Can’t misprint a Bitcoin : Bitcoin - reddit

Exactly 10 years ago Someone did a transfer of 184M BTC

Exactly 10 Years ago someone found a bug in bitcoin code that allowed him to transfer 184M bitcoins to 3 different address .

On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created 184,467,440,737.09551616 bitcoins for three different addresses.[1][2][3] Two addresses received 92.2 billion bitcoins each, and whoever solved the block got an extra 0.01 BTC that did not exist prior to the transaction. This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed.[4]
A new version of the client was published within five hours of the discovery that contained a soft forking change to the consensus rules that rejected output value overflow transactions (as well as any transaction that paid more than 21 million bitcoins in an output for any reason).[5] The block chain was forked. Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691[6] at which point all nodes accepted the "good" blockchain as the authoritative source of Bitcoin transaction history.
The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain. Therefore, the bitcoins created by it do not exist either. While the transaction does not exist anymore, the 0.5 BTC that was consumed by it does. It appears to have come from a faucet and has not been used since.[7]
source : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident

How I even know this ?
I know a guy that I've been to school with and he's been with bitcoin since 2010, while I criticized it and ignored it . lately we've been catching up and talk a lot, he said basically someone is probably manipulating the network in different way while we are unaware of.
"The 184M transaction was bold, everyone could have seen it. In the real world if A really good hacker would do the job , he would do it without us noticing, it will be under the surface, it might be too late if ever could someone else even notice"
I wanted to ask the community what do you think of that ?
could there ever be a way that someone else is using the network to benefit his own needs while exploiting some bug in the network we cant even see?
or that's not possible and he is fooling me ?
submitted by Beginning-Addendum30 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Exactly 10 years ago Someone did a transfer of 184M BTC

Exactly 10 Years ago someone found a bug in bitcoin code that allowed him to transfer 184M bitcoins to 3 different address .
On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created 184,467,440,737.09551616 bitcoins for three different addresses.[1][2][3] Two addresses received 92.2 billion bitcoins each, and whoever solved the block got an extra 0.01 BTC that did not exist prior to the transaction. This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed.[4] A new version of the client was published within five hours of the discovery that contained a soft forking change to the consensus rules that rejected output value overflow transactions (as well as any transaction that paid more than 21 million bitcoins in an output for any reason).[5] The block chain was forked. Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691[6] at which point all nodes accepted the "good" blockchain as the authoritative source of Bitcoin transaction history. The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain. Therefore, the bitcoins created by it do not exist either. While the transaction does not exist anymore, the 0.5 BTC that was consumed by it does. It appears to have come from a faucet and has not been used since.[7]
source : https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Value_overflow_incident
How I even know this ?
I know a guy that I've been to school with and he's been with bitcoin since 2010, while I criticized it and ignored it . lately we've been catching up and talk a lot, he said basically someone is probably manipulating the network in different way while we are unaware of.
"The 184M transaction was bold, everyone could have seen it. In the real world if A really good hacker would do the job , he would do it without us noticing, it will be under the surface, it might be too late if ever could someone else even notice"
I wanted to ask the community what do you think of that ?
could there ever be a way that someone else is using the network to benefit his own needs while exploiting some bug in the network we cant even see?
submitted by Beginning-Addendum30 to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

Flatten the Curve. #49. Let's Dig into Jade Helm. AI. The Surveillance State. Internet of Things. FISA. Pentagon Preparing for Mass Civil Breakdown. What is Mob Excess Deterrent Using Silent Audio? Stay Aware and Get Ahead of the Curve.

