryptography has unleashed the latent power of the internet by enabling interactions between mutually-distrustful parties. Sia harnesses this power to turn the cloud storage market into a proper marketplace, where buyers and sellers can transact directly, with no intermediaries, anywhere in the world. No more silos or walled gardens: your data is encrypted, so it can't be spied on, and it's stored on many servers, so no single entity can hold it hostage. Thanks to projects like Sia, the internet is being re-decentralized.
Sia began its life as a startup, which means it has always been subjected to two competing forces: the ideals of its founders, and the profit motive inherent to all businesses. Its founders have taken great pains to never compromise on the former, but this often threatened the company's financial viability. With the establishment of the Sia Foundation, this tension is resolved. The Foundation, freed of the obligation to generate profit, is a pure embodiment of the ideals from which Sia originally sprung.
The goals and responsibilities of the Foundation are numerous: to maintain core Sia protocols and consensus code; to support developers building on top of Sia and its protocols; to promote Sia and facilitate partnerships in other spheres and communities; to ensure that users can easily acquire and safely store siacoins; to develop network scalability solutions; to implement hardforks and lead the community through them; and much more. In a broader sense, its mission is to commoditize data storage, making it cheap, ubiquitous, and accessible to all, without compromising privacy or performance.
Sia is a perfect example of how we can achieve better living through cryptography. We now begin a new chapter in Sia's history. May our stewardship lead it into a bright future.
 

Overview

Today, we are proposing the creation of the Sia Foundation: a new non-profit entity that builds and supports distributed cloud storage infrastructure, with a specific focus on the Sia storage platform. What follows is an informal overview of the Sia Foundation, covering two major topics: how the Foundation will be funded, and what its funds will be used for.

Organizational Structure

The Sia Foundation will be structured as a non-profit entity incorporated in the United States, likely a 501(c)(3) organization or similar. The actions of the Foundation will be constrained by its charter, which formalizes the specific obligations and overall mission outlined in this document. The charter will be updated on an annual basis to reflect the current goals of the Sia community.
The organization will be operated by a board of directors, initially comprising Luke Champine as President and Eddie Wang as Chairman. Luke Champine will be leaving his position at Nebulous to work at the Foundation full-time, and will seek to divest his shares of Nebulous stock along with other potential conflicts of interest. Neither Luke nor Eddie personally own any siafunds or significant quantities of siacoin.

Funding

The primary source of funding for the Foundation will come from a new block subsidy. Following a hardfork, 30 KS per block will be allocated to the "Foundation Fund," continuing in perpetuity. The existing 30 KS per block miner reward is not affected. Additionally, one year's worth of block subsidies (approximately 1.57 GS) will be allocated to the Fund immediately upon activation of the hardfork.
As detailed below, the Foundation will provably burn any coins that it cannot meaningfully spend. As such, the 30 KS subsidy should be viewed as a maximum. This allows the Foundation to grow alongside Sia without requiring additional hardforks.
The Foundation will not be funded to any degree by the possession or sale of siafunds. Siafunds were originally introduced as a means of incentivizing growth, and we still believe in their effectiveness: a siafund holder wants to increase the amount of storage on Sia as much as possible. While the Foundation obviously wants Sia to succeed, its driving force should be its charter. Deriving significant revenue from siafunds would jeopardize the Foundation's impartiality and focus. Ultimately, we want the Foundation to act in the best interests of Sia, not in growing its own budget.

Responsibilities

The Foundation inherits a great number of responsibilities from Nebulous. Each quarter, the Foundation will publish the progress it has made over the past quarter, and list the responsibilities it intends to prioritize over the coming quarter. This will be accompanied by a financial report, detailing each area of expenditure over the past quarter, and forecasting expenditures for the coming quarter. Below, we summarize some of the myriad responsibilities towards which the Foundation is expected to allocate its resources.

Maintain and enhance core Sia software

Arguably, this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation. At the heart of Sia is its consensus algorithm: regardless of other differences, all Sia software must agree upon the content and rules of the blockchain. It is therefore crucial that the algorithm be stewarded by an entity that is accountable to the community, transparent in its decision-making, and has no profit motive or other conflicts of interest.
Accordingly, Sia’s consensus functionality will no longer be directly maintained by Nebulous. Instead, the Foundation will release and maintain an implementation of a "minimal Sia full node," comprising the Sia consensus algorithm and P2P networking code. The source code will be available in a public repository, and signed binaries will be published for each release.
Other parties may use this code to provide alternative full node software. For example, Nebulous may extend the minimal full node with wallet, renter, and host functionality. The source code of any such implementation may be submitted to the Foundation for review. If the code passes review, the Foundation will provide "endorsement signatures" for the commit hash used and for binaries compiled internally by the Foundation. Specifically, these signatures assert that the Foundation believes the software contains no consensus-breaking changes or other modifications to imported Foundation code. Endorsement signatures and Foundation-compiled binaries may be displayed and distributed by the receiving party, along with an appropriate disclaimer.
A minimal full node is not terribly useful on its own; the wallet, renter, host, and other extensions are what make Sia a proper developer platform. Currently, the only implementations of these extensions are maintained by Nebulous. The Foundation will contract Nebulous to ensure that these extensions continue to receive updates and enhancements. Later on, the Foundation intends to develop its own implementations of these extensions and others. As with the minimal node software, these extensions will be open source and available in public repositories for use by any Sia node software.
With the consensus code now managed by the Foundation, the task of implementing and orchestrating hardforks becomes its responsibility as well. When the Foundation determines that a hardfork is necessary (whether through internal discussion or via community petition), a formal proposal will be drafted and submitted for public review, during which arguments for and against the proposal may be submitted to a public repository. During this time, the hardfork code will be implemented, either by Foundation employees or by external contributors working closely with the Foundation. Once the implementation is finished, final arguments will be heard. The Foundation board will then vote whether to accept or reject the proposal, and announce their decision along with appropriate justification. Assuming the proposal was accepted, the Foundation will announce the block height at which the hardfork will activate, and will subsequently release source code and signed binaries that incorporate the hardfork code.
Regardless of the Foundation's decision, it is the community that ultimately determines whether a fork is accepted or rejected – nothing can change that. Foundation node software will never automatically update, so all forks must be explicitly adopted by users. Furthermore, the Foundation will provide replay and wipeout protection for its hard forks, protecting other chains from unintended or malicious reorgs. Similarly, the Foundation will ensure that any file contracts formed prior to a fork activation will continue to be honored on both chains until they expire.
Finally, the Foundation also intends to pursue scalability solutions for the Sia blockchain. In particular, work has already begun on an implementation of Utreexo, which will greatly reduce the space requirements of fully-validating nodes (allowing a full node to be run on a smartphone) while increasing throughput and decreasing initial sync time. A hardfork implementing Utreexo will be submitted to the community as per the process detailed above.
As this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation, it will receive a significant portion of the Foundation’s budget, primarily in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.

Support community services

We intend to allocate 25% of the Foundation Fund towards the community. This allocation will be held and disbursed in the form of siacoins, and will pay for grants, bounties, hackathons, and other community-driven endeavours.
Any community-run service, such as a Skynet portal, explorer or web wallet, may apply to have its costs covered by the Foundation. Upon approval, the Foundation will reimburse expenses incurred by the service, subject to the exact terms agreed to. The intent of these grants is not to provide a source of income, but rather to make such services "break even" for their operators, so that members of the community can enrich the Sia ecosystem without worrying about the impact on their own finances.

Ensure easy acquisition and storage of siacoins

Most users will acquire their siacoins via an exchange. The Foundation will provide support to Sia-compatible exchanges, and pursue relevant integrations at its discretion, such as Coinbase's new Rosetta standard. The Foundation may also release DEX software that enables trading cryptocurrencies without the need for a third party. (The Foundation itself will never operate as a money transmitter.)
Increasingly, users are storing their cryptocurrency on hardware wallets. The Foundation will maintain the existing Ledger Nano S integration, and pursue further integrations at its discretion.
Of course, all hardware wallets must be paired with software running on a computer or smartphone, so the Foundation will also develop and/or maintain client-side wallet software, including both full-node wallets and "lite" wallets. Community-operated wallet services, i.e. web wallets, may be funded via grants.
Like core software maintenance, this responsibility will be funded in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.

Protect the ecosystem

When it comes to cryptocurrency security, patching software vulnerabilities is table stakes; there are significant legal and social threats that we must be mindful of as well. As such, the Foundation will earmark a portion of its fund to defend the community from legal action. The Foundation will also safeguard the network from 51% attacks and other threats to network security by implementing softforks and/or hardforks where necessary.
The Foundation also intends to assist in the development of a new FOSS software license, and to solicit legal memos on various Sia-related matters, such as hosting in the United States and the EU.
In a broader sense, the establishment of the Foundation makes the ecosystem more robust by transferring core development to a more neutral entity. Thanks to its funding structure, the Foundation will be immune to various forms of pressure that for-profit companies are susceptible to.

Drive adoption of Sia

Although the overriding goal of the Foundation is to make Sia the best platform it can be, all that work will be in vain if no one uses the platform. There are a number of ways the Foundation can promote Sia and get it into the hands of potential users and developers.
In-person conferences are understandably far less popular now, but the Foundation can sponsor and/or participate in virtual conferences. (In-person conferences may be held in the future, permitting circumstances.) Similarly, the Foundation will provide prizes for hackathons, which may be organized by community members, Nebulous, or the Foundation itself. Lastly, partnerships with other companies in the cryptocurrency space—or the cloud storage space—are a great way to increase awareness of Sia. To handle these responsibilities, one of the early priorities of the Foundation will be to hire a marketing director.

Fund Management

The Foundation Fund will be controlled by a multisig address. Each member of the Foundation's board will control one of the signing keys, with the signature threshold to be determined once the final composition of the board is known. (This threshold may also be increased or decreased if the number of board members changes.) Additionally, one timelocked signing key will be controlled by David Vorick. This key will act as a “dead man’s switch,” to be used in the event of an emergency that prevents Foundation board members from reaching the signature threshold. The timelock ensures that this key cannot be used unless the Foundation fails to sign a transaction for several months.
On the 1st of each month, the Foundation will use its keys to transfer all siacoins in the Fund to two new addresses. The first address will be controlled by a high-security hot wallet, and will receive approximately one month's worth of Foundation expenditures. The second address, receiving the remaining siacoins, will be a modified version of the source address: specifically, it will increase the timelock on David Vorick's signing key by one month. Any other changes to the set of signing keys, such as the arrival or departure of board members, will be incorporated into this address as well.
The Foundation Fund is allocated in SC, but many of the Foundation's expenditures must be paid in USD or other fiat currency. Accordingly, the Foundation will convert, at its discretion, a portion of its monthly withdrawals to fiat currency. We expect this conversion to be primarily facilitated by private "OTC" sales to accredited investors. The Foundation currently has no plans to speculate in cryptocurrency or other assets.
Finally, it is important that the Foundation adds value to the Sia platform well in excess of the inflation introduced by the block subsidy. For this reason, the Foundation intends to provably burn, on a quarterly basis, any coins that it cannot allocate towards any justifiable expense. In other words, coins will be burned whenever doing so provides greater value to the platform than any other use. Furthermore, the Foundation will cap its SC treasury at 5% of the total supply, and will cap its USD treasury at 4 years’ worth of predicted expenses.
 