Flatten the Curve. Part 48. Source Here
It's getting crazier day by day now, so are you following the Boy Scout motto?
On this topic, Baden-Powell says: Remember your motto, "Be Prepared." Be prepared for accidents by learning beforehand what you ought to do in the different kinds that are likely to occur. Be prepared to do that thing the moment the accident does occur. In Scouting for Boys, Baden-Powell wrote that to Be Prepared means “you are always in a state of readiness in mind and body to do your duty.”
Why should you be prepared? Because TPTB have been preparing, that’s why.
June 12, 2014: The Guardian • Pentagon preparing for mass civil breakdown. Social science is being militarised to develop 'operational tools' to target peaceful activists and protest movements Source Here
Pentagon preparing for mass civil breakdown. It seemed ludicrous back in 2014, didn't it? Inconceivable. Sure some preppers believed it, but they're always getting ready and nothing happened. Doomsday was always right around the corner, and then the next corner, and on and on. Televangelists have probably accused more politicians of being the antichrist than the number of politicians went to Epstein's Island.
But why would they be preparing for mass civil breakdown? Could it be the same reason as why the miltary is preparing for war, droughts and famines brought about by environmental collapse?
February 20, 2020: History Network • Here’s Why These Six Ancient Civilizations Mysteriously Collapsed. From the Maya to Greenland’s Vikings, check out six civilizations that seemingly disappeared without a trace. Source Here
All of these civilizations vanished because of some combination of exhausting their natural resources, drought, plauge, and the little ice age. Sound familiar? Don't tell me that the Rockefeller Foundation and BlackRock became environmentally aware out of a sense of obligation to the planet. They're setting the groundwork for what's coming down the pipe. This isn't about money anymore, this is about control and survival. Throw out the rulebook because the rules no longer apply.
Do you think the surveillance system is for your protection, or the protection of the state? Don't you think that an era of upcoming calamities will severely damage the communication networks, and thus the surveillance system? It might be prudent to consider that Starlink is being established to make the system redundant, so that they never lose track of the precious worker bees before they can be connected to the AI hive mind, right Elon? Neuralink, don't leave home without it.
But let's not forget about the wonderful world of the Internet of Things.
March 15, 2012 • More and more personal and household devices are connecting to the internet, from your television to your car navigation systems to your light switches. CIA Director David Petraeus cannot wait to spy on you through them. Earlier this month, Petraeus mused about the emergence of an "Internet of Things" -- that is, wired devices -- at a summit for In-Q-Tel, the CIA's venture capital firm. "'Transformational' is an overused word, but I do believe it properly applies to these technologies," Petraeus enthused, "particularly to their effect on clandestine tradecraft." All those new online devices are a treasure trove of data if you're a "person of interest" to the spy community. Once upon a time, spies had to place a bug in your chandelier to hear your conversation. With the rise of the "smart home," you'd be sending tagged, geolocated data that a spy agency can intercept in real time when you use the lighting app on your phone to adjust your living room's ambiance. "Items of interest will be located, identified, monitored, and remotely controlled through technologies such as radio-frequency identification, sensor networks, tiny embedded servers, and energy harvesters -- all connected to the next-generation internet using abundant, low-cost, and high-power computing," Petraeus said, "the latter now going to cloud computing, in many areas greater and greater supercomputing, and, ultimately, heading to quantum computing." Petraeus allowed that these household spy devices "change our notions of secrecy" and prompt a rethink of "our notions of identity and secrecy." All of which is true -- if convenient for a CIA director. The CIA has a lot of legal restrictions against spying on American citizens. But collecting ambient geolocation data from devices is a grayer area, especially after the 2008 carve-outs to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Hardware manufacturers, it turns out, store a trove of geolocation data; and some legislators have grown alarmed at how easy it is for the government to track you through your phone or PlayStation. That's not the only data exploit intriguing Petraeus. He's interested in creating new online identities for his undercover spies -- and sweeping away the "digital footprints" of agents who suddenly need to vanish. "Proud parents document the arrival and growth of their future CIA officer in all forms of social media that the world can access for decades to come," Petraeus observed. "Moreover, we have to figure out how to create the digital footprint for new identities for some officers." Source Here