Addendum: Hardfork Timeline
We would like to see this proposal finalized and accepted by the community no later than September 30th. A new version of siad, implementing the hardfork, will be released no later than October 15th. The hardfork will activate at block 293220, which is expected to occur around 12pm EST on January 1st, 2021.
 
Addendum: Inflation specifics
The total supply of siacoins as of January 1st, 2021 will be approximately 45.243 GS. The initial subsidy of 1.57 GS thus increases the supply by 3.47%, and the total annual inflation in 2021 will be at most 10.4% (if zero coins are burned). In 2022, total annual inflation will be at most 6.28%, and will steadily decrease in subsequent years.
 

Conclusion

We see the establishment of the Foundation as an important step in the maturation of the Sia project. It provides the ecosystem with a sustainable source of funding that can be exclusively directed towards achieving Sia's ambitious goals. Compared to other projects with far deeper pockets, Sia has always punched above its weight; once we're on equal footing, there's no telling what we'll be able to achieve.
Nevertheless, we do not propose this change lightly, and have taken pains to ensure that the Foundation will act in accordance with the ideals that this community shares. It will operate transparently, keep inflation to a minimum, and respect the user's fundamental role in decentralized systems. We hope that everyone in the community will consider this proposal carefully, and look forward to a productive discussion.
submitted by lukechampine to siacoin [link] [comments]

[WTS] Auction Leftovers #3

Good morning once again!
This listing is for items that did not sell during the October 11 Auction (most likely due to BP/fees, or maybe just because the "right" buyer didn't see the auction, who knows) - so you can buy anything you want right here and right now - no buyer's premiums, no additional fees - JUST DISCOUNTS ON EVERYTHING:
*FREE shipping for any order over $100.
*All the Graded/Slabbed Coins are available at 30% off the listed price guide (which should be accurate, was checked about a month ago.)
*Any Sterling Silver non-coin item will be available at MELT (plus shipping.)
*EVERYTHING ELSE is 10% off the listed start price.
Each lot was individually imaged (front and back) for the auction - so the easiest way for you to see exactly what you're buying is to visit the auction link (the auction is over, so I'm not advertising anything different or advertising an upcoming auction) - so here that is:
https://www.auctionzip.com/auction-catalog/HTF-Coins-Silver,-US,-Foreign-more_FYWN25UAV6?page=0&searchWithAll=&size=200&sort=
Here is the required "prove you still have the stuff" photo with the username card and today's date:
PHOTO
Payment: PayPal. I do not have Venmo/Zello/Bitcoin or any other form of digital payment at this time. No notes if using PPFF, please. Thank you.
Shipping: I will charge you what it costs me for the USPS label rounded up to the nearest dollar. For First Class that is usually $4, for USPS Priority Mail Flat Rate Small Box it will be $9. I will get you a tracking number right after payment is received and will get your package scanned into the USPS system within 24 hours of receipt of payment. I will offer "Risky Shipping" (via stamped greeting card) at my discretion for $1 - for single, small coins ONLY. NOTE: These prices are for Continental US shipping only - if you live outside the continental US, shipping will be more expensive. I am still happy to do it under the same rules as above, but just keep in mind it's going to cost more.
What do YOU need to do to buy coins from this group: send me a list of which lots you want (for example, I want to buy lots # 51, 52, 53, 54, 55) and I will send you a total. There are too many coins here (plus there are duplicates) so I cannot look up the coins you want by description - just give me lot numbers and it will be much simpler.
I'd like to make a simple and polite request - if I have sent you my PayPal information (meaning we've agreed to a deal) please finish it up as soon as you can so I can check you off the list and move on to the next person. This helps make sure you get all the coins we discussed and no one else is in limbo.
I will do my absolute best to update the ad as soon as lots sell.

LEFTOVERS:

11 1973 Proof Set $9.00
12 1973 Proof Set $9.00
13 1974 Proof Set $9.00
15 1975 Proof Set $9.00
17 1975 Proof Set $9.00
18 1975 Proof Set $9.00
19 1975 Proof Set $9.00
20 1975 Proof Set $9.00
21 1975 Proof Set $9.00
22 1975 Proof Set $9.00
23 1975 Proof Set $9.00
24 1975 Proof Set $9.00
25 1975 Proof Set $9.00
26 1975 Proof Set $9.00
27 1976 Proof Set $9.00
28 1976 Proof Set $9.00
29 1977 Proof Set $6.00
30 1977 Proof Set $6.00
31 1977 Proof Set $6.00
32 1977 Proof Set $6.00
33 1978 Proof Set $6.00
34 1978 Proof Set $6.00
35 1978 Proof Set $6.00
36 1978 Proof Set $6.00
37 1978 Proof Set $6.00
38 1975 Proof Set $9.00
51 Toner US Type Set 1 $55.00
52 Toner US Type Set 2 $30.00
53 Toner US Type Set 3 $30.00
54 1949 S Franklin Half UNC KEY DATE $40.00
55 1949 S Franklin Half UNC KEY DATE $40.00
59 1949 S Franklin Half UNC KEY DATE $40.00
60 1976 D Eisenhower Dollar UNC MINT CELLO $4.00
64 1977 D Eisenhower Dollar UNC MINT CELLO $4.00
65 Toner US Type Set 4 $25.00
66 Toner US Type Set 5 $30.00
67 1953 D Franklin Half UNC FULL BELL LINES $25.00
68 Toner US Type Set 6 $65.00
70 1936 Mercury Dime Doubled Die Obverse HIGH GRADE $30.00
73 1955 Roosevelt Dime UNC TONED $8.00
75 1955 S Roosevelt Dime UNC TONED $5.00
76 1955 S Roosevelt Dime UNC TONED $5.00
78 World Silver - Canada 1913 25 Cents $5.00
80 1956 Roosevelt Dime UNC TONED $8.00
81 1958 D Roosevelt Dime UNC TONED $5.00
83 1964 Roosevelt Dime UNC TONED $3.00
84 1964 Roosevelt Dime UNC TONED $3.00
85 World Silver - Canada 1906 10 Cents $3.00
89 1928 S/S Standing Liberty Quarter Rainbow Toned $20.00
90 1974 D Eisenhower Dollar UNC MINT CELLO $4.00
94 France - 1865 BB 5 Centimes $1.00
95 Illinois Governer Otto Kerner Inauguration Medal $4.00
96 1928 S "Inverted MM" Standing Liberty Quarter $35.00
113 Type Coin Lot $50.00
114 50 Indian Head Cents, Mixed Dates & Conditions $40.00
115 50 Indian Head Cents, Mixed Dates & Conditions $40.00
116 50 Indian Head Cents, Mixed Dates & Conditions $40.00
117 75 Indian Head Cents, Mixed Dates & Conditions $60.00
154 1958 Type B Washington Quarter UNC $12.00
156 1956 Washington Quarter UNC RAINBOW TONED $15.00
158 Denmark - 1921 5 Ore $2.00
159 1968 D Kennedy Half UNC TONED $10.00
160 1958 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC $15.00
162 1959 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC $12.00
163 1959 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC TONED $15.00
166 1960 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC $12.00
167 1960 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC $12.00
170 1875 Indian Head Cent $3.00
171 1963 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC TONED $15.00
172 1963 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC TONED $15.00
173 1964 Kennedy Half Mint Clip Error $15.00
175 1964 D Washington Quarter UNC TONED $12.00
179 Stag Beer Wooden Nickel "Fair on the Square" $1.00
180 The TV Shop Slidell, LA One Wooden Buck $1.00
185 St Helena - 1981 25 Pence (Crown Sized) $3.00
190 1996 D Kennedy Half UNC MINT CELLO $2.00
191 State of Missouri Sesquicentennial Medal $2.00
193 State of Missouri Sesquicentennial Medal $2.00
194 State of Missouri Sesquicentennial Medal $2.00
199 1974 D Kennedy Half Dollar DDO UNC $35.00
200 Star Wars Episode III Limited Edition Token/Medal $3.00
253 1978 D Kennedy Half Dollar UNC from Mint Set GEM BU TONED $40.00
255 World Silver - Switzerland 1953 1/2 Franc $3.00
256 1979 Kennedy Half Dollar UNC from Mint Set GEM BU TONED $15.00
257 1986 D Kennedy Half Dollar UNC from Mint Set GEM BU TONED $30.00
258 1986 D Kennedy Half Dollar UNC from Mint Set GEM BU TONED $15.00
259 1954 S Washington Quarter UNC $15.00
260 1957 Washington Quarter UNC TONED $15.00
261 1963 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC TONED $30.00
262 1999 D Kennedy Half Dollar UNC from Mint Set GEM BU PROOFLIKE $10.00
265 Panama - 1975 Proof 5 Centesimos in OGP cello $1.00
266 1971 D Eisenhower Dollar "Talon Head" Obverse Die Clash / "Moon Line" Reverse Die Clash UNC TONED $20.00
269 Maybrook NY Golden Jubilee Good For 10 Cent Wooden Nickel $1.00
270 Maybrook NY 1975 Golden Jubilee 25 Cent Wooden Nickel $1.00
271 World Silver - Australia 1939 Sixpence $4.00
272 1974 Eisenhower Dollar UNC RAINBOW TONED $20.00
274 1957 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
275 1974 D Eisenhower Dollar UNC RAINBOW TONED $15.00
276 World Silver - Australia 1920 Shilling $8.00
277 1959 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
278 2010 S Buchanan Presidential Golden Dollar from Proof Set with Doubled Edge Lettering $10.00
279 1960 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
280 World Silver - Australia 1943 Shilling $8.00
281 1961 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
282 2011 S Johnson Presidential Golden Dollar from Proof Set with Doubled Edge Lettering $10.00
286 1963 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
287 1983 Lincoln Cent DDO FS-101 $40.00
288 1964 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
289 1983 Lincoln Cent DDO UNC $40.00
290 1983 Lincoln Cent DDO UNC GEM BU $75.00
291 1964 D Washington Silver Quarter UNC TONED $10.00
292 2000 "Wide AM" Lincoln Cent UNC $20.00
293 1960's Terre Haute, IN Sesquicentennial Wooden Nickel $1.00
294 .999 Silver 1 oz MLB Mike Piazza Limited Edition Silver Proof Round $30.00
295 1964 "The American Indian - America's First Pioneer" 1 oz .999 Silver Round $30.00
296 "Winter Scenes" Sterling Silver Art Round $25.00
297 Illinois "Illiniwek" Mascot Sterling Silver Art Round TONED $25.00
298 1982 Buffalo NY Sesquicentennial Wooden Nickel $1.00
299 1958 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
300 1959 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
351 1960 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
352 Denmark - 1950 5 Ore KEY DATE $25.00
353 1961 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
357 1990 Rappahannock Area Coin Club Wooden Nickel $1.00
359 1962 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
360 Old Time Wooden Nickel Co Support Our Troops Wooden Nickel $1.00
361 1963 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
362 Switzerland - 1874 B 5 Rappen $40.00
363 1964 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
366 1957 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
368 1958 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
370 1959 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
371 Great Britain - 1920 1/2 Crown NICE $60.00
372 New Zealand - 1942 1/2 Crown $35.00
373 1960 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
374 Sudan - 1972 50 Ghirsh UNC $4.00
375 1961 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
377 Clear Lake, IA Perkins Wooden Nickel $1.00
378 Lake of the Woods 40th Anniversary Bimetallic Token $1.00
379 1962 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
380 Great Britain - 1981 25 New Pence UNC $3.00
383 Guyana - 1970 1 Dollar UNC $3.00
384 New Zealand - 1953 1 Crown $5.00
385 Illawarrra Numismatic Association Membership Discount Wooden Nickel Token $1.00
386 San Juan Quality Royale Casino Token $1 Face Value $2.00
388 Artisan Silverworks Temecula, CA Wooden Nickel $1.00
390 1963 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
393 Netherlands East Indies - 1945 S 1 Cent UNC $2.00
394 1964 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
395 1957 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
396 Netherlands Antilles - 1965 2.5 Cents UNC TONED $10.00
397 Virginia Numismatic Association Encased Cent $3.00
398 Netherlands - 1921 1/2 Cent BETTER DATE $3.00
399 Netherlands - 1922 1/2 Cent BETTER DATE $5.00
400 1958 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
451 1959 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
452 Belgium - 1902 1 Centime $1.00
453 Netherlands Antilles - 1959 1 Cent UNC $4.00
454 Belgium - 1901 1 Centime $2.00
455 Canada - 1930 5 Cents NICE $8.00
456 Canada - 1930 5 Cents NICER $10.00
458 Canada - 1948 5 Cents $1.00
461 Barbados - 1973 Proof 5 Cents in OGP $1.00
462 Barbados - 1973 Proof 1 Dollar in OGP $1.00
463 Barbados - 1973 Proof 25 Cents in OGP $1.00
464 Barbados - 1973 Proof 10 Cents in OGP $1.00
465 World Silver - Canada 1882 H Ten Cents $10.00
466 World Silver - Canada 1886 Ten Cents $15.00
467 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse Book High UNC $2.00
469 Trinidad & Tobago - 1973 Proof 10 Cents in OGP $1.00
470 World Silver - Canada 1899 Ten Cents $8.00
471 Trinidad & Tobago - 1973 Proof 1 Cent in OGP $1.00
472 British Virgin Islands - 1974 Proof 10 Cents in OGP cello $1.00
473 Trinidad & Tobago - 1973 Proof 50 Cents in OGP $1.00
474 World Silver - Canada 1908 Ten Cents $4.00
476 British Virgin Islands - 1973 Proof 1 Cent in OGP $1.00
477 Netherlands - 1906 1 Cent NICE $1.00
478 British Virgin Islands - 1973 Proof 25 Cents in OGP $1.00
479 1961 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
480 Barbados - 1980 Proof 25 Cents in OGP cello $1.00
481 1962 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
482 Panama - 1976 Proof 5 Centesimos in OGP cello $1.00
483 Panama - 1976 Proof 10 Centesimos in OGP cello $1.00
484 Netherlands - 1912 1/2 Cent NICE $3.00
485 1963 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
486 1964 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00
488 Netherlands East Indies - 1921 1/2 Cent NICE KEY DATE $12.00
490 British Virgin Islands - 1974 Proof 1 Cent in OGP $1.00
491 Denmark - 1920 10 Ore Doubled Die Obverse (date) $5.00
492 India - 2010 10 Rupees UNC $1.00
494 British Virgin Islands - 1974 Proof 5 Cents in OGP cello $1.00
495 France - 1946 C 5 Francs $3.00
497 World Silver - Canada 1874 H 25 Cents $8.00
498 British Virgin Islands - 1974 Proof 10 Cents in OGP $1.00
499 France - 1952 5 Francs KEY DATE $10.00
500 France - 1946 5 Francs $1.00
551 Switzerland - 1906 1 Rappen BETTER DATE $10.00
552 World Silver - Switzerland 1963 1 Franc NICE $5.00
553 Switzerland - 1902 2 Rappen KEY DATE FIRST YEAR $15.00
554 Panama - 1975 Proof 1 Centesimo in OGP $2.00
555 Panama - 1975 Proof 10 Centesimos in OGP $3.00
556 Panama - 1976 Proof 10 Centesimos in OGP $2.00
557 Switzerland - 1910 2 Rappen BETTER DATE $10.00
558 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse Book Low UNC $2.00
559 Panama - 1975 Proof 25 Centesimos in OGP $2.00
561 Panama - 1975 Proof 5 Centesimos in OGP $2.00
562 Panama - 1976 Proof 5 Centesimos in OGP $4.00
568 Panama - 1974 Proof 5 Centesimos in OGP cello $1.00
570 France - 1889 A 5 Centimes $1.00
572 Panama - 1973 Proof 1/10 Balboa in OGP $1.00
573 France - 1854 D 5 Centimes $1.00
574 Barbados - 1973 Proof 1 Cent $1.00
575 Panama - 1973 Proof 1/4 Balboa in OGP $1.00
576 France - 1862 K 5 Centimes $1.00
577 1934 Washington Quarter Medium Motto NICE $15.00
579 Liberia 1941 2 Cents NICE $6.00
580 World Silver - Denmark 1874 25 Ore $6.00
581 Liberia - 1974 Proof 5 Cents in OGP $1.00
583 France - 1856 BB 5 Centimes $1.00
584 Liberia - 1974 Proof 10 Cents in OGP $1.00
585 Mexico Mint Set 1965 (includes silver) $5.00
587 Mexico Mint Set Mixed Dates (includes silver) $5.00
588 France - 1863 K 5 Centimes $2.00
590 France - 1855 D 5 Centimes $1.00
593 France - 1854 K 5 Centimes $1.00
594 Bahamas - 1970 Proof 1 Cent in OGP $1.00
595 France - 1853 D 10 Centimes $1.00
596 France - 1856 K 10 Centimes $1.00
599 France - 1854 W 10 Centimes $1.00
600 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse Book Low UNC $2.00
651 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse Book Low UNC $2.00
652 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse Book Low UNC $2.00
653 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse 012 UNC $2.00
654 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse 012 UNC $2.00
655 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse 012 UNC $2.00
658 World Silver - Austria - 1868 10 Kreuzer $2.00
660 World Silver - Canada 1916 25 Cents $6.00
661 Greece - 1959 10 Drachmai UNC $10.00
663 World Silver - Canada 1921 25 Cents $8.00
664 World Silver - Canada 1921 25 Cents $8.00
666 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse 001 UNC $2.00
667 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse 002 UNC $2.00
670 Barbados - 1973 Proof 1 Cent and 5 Cents in OGP (two coins) $1.00
671 Barbados - 1973 Proof 10 Cents and 25 Cents in OGP (two coins) $1.00
672 Cayman Islands - 1974 Proof 5 Cents and 10 Cents in OGP (two coins) $1.00
673 Bahamas - 1973 and 1974 Proof 1 Cents in OGP (two coins) $1.00
674 Bahamas - 1973 and 1974 Proof 5 Cents in OGP (two coins) $1.00
675 Switzerland - 1921 10 Rappen NICE $8.00
676 Switzerland - 1936 2 Rappen KEY DATE $5.00
677 World Silver - Switzerland 1955 1/2 Franc BETTER DATE $4.00
679 1982 Silver Proof George Washington Commemorative Half Dollar in OGP $11.00
680 1982 Silver Proof George Washington Commemorative Half Dollar in OGP $11.00
681 1982 Silver Proof George Washington Commemorative Half Dollar in OGP $11.00
682 1982 Silver Proof George Washington Commemorative Half Dollar in OGP $11.00
684 World Silver - Saint Thomas & Prince Island (Sao Tome et Principe) 1951 2 1/2 Escudos LOW MINTAGE $25.00
685 1986 Proof 2 CoinStatue of Liberty Set (Silver Dollar and Clad Half) in OGP $22.00
686 1986 Proof 2 CoinStatue of Liberty Set (Silver Dollar and Clad Half) in OGP $22.00
687 Bahamas - 1976 Proof 25 Cents in OGP $1.00
689 Two French Notgeld Tokens $2.00
690 1986 Proof 2 CoinStatue of Liberty Set (Silver Dollar and Clad Half) in OGP $22.00
691 Two French Notgeld Tokens $2.00
692 1986 Proof 2 CoinStatue of Liberty Set (Silver Dollar and Clad Half) in OGP $22.00
693 Mexico - 1954 5 Centavos UNC $3.00
694 World Silver - Japan 1932 50 Sen $6.00
695 Mexico - 1966 20 Centavos UNC $5.00
696 1986 Silver Proof Statue of Liberty Dollar in OGP $20.00
697 World Silver - Canada 1929 10 Cents $3.00
698 1986 Silver Proof Statue of Liberty Dollar in OGP $20.00
699 Mexico - 1973 20 Centavos UNC $6.00
700 World Silver - Canada 1948 10 Cents $3.00
751 1986 Silver Proof Statue of Liberty Dollar in OGP $20.00
752 Mexico - 1955 5 Centavos $1.00
753 Mexico - 1955 5 Centavos $1.00
755 Canada - "Heads and Tails" RCM Mint Booklet with 1968 Mint Set $5.00
756 Four Canada 1991 UNC Cents (4 coins) in OGP CELLO $1.00
757 Four Canada 1991 UNC 5 Cents (4 coins) in OGP CELLO $1.00
759 Four Canada 1991 UNC 10 Cents (4 coins) in OGP CELLO $2.00
760 Philippines - 1975 Proof 10 Cents in OGP $1.00
761 Nepal 1974 Proof Set LOW MINTAGE $3.00
762 Philippines - 1975 Proof 5 Cents in OGP $1.00
766 Four Canada 1991 UNC 50 Cents (4 coins) in OGP CELLO $4.00
767 Four Canada 1991 UNC 1 Dollar (4 coins) in OGP CELLO $7.00
768 Belize 1974 Uncirculated Specimen Set in OGP $25.00
771 Jamaica - 1976 Proof 1 Cent in OGP $1.00
773 1961 Silver Proof Washington Quarter DEEP CAMEO $10.00
774 1964 D Washington Quarter UNC TONED $8.00
775 1961 Silver Proof Washington Quarter DEEP CAMEO $10.00
776 1974 P Kennedy Half Dollar UNC MINT CELLO $2.00
777 Poland - 2014 2 Zlotych UNC $2.00
778 Two Mixed World Coins $1.00
779 1959 Silver Proof Washington Quarter DEEP CAMEO $10.00
780 1956 Silver Proof Washington Quarter $6.00
781 1956 Silver Proof Washington Quarter $6.00
782 Two Mixed Tokens $1.00
783 1976 P Kennedy Half Dollar UNC MINT CELLO $2.00
785 1956 Silver Proof Washington Quarter $6.00
787 1941 S "Large S" Lincoln Wheat Cent $1.00
789 1953 Silver Proof Washington Quarter NICE $20.00
794 2011 S Silver Proof Glacier Quarter $6.00
795 St Pierre & Miquelon - 1948 1 Franc UNC $8.00
796 2013 S Silver Proof Great Basin Quarter $6.00
800 1995 Lincoln Cent Doubled Die Obverse $20.00
851 1971 Lincoln Memorial Cent NGC MS67RD (Price Guide $195)
852 1971 Jefferson Nickel NGC MS66 6FS (Price Guide $125)
853 1946 S Roosevelt Dime NGC MS67FT (Price Guide $95)
854 World Silver - Egypt AH1293 (Year 10; 1884) 10 Qirsh $12.00
856 1965 Roosevelt Dime NGC MS67 FULL TORCH (Price Guide $750)
857 1965 Washington Quarter NGC MS66 (Price Guide $30)
858 1971 Washington Quarter NGC MS66 (Price Guide $50)
859 1971 D Washington Quarter NGC MS67 (Price Guide $65)
860 1963 D Franklin Half Dollar NGC MS65 FULL BELL LINES (Price Guide $190)
861 1971 D Kennedy Half Dollar NGC MS67 (Price Guide $120)
862 1971 P Eisenhower Dollar NGC MS65 (Price Guide $80)
863 1825 Half Cent NGC VG10BN (Price Guide $85)
864 1939 S Jefferson Nickel PCGS MS65 Rev 1940 (Price Guide $90)
865 1943 P Silver Jefferson Nickel DDO (Doubled Eye) NGC XF45 (Price Guide $75)
866 1941 D Jefferson Nickel NGC MS66 5 Full Steps (Price Guide $40)
867 1941 D Jefferson Nickel NGC MS67 5 Full Steps (Price Guide $175)
868 2011 S Silver Proof Chickasaw Quarter $6.00
869 2013 S Silver Proof White Mountain Quarter $6.00
870 1943 D Jefferson Nickel Old NGC MS67 (Price Guide $90)
871 1956 D Jefferson Nickel NGC MS65 TONED (Price Guide $20)
872 1956 D Jefferson Nickel NGC MS65 TONED (Price Guide $20)
873 1958 Proof Jefferson Nickel NGC PF69 (Price Guide $110)
874 1978 D Jefferson Nickel NGC MS66 5 Full Steps (Price Guide $60)
875 1945 S Micro S Mercury Dime NGC MS66 (Price Guide $140)
876 1946 S/S Washington Quarter RPM-002 NGC MS65 (Price Guide $75)
877 1946 S/S Washington Quarter RPM-002 NGC MS65 (Price Guide $75)
878 1947 S/S Washington Quarter RPM-001 NGC MS66 (Price Guide $285)
879 1950 Washington Quarter DDR NGC MS66 (Price Guide $150)
880 1957 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse PCGS MS66 (Price Guide $110)
881 1958 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $100)
882 2013 S Silver Proof Fort McHenry Quarter $6.00
883 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS64 (Price Guide $40)
884 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS64 (Price Guide $40)
885 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS64 (Price Guide $40)
886 Canada - 1962 "Hanging 2" 1 Cent UNC $8.00
887 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $55)
888 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $55)
889 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $55)
890 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $55)
891 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $55)
892 1960 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $65)
893 1960 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS64 (Price Guide $50)
894 1960 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS64 (Price Guide $50)
896 1960 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $65)
897 1960 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $65)
898 1960 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $65)
899 1962 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse PCGS MS65 (Price Guide $110)
951 1963 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse PCGS MS65 (Price Guide $130)
952 1963 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $130)
953 Philippines - 1944 D/D 20 Centavos NGC AU58 RARE Variety (Priced at $55)
954 1942 Walking Liberty Half DDR NGC AU58 (Price Guide $100)
955 1942 Walking Liberty Half DDR PCGS MS67 GEM (Price Guide $6,000)
956 1953 D Franklin Half Bugs Bunny PCGS MS64FBL (Price Guide $170
957 1954 D Franklin Half Bugs Bunny PCGS MS64FBL (Price Guide $100)
958 1954 D Franklin Half Bugs Bunny PCGS MS64FBL (Price Guide $100)
960 1974 D Kennedy Half DDO PCGS AU58 (Price Guide $35)
961 1977 D Kennedy Half DDO NGC AU58 (Price Guide $175)
962 1977 D Kennedy Half DDO NGC AU58 (Price Guide $175)
963 1977 D Kennedy Half DDO NGC MS61 (Price Guide $250)
964 1977 D Kennedy Half DDO NGC MS62 (Price Guide $350)
965 1977 D Kennedy Half DDO ANACS MS63 (Price Guide $100)
966 1977 D Kennedy Half DDO NGC MS65 (Price Guide $250)
967 1977 D Kennedy Half DDO NGC MS65 (Price Guide $250)
968 1885 O Morgan Dollar NGC MS63 TONED (Priced at $100 due to toning)
969 Sterling Silver Cup Engraved "Johnny" 53.3 grams
971 Sterling Silver Cigarette Case Engraved "CML" 67.5 grams
972 2010 S Silver Proof Mount Hood Quarter $6.00
974 2011 S Silver Proof Olympic Quarter $6.00
976 2010 S Silver Proof Yosemite Quarter $6.00
977 1964 D Washington Quarter BU NICE $5.00
978 1959 D Washington Quarter BU NICE $5.00
979 Sterling Silver Tongs 19.1 grams
980 Sterling Silver Tongs 19.0 grams
981 1984 P Kennedy Half Dollar UNC MINT CELLO $2.00
982 1979 P Kennedy Half Dollar UNC MINT CELLO $2.00
983 1959 D Washington Quarter BU NICE $5.00
984 1959 D Washington Quarter BU NICE $5.00
985 France - 1919 10 Centimes NICE $2.00
986 1953 S Silver Washington Quarter NICE $8.00
987 France - 1945 C 5 Francs $2.00
988 France - 1945 C 5 Francs $2.00
989 Sterling Silver Spoon Engraved "Eugene 1892" 10.0 grams
990 France - 1946 C 5 Francs $3.00
991 France - 1946 C 5 Francs $3.00
992 France - 1946 C 5 Francs $3.00
993 France - 1946 C 5 Francs $3.00
994 1964 D Washington Quarter BU NICE $5.00
995 Sterling Silver Spoon Engraved "1893" 10.0 grams
998 1964 Washington Quarter BU NICE $5.00
999 1962 Washington Quarter BU NICE $5.00
submitted by stldanceartist to Coins4Sale [link] [comments]