December 19, 2019: New York Times • THE DATA REVIEWED BY TIMES OPINION didn’t come from a telecom or giant tech company, nor did it come from a governmental surveillance operation. It originated from a location data company, one of dozens quietly collecting precise movements using software slipped onto mobile phone apps. You’ve probably never heard of most of the companies — and yet to anyone who has access to this data, your life is an open book. They can see the places you go every moment of the day, whom you meet with or spend the night with, where you pray, whether you visit a methadone clinic, a psychiatrist’s office or a massage parlor. The Times and other news organizations have reported on smartphone tracking in the past. But never with a data set so large. Even still, this file represents just a small slice of what’s collected and sold every day by the location tracking industry — surveillance so omnipresent in our digital lives that it now seems impossible for anyone to avoid. It doesn’t take much imagination to conjure the powers such always-on surveillance can provide an authoritarian regime like China’s. Within America’s own representative democracy, citizens would surely rise up in outrage if the government attempted to mandate that every person above the age of 12 carry a tracking device that revealed their location 24 hours a day. Yet, in the decade since Apple’s App Store was created, Americans have, app by app, consented to just such a system run by private companies. Now, as the decade ends, tens of millions of Americans, including many children, find themselves carrying spies in their pockets during the day and leaving them beside their beds at night — even though the corporations that control their data are far less accountable than the government would be. Source Here
The IoT should be renamed to IoTT (Internet of Tracking Things), shouldn't it. But we can't have people figure out what's really happening, can we? It's a good thing that quantum computing isn't too close, isn’t it?
April 5, 2018: Global News • (Project Maven) Over 3,000 Google employees have a signed a petition in protest against the company’s involvement with a U.S. Department of Defense artificial intelligence (AI) project that studies imagery and could eventually be used to improve drone strikes in the battlefield. Source Here
December 12, 2019 • Palantir took over Project Maven defense contract after Google backed out. Source Here
December 29, 2020: Input • Palantir exec says its work is on par with the Manhattan Project. Comparing AI to most lethal weapon in human history isn’t comforting. SourceHere
August 14, 2020: Venture: • Google researchers use quantum computing to help improve image classification. Source Here
Hmmm. Maybe Apple will be for the little guy? They have always valued privacy rights, right?
October 2, 2013: Vice News • The hacktivist group Anonymous released a video statement with an accompanying Pastebin document claiming that there are definitive links between AuthenTec, the company that developed the iPhone 5S’s fingerprint scanner, and the US government. Source Here
An apple a day helps the NSA. Or Google. Or Microsoft. Or Amazon. Take your pick from the basket, because dem Apple's are all the same. But at least we have fundamental rights, right?
Foreign agent declaration not required • No mention of foreign agent status is made in the Protect America Act of 2007. Under prior FISA rules, persons targeted for surveillance must have been declared as foreign agents before a FISA warrant would be accorded by the FISC court.
'Quasi-anti-terrorism law' for all-forms of intelligence collection • Vastly marketed by U.S. federal and military agencies as a law to prevent terror attacks, the Protect America Act was actually a law focused on the 'acquisition' of desired intelligence information, of unspecified nature. The sole requirement is geolocation outside the United States at time of Directive invocation; pursuant to Authorization or Order invocation, surveillance Directives can be undertaken towards persons targeted for intelligence information gathering. Implementation of Directives can take place inside the United States or outside the United States. No criminal or terrorism investigation of the person need be in play at time of the Directive. All that need be required is that the target be related to an official desire for intelligence information gathering for actions on part of persons involved in surveillance to be granted full immunity from U.S. criminal or civil procedures, under Section 105B(l) of the Act.
Removal of FISA Strictures from warrant authorization; warrants not required • But the most striking aspect of the Protect America Act was the notation that any information gathering did not comprise electronic surveillance. This wording had the effect of removing FISA-related strictures from Protect America Act 2007-related Directives, serving to remove a number of protections for persons targeted, and requirements for persons working for U.S. intelligence agencies.
The acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance • The removal of the term electronic surveillance from any Protect America Act Directive implied that the FISC court approval was no longer required, as FISA warrants were no longer required. In the place of a warrant was a certification, made by U.S. intelligence officers, which was copied to the Court. In effect, the FISC became less of a court than a registry of pre-approved certifications.Certifications (in place of FISA warrants) were able to be levied ex post facto, in writing to the Court no more than 72 hours after it was made. The Attorney General was to transmit as soon as possible to the Court a sealed copy of the certification that would remain sealed unless the certification was needed to determine the legality of the acquisition.Source Here