I bought $1k of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018. August update, -71%, special NEM EDITION!!

I bought $1k of the Top Ten Cryptos on January 1st, 2018. August update, -71%, special NEM EDITION!!

EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptos of 2018 - Month 32 (-71%)
See the full blog post with all the tables here.
tl;dr:
  • purchased $100 of each of Top Ten Cryptos in Jan. 2018, haven't sold or traded, repeated in 2019 and 2020, update y'all monthly. Learn more about the history and rules of the Experiments here.
  • August - solid month for the 2018 Top Ten, led by, ladies and gentlemen (or lady singular, there in the back row, I see you) NEM!!!!! Up over +200% in August.
  • Overall - BTC still way ahead and approaching break-even point, ETH gaining ground, alone in the middle. NEM(!!!) finally escapes last place replaced by DASH.
  • Over three years, cryptos outperforming S&P if I'd taken a similar approach.

Month Thirty Two – Down 71%

2018 Top Ten Summary
August was not quite as strong as all-green July, but still a solid month for the 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment. The gains were led by (I hope you’re sitting down for this one) (drum roll please) (you’re not going to believe this): NEM(!) which finished the month up over +200%. Really!

Question of the month:

The US Justice Department announced in August that it had seized cryptocurrency from terror groups in the Middle East. How much did they confiscate?

A) $2 million B) $4 million C) $8 million D) $32 million
Scroll down for the answer.

Ranking and August Winners and Losers

Rank since January 2018
Lots of movement this month: all but three cryptos moved positions in August and all but one (NEM!) in the wrong direction. Despite gaining in value, Dash had the biggest slide, down four in the rankings from #24 to #28. ADA fell three and has dropped back out of the Top Ten. XRP, Bitcoin Cash, IOTA, and Stellar each lost one place in the rankings. The lone exception is a big one: XEM(!) climbed an unprecedented 9 spots in August. The last time NEM was in the Top Twenty was May 2019.
After thirty-two months, 50% of the cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten have dropped out. NEM, ADA, Dash, IOTA, and Stellar have been replaced by Binance Coin, Tether, BSV, CRO, and most recently, LINK.
August WinnersDon’t call it a comeback, NEM‘s been here for years. Up over +200% in August, NEM crushed the rest of the field. A distant second place was ETH, up +32% on the month.
August Losers – Down -13%, ADA was the worst performing crypto of the month, followed by Bitcoin Cash, down -9%.
For the overly competitive, below is a tally of the winners of the first 32 months of the 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment. Bitcoin still has the most monthly wins (7). Cardano is a close second with 6 monthly wins. Despite its blockbuster August, NEM has the most monthly losses with 6. Every crypto has at least one monthly win and Bitcoin is unique as the only cryptocurrency that hasn’t lost a month in the 2.5+ years of the Experiment.
Ws and Ls

Overall update – BTC in the lead and inching towards break-even point, followed by second place ETH. NEM escapes last place, replaced by Dash.

Although BTC didn’t make any major moves this month, it continued to slowly but surely approach its break-even point. It is down about -10% since my purchase in January 2018. The initial investment of $100 thirty-two months ago is now worth about $90.
Ethereum is all alone in second place. It had a strong August, it picked up a lot of ground, but is still down -35% since January 2018.
The big story this month is at the bottom: NEM(!) gained +200% in August, crushing its counterparts and leaping out of last place, where it was so comfortable for so, so long. Although still down -83% over the life of the experiment, it moved from 10th place to 6th place in just one month. The new king of the basement is Dash, down -91%. The initial $100 invested in Dash 32 months ago is now worth $8.50.

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

The crypto market added nearly $43B in August. The last time we saw a similar level in terms of overall crypto market cap was way back in the fifth month of the 2018 Top Ten Experiment: May 2018.

Bitcoin dominance:

After being stuck in the mid-60s for most of 2020, BitDom dropped significantly this month, down to 57%. For context, the last time BitDom was this low was back in June 2019.
For some more context: since the beginning of the experiment, the range of Bitcoin dominance has been quite wide: we saw a high of 70% BitDom in September 2019 and a low of 33% BitDom in February 2018.

Overall return on $1,000 investment since January 1st, 2018:

The 2018 Top Ten Portfolio gained about $17 this month. If I cashed out today, the $1000 initial investment would return about $287, down -71% from January 2018.
While -71% isn’t something to brag about, the monthly trend is encouraging. Here, take a look at the ROI over the life of the experiment, month by month, for some context:
2018 Top Ten Monthly ROI Summary
So, -71% from a bottom of -88% is moving in the right direction.
Or that’s what I tell myself as I cry myself to sleep nightly.
Hopefully the next stop will be in the -60% range, a level this experiment hasn’t seen in years.
So the Top Ten Cryptos of 2018 are down -71%. What about the 2019 and 2020 Top Tens? Let’s take a look:
So overall? Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my combined portfolios are worth $‭3,937‬ ($287+ $1,825 +$1,825).
That’s up about +31% for the three combined portfolios, compared to +23% last month. This marks the highest ROI of the three combined portfolios since I added the metric this year.
Here’s a table to help visualize:
Combined ROI on $3k over three years
A +31% gain by investing $1k on whichever cryptos happened to be in the Top Ten on January 1st for three straight years, not bad. But surely you’d do better if you invested only in one crypto, right? Depends on your choice. Let’s take a look:

Three year club: shoulda gone with ETH
Only five cryptos have remained in the Top Ten for all three years: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, and LTC. Knowing what we know now, which one would have been best to go all in on, at least at this point in the Experiment? Ethereum, easily: the initial $3k would be up +160%, worth over $7800 today. The worst performing at this point is XRP, down -17%.

Comparison to S&P 500:

I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of the experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. Defying global gloom, the S&P 500 reached an all time high in August and is up +31% since the beginning of the Experiment. The initial $1k investment into crypto on January 1st, 2018 would have been worth about $1310 had it been redirected to the S&P.
But what if I took the same invest-$1,000-on-January-1st-of-each-year approach with the S&P 500 that I’ve been documenting through the Top Ten Crypto Experiments? Here are the numbers:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$310
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$400
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: +$90
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,800.
That is up over+27% since January 2018, compared to a +31% gain of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios.
That’s a 4% swing in favor of the Top Ten Crypto Portfolios! As you’ll see in the table below, this is only the second time since I started recording this metric that crypto has outperformed the S&P had I taken a similar investment approach:

3 x $1k crypto vs. S&P
This is a big turnaround from the 22% difference in favor of the S&P just two months ago.
Although it’s fun to see crypto is in the lead, I’ll leave it to you to decide whether the heart condition you may develop by being in the cryptosphere is worth that +4% edge…

Conclusion:

August was a bit mixed compared to July, but still a very solid month for the 2018 Top Ten. Some interesting developments this month: Bitcoin is now within 10% of the price I paid on January 1st, 2018. ETH had solid gains and NEM(!) had a crazy month, tripling in value and finally climbing out of the basement. At the same time, traditional markets are doing well too: the S&P reached an all time high in August. It will be interesting to see how both markets perform during the final third of a very crazy year.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel projects where I repeat the experiment twice, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of two new sets of Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st, 2019 then again on January 1st, 2020.

And the Answer is…

A) $2 million
According to federal prosecutors, the US Justice Department seized $2 million worth of cryptocurrency from terror groups in the Middle East including ISIS, al Qaeda, and the al Qassam Brigades.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

$1k in Top Ten Cryptos of 2020 vs. the S&P 500 so far this year

$1k in Top Ten Cryptos of 2020 vs. the S&P 500 so far this year

EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptos of 2020 - Month Eight - UP +83%
See the full blog post with all the tables here.
tl;dr
  • Don't panic, crypto is still crushing the stock market in 2020
  • purchased $100 of each of Top Ten Cryptos in Jan. 2020, haven't sold or traded. Did the same in 2018 and 2019. Learn more about the history and rules of the Experiments here.
  • August - strong month for 2020 Top Ten led by ETH and Tezos
  • Since Jan. 2020 - ETH, ETH, ETH, far far ahead (+266%). Tezos a distant second at +158%. 100% of 2020 Top Ten are in positive territory and have a combined ROI of +83% vs. +9% of the S&P
  • Combining all three three years, Top Ten cryptos outperforming S&P if I'd taken a similar approach.

Month Eight – UP 83%

2020 Top Ten overview - UP +83%
By the slimmest of margins, the 2020 Top Ten Portfolio has reclaimed its status as the best performing of the Top Ten “Index Fund” Experiments. ETH had a great month, up +32% and all cryptos were in the green except the forks.

Question of the month:

In August, which socialite sold a drawing of her cat for $17,000 worth of Ethereum?

A) Ivanka Trump
B) Paris Hilton
C) Kim Kardashian
D) That other one
Scroll down for the answer.

Ranking and August Winners and Losers

2020 Top Ten Rank
Despite another strong month overall, most of our 2020 Top Ten Cryptos either held steady or lost ground. XRP, BCH, and EOS each fell one position to #4, #6, and #12. BSV dropped two spots from #6 to #8. Heading the other direction, stablecoin Tether ended August climbing back up to #3.
August WinnersETH backed up July‘s massive +55% gain with another very solid month, finishing August up +32%. Tezos finished in second place, +15% on the month.
August LosersBSV and BCH were the worst performing of the 2020 Top Ten Portfolio, down -17% and -9% respectively
Since COVID-19 has hammered the sporting world, let’s be overly competitive and pit these cryptos against themselves, shall we? Here’s a table showing which cryptos have the most monthly wins and losses at this point in the experiment. With its second straight win ETH is now in the lead with three monthly Ws. On the other hand, BSV, even though it is up +100% since January 1st, 2020, has been the worst performing crypto of the bunch four out of the first eight months so far this year.
2020 Top Ten Ws and Ls

Overall update – ETH far out in front, followed Tezos. 100% of Top Ten are in positive territory.

Ethereum pulled farther ahead this month and now is up +266% on the year. Thanks to a strong month for Tezos and a week month for BSV, Tezos has now overtaken BSV for second place, up +158% in 2020. Discounting Tether (no offense Big-T), BCH (+32%) is now the worst performing cryptocurrency of the 2020 Top Ten portfolio. 100% of the cryptos in this group are in positive territory.

Total Market Cap for the cryptocurrency sector:

The overall crypto market gained almost $43B in August, ending the month up +104% since the beginning of this year’s experiment in January 2020.

Bitcoin dominance:

2020 monthly BitDom
BitDom finally saw significant movement in August: it fell to 56.8%, the lowest level of the year. This of course signals a greater appetite for altcoins. The range up to this point in the year has been roughly 57% to 68%.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2020:

After an initial $1000 investment, the 2020 Top Ten Portfolio is now worth $1,825, up +82.52%. It is back to being the best performing of the three Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Portfolios, but by the smallest of margins: the 2019 group came in at +82.51% in August.
Here’s the month by month ROI of the 2020 Top Ten Experiment, hopefully helpful to maintain perspective and provide an overview as we go along:
Monthly ROI to 2020 Top Ten
Even during the zombie apocalypse blip in March, the 2020 Top Ten managed to end every month so far in the green (for a mirror image, check out the all red table you’ll in the 2018 experiment). The range of monthly ROI for the 2020 Top Ten has been between a low of +7% in March and high of +83% in August.
So, how does the 2020 Top Ten Experiment compare to the parallel projects?
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my combined portfolios are worth $‭3,937‬ ($287+ $1,825 +$1,825).
That’s up about +31% for the three combined portfolios. It also marks the highest ROI of the three combined portfolios since I started keeping track in January 2020. The previous high was last month‘s +23%.
Lost in the numbers? Here’s a table to help visualize the progress of the combined portfolios:

ROI on $1k + $1k +$1k over three years
That’s a +31% gain by buying $1k of the cryptos that happened to be in the Top Ten on January 1st, 2018, 2019, and 2020.
But what if I’d gone all in on only one Top Ten crypto for the past three years? While most have come and gone over the life of the experiment, five cryptos have remained in Top Ten for all three years: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, and LTC. Let’s take a look at those five:
Three year club. ETH would have been your best bet.
At this point in the Experiments, Ethereum (+160%) would have easily returned the most, followed by BTC (+93%). On the other hand, following this approach with XRP, I would have been down -17%.
So that’s the Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiments snapshot. Let’s take a look at how traditional markets are doing.

Comparison to S&P 500

I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point to traditional markets. The S&P continued its recovery and set an all time high in August. It is now up +9% in 2020.
S&P throughout 2020
Over the same time period, the 2020 Top Ten Crypto Portfolio is returning about +83%. The initial $1k investment in crypto is now worth about $1,825. That sane $1k I put into crypto in January 2020 would be worth $1090 had it been redirected to the S&P 500 instead. That’s a $735 difference on a $1k investment, the largest gap in favor of crypto all year.
But that’s just 2020. What if I invested in the S&P 500 the same way I did during the first three years of the Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiments? What I like to call the world’s slowest dollar cost averaging method? Here are the figures:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$310
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$400
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: +$90
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,800.
That $3,800 is up over +27% since January 2018, compared to a +31% gain of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios over the same period of time.
For the second month in a row, the better overall investment would be (drum roll please): the Top Ten Crypto Portfolios!
As you’ll see in the table below, this is only the second time since I started recording this metric that crypto has outperformed a hypothetical identical investment in the S&P.
Combined crypto vs. S&P over three years

Conclusion:

August was the second straight strong month in crypto and the 2020 Top Ten continue to do very well compared to traditional markets. As I’m putting together these reports, both crypto and traditional markets are diving, but these Experiments are great for a bit of perspective: there is no question that crypto has been a better investment than traditional markets so far this year. It’s not even close. How the rest of the year will develop is another question entirely, stay tuned and buckle up.
Stay healthy and take care of yourselves out there. Or better yet, just pop some popcorn and enjoy staying in.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for the original 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment and the 2019 Top Ten Experiment follow up experiment.

And the Answer is…

B) Paris Hilton
At an auction in August, Paris Hilton sold a portrait of her cat that fetched 40 ETH, about $17,000 at the time. She donated the proceeds of the sale to charity.
That's hot.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

If you're stressed, zoom out - $1k in Top Ten Cryptos of 2019 is up +83%, double that of the S&P

If you're stressed, zoom out - $1k in Top Ten Cryptos of 2019 is up +83%, double that of the S&P

EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptos of 2019 - Month Twenty - UP +83%
See the full blog post with all the tables here.
tl;dr:
  • purchased $100 of each of Top Ten Cryptos in Jan. 2019, haven't sold or traded. Did the same in 2018 and 2020. Learn more about the history and rules of the Experiments here.
  • August - solid month for the 2019 Top Ten, led by Tron and ETH.
  • Since Jan. 2019 - ETH takes lead from BTC. XRP worst performing since Jan. 1st, 2019
  • Over three years, cryptos outperforming S&P if I'd taken a similar approach.

Month Twenty – UP 83%

2019 Top Ten Overview
Although not quite a strong as red-hot July, the 2019 Top Ten Cryptos had a solid month. Overall, modest losses were offset by strong performances by Tron (+53%) and ETH (+32%).

Question of the month:

In August, this financial services giant filed for a new Bitcoin fund with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).

A) Goldman Sachs B) Vanguard C) Charles Schwab D) Fidelity
Scroll down for the answer.