Oh. FISA is basically a rubber stamp. And even if it the stage play wasn't pretending to follow the script, would it matter? Who could actually stop it at this point? The cat's out of the bag and Pandoras Box is open.
Controversial debates arose as the Protect America Act was published. Constitutional lawyers and civil liberties experts expressed concerns that this Act authorized massive, wide-ranging information gathering with no oversight. Whereas it placed much focus on communications, the Act allowed for information gathering of all shapes and forms. The ACLU called it the "Police America Act" – "authorized a massive surveillance dragnet", calling the blank-check oversight provisions "meaningless," and calling them a "phony court review of secret procedures."
So the surveillance state doesn't have checks and balances anymore. The state is preparing for Massive Civil Breakdown. They keep warning us about environmental collapse. Got it? Good. Let's keep on keeping on.
The District of Columbia Organic Act of 1871 created a single new district corporation governing the entire federal territory, called the District of Columbia, thus dissolving the three major political subdivisions of the District (Port of Georgetown, the City of Washington, and Washington County) and their governments. Source Here)
The first big leap in corporate personhood from holding mere property and contract rights to possessing more expansive rights was a claim that the Equal Protection Clause applied to corporations. One of the strangest twists in American constitutional law was the moment that corporations gained personhood under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It occurred in a case called Santa Clara County, and what was odd was that the Supreme Court did not really even decide the matter in the actual opinion. It only appeared in a footnote to the case. What we are likely to have at the conclusion of the Supreme Court term is corporations that are empowered to spend in American elections because of Bellotti and Citizens United; corporations that can make religious objections thanks to Hobby Lobby; and if Jesner turns out as badly as I predict, corporations will be able to aid and abet human rights violations abroad with impunity. Source Here
"Having a corporation would allow people to put property into a collective ownership that could be held with perpetual existence," she says. "So it wouldn't be tied to any one person's lifespan, or subject necessarily to laws regarding inheriting property." Later on, in the United States and elsewhere, the advantages of incorporation were essential to efficient and secure economic development. Unlike partnerships, the corporation continued to exist even if a partner died; there was no unanimity required to do something; shareholders could not be sued individually, only the corporation as a whole, so investors only risked as much as they put into buying shares. Source Here
The way that the Arab Bank may get away with this alleged morally troubling behavior, even though it has a New York branch, is by reasserting the basic argument that was made in Nestle USA and Kiobel II: that the federal Alien Tort Statute was not intended to apply to corporations full stop. Given other cases in this area like Mohamad v. PLO, which held the word “individual” in the Torture Victim Protection Act means a natural person and does not impose any liability against organizations, the Arab Bank’s procorporate argument may well prevail. There are multiple federal Circuit Courts which have shot down the argument that corporations are immune from suit under the Alien Tort Statute. The lone outlier is the Second Circuit, which decided in 2010 that corporations are excused from suit in Kiobel I. This is the case that was appealed to the Supreme Court and became Kiobel II. Jesner v. Arab Bank was litigated in the Second Circuit. One question in Jesner was what exactly did Kiobel II do to Kiobel I. So far in the litigation, Jesner concluded that Kiobel I and its conclusion that corporations can’t be sued in federal court using the Alien Tort Statute remained the controlling law of the Second Circuit.
There's a reason people call lawyers snakes, it's because most of them speak with forked tounges. So the corporation isn't being held liable, but the shareholders can't be held liable either. That's too insane to even be called a Catch 22. We are literally being set up to have no recourse because there isn’t anybody who can be held responsible. Why is that important when I've been talking about the surveillance state?
July 14, 2020: The Intercept • Microsoft’s police surveillance services are often opaque because the company sells little in the way of its own policing products. It instead offers an array of “general purpose” Azure cloud services, such as machine learning and predictive analytics tools like Power BI (business intelligence) and Cognitive Services, which can be used by law enforcement agencies and surveillance vendors to build their own software or solutions. A rich array of Microsoft’s cloud-based offerings is on full display with a concept called “The Connected Officer.” Microsoft situates this concept as part of the Internet of Things, or IoT, in which gadgets are connected to online servers and thus made more useful. “The Connected Officer,” Microsoft has written, will “bring IoT to policing.” With the Internet of Things, physical objects are assigned unique identifiers and transfer data over networks in an automated fashion. If a police officer draws a gun from its holster, for example, a notification can be sent over the network to alert other officers there may be danger. Real Time Crime Centers could then locate the officer on a map and monitor the situation from a command and control center. Source Here