Ranking and August Winners and Losers

A whole lot of shaking going on this month as the 2019 Top Ten cryptos jostled for position. XRP, BCH, EOS, and XLM each fell one spot while BSV dropped two. Moving the other direction: Tether climbed up one, and is now back in the #3 position. Thanks to a very strong August, Tron made the most upward progress, advancing two slots to #14.
Only three cryptos have dropped out of the 2019 Top Ten since January 1st, 2019: Tron, Stellar, and EOS. Not bad after 20 months considering crypto’s volatility. As of August, they have been replaced by BNB, CRO, and LINK.
August WinnersTron, with a +53% gain, easily outperformed its peers. Tron was followed by ETH (+32%), a solid follow up to its +55% gain in July.
August LosersThe Forks. BCH and BSV under performed the pack, finishing the month down -17% and -9% respectively.
For overly competitive nerds, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and loses during the first 20 months of the 2019 Top Ten Experiment: Tether is still in the lead with six monthly victories, twice as much as second place BSV and ETH. And although BSV is up over +100% since January 2019, it is running away with the monthly loss count: it has now finished last in eight out of twenty months. Swing trade anyone? XRP still hasn’t been able to take home a single W.
Ws and Ls

Overall update – ETH takes lead from BTC. XRP still worst performing since Jan. 1st, 2019

After three straight months ahead, BTC (+215%) lost its front-runner status to ETH (up +244% since January 2019). A distant third is BSV up +109%. The initial $100 investment in ETH is currently worth $353.
Twenty months in to the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund Experiment, 80% of the 2019 Top Ten cryptos are either flat or in the green. The other two cryptos are in negative territory, including last place XRP (down -19% since January 2019). At +82.5%, the 2019 Top Ten is essentially tied with the 2020 Top Ten, both far ahead of the 2018 group, which is down -71% (but trending upward).

Total Market Cap for the cryptocurrency sector:


Monthly market cap since Jan. 1, 2019
Since January 2019, the total market cap for crypto is up +204%. The overall market picked up nearly $43B in August and is approaching $400B. For the second month in a row, the market is at its highest month-end level since the 2019 Top Ten Experiment started 20 months ago.

Bitcoin dominance:

The last 20 months of BitDom
BitDom‘s wobble in July is nothing compared to the more than 5% dip we saw in August. It had been locked in the mid-60s% range for months, but started dipping in July, signaling a greater appetite for altcoins. Zooming out, the BitDom range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2019 has been between 50%-70%.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2019:

The 2019 Top Ten Portfolio gained over $100 in August, nothing like July‘s +$450 but still solid. After the initial $1000 investment, the 2019 group of Top Ten cryptos is worth $1,825. With some generous rounding, that’s up about +83%.
Here’s a look at the ROI over the life of the first 20 months of the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund experiment, month by month:
Month by month ROI of 2019 Top Ten
Unlike the completely red table you’ll see in the 2018 Top Ten Experiment, the 2019 crypto table is almost all green. The first month was the lowest point (-9%), and the highest point (+114%) was May 2019.
At +82.51%, the 2019 Top Ten Portfolio has lost its hard-fought position as the best performing of the three Top Ten Experiments, but just barely (the 2020 Top Ten is up +82.52%)
Speaking of the other Experiments, let’s take a look at how the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund Portfolio compare to the parallel projects:
Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my combined portfolios are worth $‭3,937‬ ($287+ $1,825 +$1,825).
That’s up about +31% for the three combined portfolios. It also marks the highest ROI of the three combined portfolios since I started keeping track in January 2020. The previous high was last month‘s +23%.
Here’s a table to help visualize the progress of the combined portfolios:
Combined ROI on $3k
That’s a +31% gain by dropping $1k once a year on whichever cryptos happened to be in the Top Ten on January 1st, 2018, 2019, and 2020.
But what if I’d gone all in on only one Top Ten crypto for the past three years? While many have come and gone over the life of the experiment, five cryptos have remained in Top Ten for all three years: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, and LTC. Let’s take a look at those five:
Three year club - ETH out in front
Ethereum (+160%) would have returned the most at this point, followed by BTC (+93%). On the other hand, following this approach with XRP, I would have been down -17%.
Alright, that’s crypto. How does crypto compare to the stock market?

Comparison to S&P 500:

I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of the experiments to have a comparison point with more traditional markets. Even with everything that’s going on in the world, the S&P continues adding value and reached an all time high in August. It is now up +40% since January 2019.
Monthly S&P levels since Jan. 2019
The initial $1k investment I put into crypto 20 months ago would be worth $1,400 had it been redirected to the S&P 500 in January 2019.
The 2019 Top Ten portfolio is returning +83% over last 20 months, over double the ROI of the S&P 500 over the same time period.
But what if I took the same world’s-slowest-dollar-cost-averaging/$1,000-per-year-on-January-1st approach with the S&P 500? It would yield the following:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$310
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$400
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: +$90
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,800.
That is up over+27% since January 2018, compared to a +31% gain of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios.
As you can see in the table below, August’s 4% difference in favor of crypto marks the second month in a row the Top Ten Crypto Portfolios have outperformed the S&P had I taken a similar investment approach.

Combined crypto vs. S&P

Conclusion:

Thanks to a strong couple of months, the 2019 Top Ten Portfolio is doing just as well as the 2020 Top Ten group, both of which are far, far ahead of the 2018 Top Ten. Meanwhile, despite the presence of a global pandemic and all the uncertainty associated with an election year, the US stock markets reached all time highs in August. As we approach the fall, I’m buckling up for an unpredictable final stretch of an unpredictable year.
Be safe and take care of each other out there.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for the original 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment and the 2020 Top Ten Experiment.

And the Answer is…

D) Fidelity
In August, the SEC published a new filing for a Bitcoin fund, submitted by financial services giant Fidelity.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Technical: The Path to Taproot Activation

Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it!
(If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?)
(Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times)
Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
So yes, let's activate taproot!

The SegWit Wars

The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions.
So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!

BIP9 Miner-Activated Soft Fork

Basically, BIP9 has a bunch of parameters:
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two.
A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this.
So, first some simple questions and their answers:

The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars

SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain).
So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%.
Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.

BIP9 Feature Hostage

If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage.
You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever.
With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you.
This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.

Covert ASICBoost

ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere
Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected.
Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway.
Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost!
But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage).
Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit.
Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!

UASF: BIP148 and BIP8

When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit.
Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit.
This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core.
Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout).
BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled.
This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9.
Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.

BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath

BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community.
One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym.
The text of the NYA was basically:
  1. Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
    • When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
  2. If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91.
Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit.
Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X).
This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists.
Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.

Taproot Activation Proposals

There are two primary proposals I can see for Taproot activation:
  1. BIP8.
  2. Modern Softfork Activation.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout)
So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!

Modern Softfork Activation

This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
  1. First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
  2. If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
  3. Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation.
The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.

PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades

Software is very birttle.
Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
  1. You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
  2. Excited, you install the new version.
  3. You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
  4. You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
  5. You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
  6. You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system.
And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk.
Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations.
So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
  1. One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
  2. The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist.
Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems.
When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well).
This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