Uhm, I guess it's really is all connected, isn’t it?
June 18, 2020: The Guardian • How Target, Google, Bank of America and Microsoft quietly fund police through private donations. More than 25 large corporations in the past three years have contributed funding to private police foundations, new report says. Source Here
Long live the Military Industrial Techno Surveillance State. If you have nothing to hide, than you have nothing to worry about. Really? Are we still believing that line? Cause it's a load of crap. If we have nothing to worry about, then why are they worried enough to be implementing surveillance systems with corresponding units on the ground? Got your attention there, didn't I?
August 19, 2019: Big Think • Though the term "Orwellian" easily applies to such a technology, Michel's illuminating reporting touches something deeper. Numerous American cities have already been surveilled using these god-like cameras, including Gorgon Stare, a camera-enabled drone that can track individuals over a 50-square kilometer radius from 20,000 feet. Here's the real rub: the feature that allows users to pinch and zoom on Instagram is similar to what WAMI allows. Anything within those 50-square kilometers is now under the microscope. If this sounds like some futuristic tech, think again: Derivations of this camera system have been tested in numerous American cities. Say there is a big public protest. With this camera you can follow thousands of protesters back to their homes. Now you have a list of the home addresses of all the people involved in a political movement. If on their way home you witness them committing some crime—breaking a traffic regulation or frequenting a location that is known to be involved in the drug trade—you can use that surveillance data against them to essentially shut them up. That's why we have laws that prevent the use of surveillance technologies because it is human instinct to abuse them. That's why we need controls. Source Here
Want to know more about the Gorgon Stare? Flatten the Curve. Part 12. Source Here
Now, I'm not sure if you remember or know any Greek Mythology, but the Gorgons were three sisters, and one sister had Snakes on her head (she wasn't a lawyer) and she turned people to stone when she looked at them.
MEDUSA (Mob Excess Deterrent Using Silent Audio) is a directed-energy non-lethal weapon designed by WaveBand Corporation in 2003-2004 for temporary personnel incapacitation. The weapon is based on the microwave auditory effect resulting in a strong sound sensation in the human head when it is subject to certain kinds of pulsed/modulated microwave radiation. The developers claimed that through the combination of pulse parameters and pulse power, it is possible to raise the auditory sensation to a “discomfort” level, deterring personnel from entering a protected perimeter or, if necessary, temporarily incapacitating particular individuals. In 2005, Sierra Nevada Corporation acquired WaveBand Corporation.
Ok. Get it? The Gorgon eye in the sky stares at you while the Medusa makes you immobile. Not good, but at least it'll just freeze you in your tracks.
July 6, 2008: Gizmodo • The Sierra Nevada Corporation claimed this week that it is ready to begin production on the MEDUSA, a damned scary ray gun that uses the "microwave audio effect" to implant sounds and perhaps even specific messages inside people's heads. Short for Mob Excess Deterrent Using Silent Audio, MEDUSA creates the audio effect with short microwave pulses. The pulses create a shockwave inside the skull that's detected by the ears, and basically makes you think you're going balls-to-the-wall batshit insane. Source Here
Uhm. And drive you insane.
July 26, 2008: Gizmodo • The MEDUSA crowd control ray gun we reported on earlier this month sounded like some pretty amazing-and downright scary-technology. Using the microwave auditory effect, the beam, in theory, would have put sounds and voice-like noises in your head, thereby driving you away from the area. Crowd control via voices in your head. Sounds cool. However, it turns out that the beam would actually kill you before any of that happy stuff started taking place, most likely by frying or cooking your brain inside your skull. Can you imagine if this thing made it out into the field? Awkward! Source Here
Annnnnnnndddddd it'll kill you.
Guys, they're prepared. They've been prepared. They're ready. Remember the Doomsday Bunkers? The military moving into Cheyenne Mountain? Deep Underground Military Bunkers? The rapid rolling out of 5G? BITCOIN and UBI so neatly inserted into our minds over the last five years? They've directly told us to have three months of supplies in our homes. 2020 isn't going to be an anomaly? It's the start of the collapse of our natural resources. Take a look on Reddit and all the posts about crazy weather. Cyanobacteria blooms killing dogs and people. Toxic Super Pollution caused by atmospheric inversions killing people. This isn’t normal, this is New Normal. And they know it. They've known it for a while. Let me show you one last thing before I wrap it up.