An Overview of Arizona Primary Races - Part 4: Legislative Districts 11-20

Welcome back to my omnibus compendium of Arizona’s upcoming primary races in the style of my 2018 summaries. The primary is set to take place August 4th – early voting ballots should have been mailed out on or around July 8th.
Arizona’s a really interesting state (I may be a hair biased), since it not only is home to 2-3 swing House seats and a high-profile Senate race, but also tenuous majorities in both state houses that could – theoretically – neuter Ducey’s trifecta this fall. And counties have their races this year as well, so I’ve highlighted some of the fireworks ongoing in Maricopa.
And this is before factoring in the fact that our state is a COVID-19 hotspot, with an unpopular Republican Governor doing almost nothing to stop it.
If you’re interested about which district you live in, check https://azredistricting.org/districtlocato. If you want to get involved with your local Democratic party, find your legislative district on the previous link (NOT CD), and then search for your LD’s name at this link. Feel free to attend meetings, they’re a great way to get involved with candidates and like-minded individuals.
If you wish to donate to a “clean elections” candidate (mentioned in the post as “clean”), you will have to live in that candidate’s legislative district to give qualifying $5 contributions (check here if anyone needs it in your area), but they are allowed to accept a limited amount of “seed money” from people outside of the district. The three CorpComm candidates can take $5’s statewide.
If you do not want to vote at the polls, you will need to request an early ballot using the website of your county’s recorder prior to July 4th. Example links for Maricopa, Pima, and Pinal. Others available if needed.
Race ratings for listed primaries will be listed as Safe/Likely/Leans/Tilt/Tossup (alternatively Solid instead of Safe if my mind blanks) and are not indicative of my own preference for that seat. I’ll denote my personal primary preferences at the end of this series, as well as the best Republican ticket for the Dems if someone here really really wants to pull a GOP ballot in the primary. I do not advise it, but since I can't stop ya, you'll get my best suggestions.
Write-in candidates have yet to file, which could give us an outside chance at getting some Libertarians on the ballot (the Greens have lost their ballot access).
If you have any questions about voting in the primary, which races are the most contested, and how to get involved with other Democrats in Arizona, feel free to PM me.
All fundraising numbers here are as of 7/18/2020 (“Q2”).
District stats are listed for the race that involved the top Democratic vote-getter in the past two midterm cycles plus the last two presidential races, taken from Daily Kos’s legislative sheet – Clinton’16, Obama’12, Sinema’18, and Garcia’14 (not his 2018 run).
Part 1: Statewide and Congressional Races
Part 2: Maricopa County Races
Update 1: Congressional and County Rating Updates
Part 3: Legislative Districts 1-10
ALL OPINIONS ARE MY OWN SOLELY IN MY CAPACITY AS A VOTER IN ARIZONA, AND NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF ANY ORGANIZATIONS I WORK/ED FOR OR AM/WAS A MEMBER OF. THIS POST IS IN NO WAY ENDORSED BY THE ARIZONA DEMOCRATIC PARTY OR ANY SUB-ORGANIZATION THEREOF, OR ANY FILED CANDIDATE.
Alright, let’s get cracking, y’all. I’m going to try to save time and characters on the safer seats when I can, although of course I’ll expound on any fun stuff that comes up.
Legislative District 11 (McSally+9.93, Trump+13.9, Douglas+16.7, Romney+19.3)
The first district in this writeup installment is LD11, a district very close geographically and politically to LD8. Unlike LD8, however, LD11 has slowly been trending towards Democrats, instead of away from them. Encompassing the southern half of Pinal (including a large chunk of Casa Grande) and bits of Pima, LD11 could swing under the right conditions, but is probably a safe seat this year. That’s disappointing, since the incumbents in the district are pretty darn nasty.
Incumbent Senator Venden “Vince” Leach ($98K COH), a sort-of Great Value Mitch McConnell, loves to spend his time filing SB1487 complaints against various liberal towns in Arizona – basically, suing cities over their attempts to go above and beyond state law when it comes to certain issues. Leach leads the SB1487 leaderboard with 4 SB1487 suits, most recently targeting Pima County over COVID-19 safety regulations that were slightly stricter than state law. Joining the suit were his House counterparts, COVID-19 conspiracy-monger Bret Roberts ($22.4K COH) and actual goddamn Oathkeeper and Charlottesville truther Mark Finchem ($27K COH).
Facing Finchem and Roberts is the Democratic House nominee for LD11, Dr. Felipe Perez ($24.2K COH). Perez has made few waves online and I haven’t seen him even in the same tier of candidates as Girard in LD8, so he’s probably not going to supercharge this district into Dem. territory. But given the spike in public approval for the healthcare industry due to COVID, he may get lucky. On the Senate side, Leach’s opponent will be one of retired public administrator Linda Patterson ($4.7K COH, Clean) and Marine drill instructor Joanna Mendoza ($14.5K COH). Anything could happen between now and August, but Mendoza currently has a significant organizational, political (endorsements) and fiscal advantage over Patterson, and will probably be the nominee come August.
A well-run race could feasibly knock out Finchem or Roberts, but I’ve yet to see that happen. Still, it’s far out enough that I’m not going to slam the door shut on a Perez win just yet.
hunter15991 Rating: GOP primary unopposed, Safe Mendoza, Perez unopposed, Safe Leach, Safe Roberts, Likely Finchem general
Legislative District 12 (McSally+17.19, Trump+24.5, Douglas+17.84, Romney+33.35)
Really not going to focus much on this district to save space, as it’s a snoozefest. House Majority Leader Warren Petersen ($84.8K COH) is running for Senate to replace outgoing Sen. Eddie Farnsworth. Petersen faces Haitian DREAMer. former teacher, and 2018 LD-12 House nominee Lynsey Robinson ($1.4K COH). Robinson’s a great person, but lost her House race against Petersen by the 1v1 equivalent of 20 points, and shows no sign of knocking him off this time around.
Petersen’s runningmates, Rep. Travis Grantham ($39K COH) and Queen Creek Councilman Jake Hoffman ($107.7K COH) are unopposed in both the primary and general.
hunter15991 Rating: Primaries all unopposed, Safe Petersen general, GOP House unopposed
Legislative District 13 (McSally+21.59, Trump+26.96, Douglas+26.22, Romney+31.62)
Moving on to another Safe GOP district with not much activity – LD13! Stretching from the whiter Yuma neighborhoods all the way to Phoenix exurbs in Maricopa County (and the mirror image of LD4 to its south), LD13 routinely sends Republican slates to the legislature. This year, incumbents Sen. Sine Kerr ($58.5K COH), Rep. Tim Dunn ($60.4K COH), and Rep. Joanne Osborne ($15K COH) are all fighting to hold their seats.
Kerr is unopposed in both the primary and general, while Dunn and Osborne are in the opposite situation – they’ve got two elections between now and inauguration day. Democratic paralegal Mariana Sandoval ($3.1K COH, Clean) will put up little resistance for the GOP in the general, but the entrance of former Senator and former Speaker Pro Tem Steve Montenegro ($27.8K COH) could really shake up the LD13 House primary. Montenegro, a Salvadoran-American legislator who resigned his Senate seat to run for the CD-8 special election primary (he placed 3rd, ultimately losing to then-Sen. Debbie Lesko), was a rising star in the AZ-GOP before his resignation and contemporaneous sexting scandal. This Senate run could be a good way for him to get his foot back in the door, and since his election would single-handedly double the amount of non-white Republicans in the legislator, I would figure that some Arizona Republicans are excited that Montenegro is throwing his hat back into the ring.
I haven’t seen much about this primary online, but there’s vague general on GOP pages dinging Montenegro for his ties to a 2016 National Popular Vote bill in the legislature, which is a big purity sticking point for the further-right members of the Arizona GOP. That being said, the chatter is vague at best, and Montenegro has enough conservative cred (with endorsements from people like Joe Arpaio and former Rep. Trent Franks back during his special election run) that he will primarily face issues over the sexting scandal.
I’ll give Osborne and Dunn a slight advantage over their incumbency, financial well-being, and the issues in Montenegro’s closet, but this is a really tight race and Montenegro could very well end up back in the legislature this time next year.
hunter15991 Rating: Dem. unopposed, Kerr unopposed, Tilt Osborne, Tilt Dunn, All Safe GOP general
Legislative District 14 (McSally+23.83, Trump+26.24, Douglas+22.88, Romney+26.84)
This is yet another district where Democrats stand no real chance in competing this year, and haven’t in quite some time. Situated in SE Arizona, LD14 once incorporated some ancestrally Democratic mining towns in Greenlee and Graham County, but they’ve grown red enough in the past couple of decades that this district is now held by three GOP legislators.
Former House Speaker and current Sen. David Gowan ($60.9K COH) (who was previously in the news for trying to use a state vehicle to assist in a failed Congressional campaign) faces realtor Bob Karp ($12.9K COH, Clean) in the general, while House incumbents Rep. Gail “Tax porn to build the wall” Griffin ($50.5K COH) and Rep. Becky Nutt ($47.4K COH) face retired union activist Ronnie Maestas-Condos ($686 COH, Clean) and teacher Kim Beach-Moschetti ($13K COH, Clean). All 3 races will probably be easy GOP wins.
hunter15991 Rating: Candidates unopposed in primaries, All Safe GOP general
Legislative District 15 (McSally+8.01, Trump+16.61, Douglas+11.06, Romney+25.44)
LD15, up in Northern Scottsdale and Phoenix, is one of the final frontiers of suburban expansion for Arizona Democrats, along with the Mormon suburbs of the far East Valley (LD12, 16, and 25). A very wealthy area, LD15 has routinely been a GOP stronghold – but their hold on the area has been dissipating steadily rapidly in the Trump era. In 2018, two Dem. House candidates both managed to outperform the “single-shot” performance of a 2016 candidate, and Kristin Dybvig-Pawelko ($48.6K COH, hereafter “KDP”) improved on the district’s 2016 State Senate margin by several points despite facing a significantly more difficult opponent than the 2016 Democrat.
KDP is running again this year, as a single-shot candidate for the State House. Her opponents have yet to be set in stone, as both GOP Representatives are vacating their seats to run for higher office, and there are three GOP candidates in the August primary vying for two nominations. Veteran Steve Kaiser ($13.6K COH) and State House policy adviser Justin Wilmeth ($16K COH, $5.2K self-funded) are the nominal establishment picks for both seats, and have been endorsed by a whole host of GOP legislators. However, they face stiff competition from businessman Jarret Hamstreet ($23.2K COH, $10K self-funded), who boasts endorsements from GOP power-players like the local Chamber of Commerce and the NRA, as well as tacit support from the incumbent Senator in the district Heather Carter ($101.2K COH) (somewhat of an Arizona Lisa Murkowski). I’ve been able to find very little chatter on the race, but with Hamstreet’s significant fundraising advantage I definitely think he secures one of the two nominations this November. While the district is still quite red, KDP is no spring chicken, and facing Kasier, Hamstreet, or Wilmeth will be a lot easier than her run against Carter in 2018.
If I’m going to be honest, it is the GOP Senate primary that is almost as important as the House general election. Heather Carter has gotten on the bad side of quite a few conservative legislators during her tenure in the Senate, holding up GOP budgets with her partner in crime Paul Boyer in 2019 over a stalled child sexual assault statute of limitations bill and this year over an amendment to give additional funding to firefighters for PPE and to students for tuition support.
That amendment failed 15-15 thanks to one Kate Brophy McGee - more on her later.
Carter’s actual attempts at moderation (as opposed to McGee’s performative bullshit) has inspired current State Rep. Nancy Barto ($9.9K COH) to challenge her for the Senate. Barto has the support of both Kaiser and Wilmeth (as well as most of the GOP establishment) but has been routinely lagging behind Carter in fundraising (both in terms of current COH and overall amount raised). Carter has been bringing in more “moderate” and pro-public education GOP volunteers from all over Phoenix and is sure to put up a fight in August. As it stands, I think she narrowly pulls it off. There is no Democratic Senate opponent in the general, so winning the primary automatically wins the seat.
If you’ve got GOP friends in AZ who just can’t bare phonebanking for Democratic candidates but complain about the state of the Republican party, send them her way.
Carter has beliefs. Barto has none.
Slate totals:
  • CarteHamstreet: $124.4K
  • KDP: $48.6K
  • Barto coalition (KaiseWilmeth/Barto): $40.5K
hunter15991 Rating: Dem. unopposed, Tilt Carter, Lean Hamstreet, Tilt Kaiser, GOP Sen. unopposed in general, Likely Hamstreet, 2nd GOP unopposed
Legislative District 16 (McSally+17.58, Trump+28.37, Douglas+17, Romney+28.11)
LD16, out on the border between Pinal and Maricopa County, is probably the reddest district in Arizona that could still be relatively considered “suburban”. The only Democratic candidate is write-in House candidate Rev. Helen Hunter ($783 COH), and while her background is stellar (incl. past work with the NAACP, Mesa PD’s Use of Force Committee, and other community involvement), there isn’t even a guarantee she’ll make it onto the November ballot.
Meanwhile, Rep. Kelly Townsend ($15.5K COH) has tired of the State House (just like she tired of her furry fursona, and is running unopposed for State Senate.
The real drama, therefore, is in the GOP State House primary to win Townsend’s old seat. Incumbent Rep. John Fillmore ($12.9K COH) is running for another term, and seems set to win one of the two nominations. Townsend’s former seat is contested by respiratory therapist Liza Godzich ($14.6K COH) (who wins the “most moderate” title by default by virtue of taking COVID kinda seriously), CorpComm policy advisor Jacqueline Parker ($16.4K COH), and school choice activist/general lunatic Forest Moriarty ($17.7K COH).
Moriarty has the valuable Townsend endorsement, but has not been able to consolidate support easily elsewhere – Parker’s CorpComm ties let her bring quite a few assets of her own to bear, as well as endorsements from Congressman Andy Biggs and the NRA.
This election will be a test of Townsend’s downballot coattails, as well as those of the school choice movement in AZ parlaying any support they may have into legislative results. Success for Moriarty here could go as far as inspiring Townsend to run for Governor. We’ll see if it comes to that.
hunter15991 Rating: No Dem. filed (pending write-in), Townsend unopposed, Lean Fillmore, Tossup ParkeMoriarty, GOP unopposed in general
Legislative District 17 (Sinema+3.53, Trump+4.09, Douglas+3.12, Romney+14.16)
One of the reasons I significantly delayed writing these writeups was because I was dreading writing about LD17. Not to doxx myself completely, but in 2018 I had far too many negative encounters with the incumbent Democratic Representative, Jennifer Pawlik ($101.3K COH) that made me routinely question my support of her. I’m still trying to heal the wounds in multiple relationships I have with friends that were caused by Pawlik’s actions.
I deeply regret ever lifting a finger to help her when I had opportunities in other districts. But because her actions never got physical, because the stakes are so high this year, and because too much unsubstantiated negative talk about a candidate can get a post deleted - I don’t wish to publicly expound on her actions (nor put words in the mouth of other people who interacted with her). Feel free to PM if interested.
Pawlik as a candidate is a grab-bag. On paper she’d be a strong option for a suburban district – a teacher and education funding activist with a prior win during the 2018 wave. However, behind the scenes she is quite a poor campaigner in ways that directly impact Democratic candidates’ odds and presences in the district, including her own - which makes me more apprehensive of her odds of re-election than her fellow Jennifer in HD18 (Rep. Jennifer Jermaine), who’s quite similar to Pawlik on the whole.
Pawlik’s Senate runningmate this year is local businessman and first-generation American Ajlan “AJ” Kurdoglu ($51.5K COH). AJ’s a good guy and more serious of a campaigner than Pawlik, and is on well enough terms with her that no inter-candidate drama will probably happen this fall (which would be a welcome change for the district). He’s been slightly outpacing her in fundraising and seems to be hitting the ground running.
The Republican incumbents in this district are Sen. JD Mesnard ($102.6K COH), who moonlights as legal counsel for an organization categorized as a hate group by the SPLC, and Jeff Wenninger ($117.8K COH), a backbench Bitcoin bro. Wenninger and Mesnard have both been in their seats for a while, and this cycle were backing Chandler Vice Mayor (and JD Mesnard’s mom) Nora Ellen for the other State House seat – Ellen lost to Pawlik in 2018.
But in a stroke of luck for Pawlik, Ellen failed to qualify for the ballot this year. However, in a similar stroke of luck for the GOP Liz Harris ($27.3K COH, $21.3K self-funded) - a local realtor (like Ellen) - did qualify. I’ve yet to discern just how close she is with Mesnard and Wenninger, and how much cash she is willing to dump into this race, but in terms of how random non-GOP establishment candidates the LD17 Republicans could have done far worse than Harris.
All the pieces in this district would point to a shift even further left than it was in 2018, and had I not known what I know about Pawlik this would be a Tilt D House/Tossup Senate. But I don’t know if she’s changed since 2018 - and if she hasn’t, there is no guarantee that she won’t snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
hunter15991 Rating: Primaries uncontested, Tilt Mesnard, Tossup House (Pawlik/Harris), Safe Wenninger
Legislative District 18 (Sinema+18.58, Clinton+10.39, Garcia+12.5, Romney+1.93)
Like LD10 in the previous part of my writeup, the situation in LD18 is another blast of the proverbial Gjallarhorn for the AZ-GOP’s suburban chances. Once a very competitive district (fully red as recently as 2016), LD18 is now held by 3 Democrats – Sen. Sean Bowie ($106.3K COH), Rep. Jennifer Jermaine ($65.7K COH), and Rep. Mitzi Epstein ($60.8K COH). Bowie and Epstein have carved rather moderate paths in their respective houses having been elected back when this district was more competitive, while Jermaine’s tacked a bit more to the left, and has been a prominent voice for increasing education funding (prior to running for the State House she was a public school funding activist and IIRC Moms Demand Action member) and for missing indigenous women (Jermaine is part indigenous herself).
The GOP’s troubles in this district started around the filing deadline, when one of their candidates, Alyssa Shearer, withdrew from the primary. Super anti-abortion nut Don Hawker ($619 COH) filed as a write-in candidate to replace her, but it’s uncertain if he’ll qualify for the general election. Their other House candidate, Bob Robson ($11K COH) is on paper a solid candidate (being a former Speaker Pro Tem of the state house), but lost by the equivalent of 6% to Epstein in 2016 and by 19% when he ran for Kyrene Justice of the Peace (a district that roughly matches the boundaries of LD18. Robson’s an old warhorse) - going 0 for 2 since 2014. It’s a sign of the times that he and discount Scott Roeder are the two potential House candidates for the GOP in this district.
In the Senate, the GOP doesn’t fare much better. Real estate agent Suzanne Sharer ($4.2K COH) is trying to run a semblance of a decent race against Sen. Bowie, but keeps using her campaign Twitter (@blondeandsmart – I promise you that’s a real handle) to retweet QAnon shit. Sharer is going nowhere in November. That’s if she makes it to November, given her past retweets advocating for people to drink bleach to cure COVID.
hunter15991 Rating: Primaries uncontested, All Safe Dem. general
Legislative District 19 (Sinema+44.97, Clinton+40.25, Garcia+32.38, Obama+34.3)
LD19 is a safe Democratic district in the West Valley, where all the drama is happening in the primary. Rep. Lorenzo Sierra ($9.3K COH) and Rep. Diego Espinoza ($25.2K COH) are both running for re-election, defending their seats against challenger Leezah Sun ($5.1K COH), a local activist. Sierra and Espinoza haven’t been particularly conservative in their voting records in the legislator, but have taken some flack from the more progressive wing of the party lately for outside corporate expenditures in this primary. I’m honestly unsure why these PACs are weighing in given that Sun isn’t running all that good of a campaign, but I guess better spend it here than in tighter primaries. Assistant State Minority Leader Lupe Contreras ($7.2K COH) is unopposed in his primary.
In the general, there’s one GOP candidate for both House and Senate, but both are write-ins and could possibly not qualify for the ballot. For now, Democrats are unopposed in this district in the general.
hunter15991 Contreras uncontested, Safe Sierra, Safe Espinoza, Uncontested Dem. general
Legislative District 20 (Sinema+3.7, Trump+8.01, Douglas+0.04, Romney+12.87)
LD20 is another suburban district where Democrats could see sizable gains this fall. Won by Sinema and Maricopa County Recorder Adrian Fontes, and almost snagged by David Garcia during the 2014 Superintendent race, LD20 has been on the Arizona Democratic Party’s mind for a few cycles now. Their candidates this year are strong – 2018 Senate nominee Doug Ervin ($94.6K COH) has filed for a rematch after losing by 4 in 2018 (where an independent ex-GOP candidate took 7% - Ervin claims Quelland actually hurt him more than district Republicans), and retired teacher Judy Schweibert ($158.2K COH) is running for House. Both are running bang-up campaigns and seem set to make November a problem for local Republicans, and Ervin has eschewed the public funding he took last time in order to be able to fundraise better for the slugfest ahead.
The local GOP, however, isn’t taking this lying down. Representatives Shawnna Bolick ($161.8K COH) - who was almost bumped off the ballot for using a PO Box as her filing address - and Anthony Kern ($73.4K COH) - an ex-cop on the Brady “untrustworthy cop” list - have been building their warchests in preparation for this cycle after narrowly hanging on in 2018 (despite both Democrats in that race running with public funding). While Bolick has typically stayed out of especially heinous controversy on social media (despite once posting that all masks come from Wuhan and are thus contaminated with COVID), Kern’s time on the force seems to have stuck with him, and his Twitter feed is full of a lot of pro-cop posts and whatnot. With Schweibert running as a single-shot candidate this year I can see Kern’s tendency of accidentally discharging his foot into his mouth finally coming back to bite him.
On the Senate side the past election results are slightly more promising than the House, but the opponent is tougher as well. Sen. Paul Boyer ($50.5K COH) is probably the closest there is to a living John McCain in the Arizona Legislature (not to deify him too much – he’s still conservative), having blocked two GOP budgets in the past two years along with Sen. Heather Carter (see LD15). In 2019 this was over a child sexual assault reform bill (extending the statute of limitations), and in 2020 this was over a lack of funding to firefighters and university students in the emergency “skinny” COVID budget the legislature passed in the spring. His attempts at moderation are visible outside of that: Boyer’s abysmal Q2 fundraising – per his own words – came from not fundraising at all during the 5 month long legislative session despite campaign finance rules only banning lobbyist contributions during the session (and I guess that’s commendable self-policing), and on his website he stops just short of calling for abortion to be banned, which makes him Margaret fucking Sanger among the current AZ-GOP.
That’s not to say that people shouldn’t support Ervin with all it takes – hell, if anything he’ll need more help to oust Boyer. Ultimately I think Ervin holds a narrow lead in this race with the absence of Quelland and with far better fundraising than what the LD20 slate had last year, but the election is still quite far away. If I had to pick one Democrat to win in this district, it’d be Schweibert.
hunter15991 Rating: Primaries uncontested, Tilt Ervin, Tilt Schweibert, 2nd House uncontested
submitted by hunter15991 to VoteDEM [link] [comments]