From the earliest Chinese dynasties to the present, the jade deposits most used were not only those of Khotan in the Western Chinese province of Xinjiang but other parts of China as well, such as Lantian, Shaanxi.
Remember, words matter. Look at Gorgon Stare and Medusa. They don't randomly grab names out of a hat, or pick them because they think it sounds dystopian. They pick words for a reason.
July 7, 2017: The Warzone • There only appears to be one official news story on this exercise at all and it's available on the website of Air Mobility Command’s Eighteenth Air Force, situated at Joint Base Charleston. At the time of writing, a google shows that there were more than a half dozen more copies on other Air Force pages, as well as number of photographs. For some reason, someone appears to have taken these offline or otherwise broken all the links. Using Google to search the Defense Video Imagery Distribution System, which is the main U.S. military's public affairs hub, brings up more broken links. Oh, and unless there's been some sort of mistake, JADE HELM actually stands for the amazingly obtuse Joint Assistance for Deployment Execution Homeland Eradication of Local Militants. A separate web search for this phrase does not turn up any other results. Source Here
Now, using an acronym that indicates training to Eradicate Local Militants seems pretty dumb. It may be used in that manner if environmental collapse triggers riots, but i don't think they would warn everyone ahead of time, do you? So I dug a little bit more.
Joint Assistant for Development and Execution (JADE) is a U.S. military system used for planning the deployment of military forces in crisis situations. The U.S. military developed this automated planning software system in order to expedite the creation of the detailed planning needed to deploy military forces for a military operation. JADE uses Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology combining user input, a knowledge base of stored plans, and suggestions by the system to provide the ability to develop large-scale and complex plans in minimal time. JADE is a knowledge-based system that uses highly structured information that takes advantage of data hierarchies. An official 2016 document approved for public release titled Human Systems Roadmap Review describes plans to create autonomous weapon systems that analyze social media and make decisions, including the use of lethal force, with minimal human involvement. This type of system is referred to as a Lethal Autonomous Weapon System (LAWS). The name "JADE" comes from the jade green color seen on the island of Oahu in Hawaii where the U.S. Pacific Command (PACOM) is headquartered.
PACOM? Why isn't that command group responsible for the South China Sea?
Formerly known as United States Pacific Command (USPACOM) since its inception, the command was renamed to U.S. Indo-Pacific Command on 30 May 2018, in recognition of the greater emphasis on South Asia, especially India.
Now doesn't it look like Jade Helm is preparing for an invasion? And possibly insurrection later. Or at the same time? Or riots over WW3? Or food riots? And start thinking about why the laws are starting to exclude corporations? Then think about the mercenaries that are being contracted out by the government.
October 17, 2018: The Carolinan • In 2016, 75 percent of American forces were private contractors. In 2017, Erik Prince, former head of Blackwater, and Stephen Feinberg, head of Dyncorp, discussed plans for contractors completely taking over U.S. operations in Afghanistan. Although ultimately unsuccessful, it remains to be seen if the current administration will change its mind. Contractors are involved in almost every military task, such as intelligence analysis, logistics and training allied soldiers. Contractors are even involved in U.S. special ops missions. This is because contractors are essentially untraceable and unaccountable. Most are born in other countries; only 33 percent are registered U.S. citizens. Private military firms don’t have to report their actions to Congress, unlike the military or intelligence agencies. They also aren’t subject to the Freedom of Information Act, so private citizens and journalists aren’t allowed to access their internal documents. There are also no international laws to regulate private military firms. It’s been proven that many contractors are involved in illegal activities. The larger multinational companies sometimes hire local subcontractors. These contractors sometimes aren’t background-checked. A 2010 investigation by the Senate found that many subcontractors were linked to murders, kidnappings, bribery and anti-coalition activities. Some subcontractors even formed their own unlicensed mercenary groups after coalition forces leave. A 2010 House investigation showed evidence that the Department of Defense had hired local warlords for security services. In 2007, Blackwater contractors massacred 17 civilians. This eventually led Blackwater to being restructured and renamed as Academi. Source Here
Military Exercises. Private Defense Firms. No oversight. And it's all coming soon. Read more at Flatten the Curve. Part 20. Upcoming war and catastrophes. Source Here
Nah. I'm just fear mongering and Doomscrolling again.
Heads up and eyes open. Talk soon.
submitted by biggreekgeek to conspiracy [link] [comments]

r/Bitcoin recap - July 2019

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the 31st monthly Bitcoin news recap.
For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in July 2019
Adoption
Development
Security
Mining
Business
Education
Regulation & Politics
Archeology (Financial Incumbents)
Price & Trading
Fun & Other
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

11 Years Ago Today Satoshi Nakamoto Published the Bitcoin White Paper

11 Years Ago Today Satoshi Nakamoto Published the Bitcoin White Paper
https://preview.redd.it/comrfanlpuv31.png?width=2000&format=png&auto=webp&s=02324c6250b7dc4aa34313b5fe20ca8b9513dd92
Today, Oct. 31, marks eleven years since the publication of the Bitcoin white paper by the still-mysterious person or group pseudonymously identified as Satoshi Nakamoto.

A revolutionary text

Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System — published on Oct. 31, 2008 — outlined a tamper-proof, decentralized peer-to-peer protocol that could track and verify digital transactions, prevent double-spending and generate a transparent record for anyone to inspect in nearly real-time.
The protocol represented a cryptographically-secured system — based on a Proof-of-Work algorithm — in which Bitcoins (BTC) are “mined” for a reward by individual nodes and then verified by other nodes in a decentralized network.
This system contained the possibility of overcoming the need for intermediaries such as banks and financial institutions to facilitate and audit transactions — a major disruption to a siloed, monopolized field of centralized financial power.

304033233% all-time-price appreciation

Eleven years on, Bitcoin is consistently setting new records for its network hash rate — a measure of the overall computing power involved in validating transactions on the blockchain at any given time.
More power and participation establishes greater network security and attests to widespread recognition of the profitability potential of Bitcoin mining.
As of the middle of this month, network data revealed that since the creation of the very first block on the Bitcoin blockchain on Jan 3, 2009 — known in more technical language as its “genesis block” — miners have received combined revenue of just under $15 billion.
The figure includes both block rewards — “new” bitcoins paid to miners for validating a block of transactions — as well as transaction fees, which broke the $1 billion mark this week.
Bitcoin’s first-ever recorded trading price was noted on Mar. 17, 2010 — on the now-defunct trading platform bitcoinmarket.com, at a value of $0.003.
The cryptocurrency’s appreciation thus stands at a staggering 304033233% as of press time, with Bitcoin currently trading at $9,120.
As of this August, 85% of Bitcoin’s supply in circulation had been mined — leaving just 3.15 million new coins for the future.
Eleven years on, the mystery enshrouding the white paper’s author remains as impenetrable as ever. Those both within and without the crypto community began attempting to determine Nakamoto’s identity as early as October 2011, just a few months after the mysterious figure first went silent.
submitted by Rajladumor1 to omgfin [link] [comments]

A Beginners Guide to Bitcoin, Blockchain & Cryptocurrency

As cryptocurrency, and blockchain technology become more abundant throughout our society, it’s important to understand the inner workings of this technology, especially if you plan to use cryptocurrency as an investment vehicle. If you’re new to the crypto-sphere, learning about Bitcoin makes it much easier to understand other cryptocurrencies as many other altcoins' technologies are borrowed directly from Bitcoin.
Bitcoin is one of those things that you look into only to discover you have more questions than answers, and right as you’re starting to wrap your head around the technology; you discover the fact that Bitcoin has six other variants (forks), the amount of politics at hand, or that there are over a thousand different cryptocurrencies just as complex if not even more complex than Bitcoin.
We are currently in the infancy of blockchain technology and the effects of this technology will be as profound as the internet. This isn’t something that’s just going to fade away into history as you may have been led to believe. I believe this is something that will become an integral part of our society, eventually embedded within our technology. If you’re a crypto-newbie, be glad that you're relatively early to the industry. I hope this post will put you on the fast-track to understanding Bitcoin, blockchain, and how a large percentage of cryptocurrencies work.

Community Terminology

Altcoin: Short for alternative coin. There are over 1,000 different cryptocurrencies. You’re probably most familiar with Bitcoin. Anything that isn’t Bitcoin is generally referred to as an altcoin.
HODL: Misspelling of hold. Dank meme accidentally started by this dude. Hodlers are much more interested in long term gains rather than playing the risky game of trying to time the market.
TO THE MOON: When a cryptocurrency’s price rapidly increases. A major price spike of over 1,000% can look like it’s blasting off to the moon. Just be sure you’re wearing your seatbelt when it comes crashing down.
FUD: Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.
FOMO: Fear of missing out.
Bull Run: Financial term used to describe a rising market.
Bear Run: Financial term used to describe a falling market.

What Is Bitcoin?

Bitcoin (BTC) is a decentralized digital currency that uses cryptography to secure and ensure validity of transactions within the network. Hence the term crypto-currency. Decentralization is a key aspect of Bitcoin. There is no CEO of Bitcoin or central authoritative government in control of the currency. The currency is ran and operated by the people, for the people. One of the main development teams behind Bitcoin is blockstream.
Bitcoin is a product of blockchain technology. Blockchain is what allows for the security and decentralization of Bitcoin. To understand Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, you must understand to some degree, blockchain. This can get extremely technical the further down the rabbit hole you go, and because this is technically a beginners guide, I’m going to try and simplify to the best of my ability and provide resources for further technical reading.