BITCOIN DUMP INCOMING?! -40% DROP POSSIBLE?!💥LIVE Crypto ... BITCOIN PRICE PLUMMETS IN MINUTES!  WHAT IS NEXT FOR BTC? BITCOIN HITTING TARGETS  What Next BTC Price Price Value of Bitcoin vs Intrinsic Value - Explained Bitcoin Protocol - Combining and Splitting Value

Bitcoin is notorious for wild swings in value. Central banks are able to control their currencies’ prices against others, which means a loaf of bread costs nearly the same from day to day. Because Bitcoin’s pricing dynamics are more akin to a volatile stock, the price of bread might swing substantially. This is extremely detrimental to currency adoption because stability is essential for a ... Bitcoin, like gold, is a limited asset that can't be easily increased to meet demand. Bloomberg analysts predict the price of both will rise this year. How to 51% Attack Bitcoin. Oct 7, 2019. The core security model of Bitcoin is that it is very expensive to generate blocks of transactions. This means it is very expensive to attack Bitcoin by creating fraudulent transactions. Bitcoin miners can afford to invest a lot of money in hardware and electricity, because they are algorithmically rewarded when they do generate a new block. Over time ... Mike Orcutt of MIT’s Technology Review put out a piece on Feb 19 that caught our attention. In it the author discusses a few of the fundamental challenges with crypto. We briefly comment on his 51% Rule & Code Is Law sections, and how he ndau Collective thinks about these issues and why we have made certain decisions when designing and building ndau to be a digital long-term store of value. Any Bitcoin miner who successfully hashes a block header to a value below the target threshold can add the entire block to the block chain (assuming the block is otherwise valid). These blocks are commonly addressed by their block height —the number of blocks between them and the first Bitcoin block (block 0, most commonly known as the genesis block ).

[index] [41121] [3546] [19633] [40170] [17738] [14846] [12937] [461] [32398] [45346]

BITCOIN DUMP INCOMING?! -40% DROP POSSIBLE?!💥LIVE Crypto ...

What is next for bitcoin price? So far it has hit one of our key BTC targets to the upside. Bitcoin still has some work to do to hit more relevant mid-term bitcoin target. We discuss this in ... Bitcoin Price Analysis & Crypto News! 👍 THUMBS UP & SUBSCRIBE NOW + 🔔! *** VIP PRIVATE TRADE ALERTS - https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAEts9GFT3RV_6wLjOQ *** *****... Bitcoin Protocol Paper Playlist: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UieiMU-ImvI&list=PLQVvvaa0QuDcq2QME4pfeh0cE71mkb_qz&feature=share All Bitcoin Videos Playlist... Bitcoin price drops 15% in a matter of minutes. What does this mean for bitcoin bulls? Is btc even bullish anymore? Here is what you can look out for on the bitcoin charts. Who decides on the value of bitcoin? And does price value outweigh intrinsic value? The value of Bitcoin is decided by those that interact with the system. From miners, investors, traders, Bitcoin ...

#