A Brief History

Bitcoin was created by Satoshi Nakamoto. The identity of Nakamoto is unknown. The idea of Bitcoin was first introduced in 2008 when Nakamoto released the Bitcoin white paper - Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Later, in January 2009, Nakamoto announced the Bitcoin software and the Bitcoin network officially began.
I should also mention that the smallest unit of a Bitcoin is called a Satoshi. 1 BTC = 100,000,000 Satoshis. When purchasing Bitcoin, you don’t actually need to purchase an entire coin. Bitcoin is divisible, so you can purchase any amount greater than 1 Satoshi (0.00000001 BTC).

What Is Blockchain?

Blockchain is a distributed ledger, a distributed collection of accounts. What is being accounted for depends on the use-case of the blockchain itself. In the case of Bitcoin, what is being accounted for is financial transactions.
The first block in a blockchain is referred to as the genesis block. A block is an aggregate of data. Blocks are also discovered through a process known as mining (more on this later). Each block is cryptographically signed by the previous block in the chain and visualizing this would look something akin to a chain of blocks, hence the term, blockchain.
For more information regarding blockchain I’ve provided more resouces below:

What is Bitcoin Mining

Bitcoin mining is one solution to the double spend problem. Bitcoin mining is how transactions are placed into blocks and added onto the blockchain. This is done to ensure proof of work, where computational power is staked in order to solve what is essentially a puzzle. If you solve the puzzle correctly, you are rewarded Bitcoin in the form of transaction fees, and the predetermined block reward. The Bitcoin given during a block reward is also the only way new Bitcoin can be introduced into the economy. With a halving event occurring roughly every 4 years, it is estimated that the last Bitcoin block will be mined in the year 2,140. (See What is Block Reward below for more info).
Mining is one of those aspects of Bitcoin that can get extremely technical and more complicated the further down the rabbit hole you go. An entire website could be created (and many have) dedicated solely to information regarding Bitcoin mining. The small paragraph above is meant to briefly expose you to the function of mining and the role it plays within the ecosystem. It doesn’t even scratch the surface regarding the topic.

How do you Purchase Bitcoin?

The most popular way to purchase Bitcoin through is through an online exchange where you trade fiat (your national currency) for Bitcoin.
Popular exchanges include:
  • Coinbase
  • Kraken
  • Cex
  • Gemini
There’s tons of different exchanges. Just make sure you find one that supports your national currency.

Volatility

Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are EXTREMELY volatile. Swings of 30% or more within a few days is not unheard of. Understand that there is always inherent risks with any investment. Cryptocurrencies especially. Only invest what you’re willing to lose.

Transaction & Network Fees

Transacting on the Bitcoin network is not free. Every purchase or transfer of Bitcoin will cost X amount of BTC depending on how congested the network is. These fees are given to miners as apart of the block reward.
Late 2017 when Bitcoin got up to $20,000USD, the average network fee was ~$50. Currently, at the time of writing this, the average network fee is $1.46. This data is available in real-time on BitInfoCharts.

Security

In this new era of money, there is no central bank or government you can go to in need of assistance. This means the responsibility of your money falls 100% into your hands. That being said, the security regarding your cryptocurrency should be impeccable. The anonymity provided by cryptocurrencies alone makes you a valuable target to hackers and scammers. Below I’ve detailed out best practices regarding securing your cryptocurrency.

Two-Factor Authentication (2FA)

Two-factor authentication is a second way of authenticating your identity upon signing in to an account. Most cryptocurrency related software/websites will offer or require some form of 2FA. Upon creation of any crypto-related account find the Security section and enable 2FA.

SMS Authentication

The most basic form of 2FA which you are probably most familiar with. This form of authentication sends a text message to your smartphone with a special code that will allow access to your account upon entry. Note that this is not the safest form of 2FA as you may still be vulnerable to what is known as a SIM swap attack. SIM swapping is a social engineering method in which an attacker will call up your phone carrier, impersonating you, in attempt to re-activate your SIM card on his/her device. Once the attacker has access to your SIM card he/she now has access to your text messages which can then be used to access your online accounts. You can prevent this by using an authenticator such as Google Authenticator.

Authenticator

The use of an authenticator is the safest form of 2FA. An authenticator is installed on a seperate device and enabling it requires you input an ever changing six digit code in order to access your account. I recommend using Google Authenticator.
If a website has the option to enable an authenticator, it will give you a QR code and secret key. Use Google Authenticator to scan the QR code. The secret key consists of a random string of numbers and letters. Write this down on a seperate sheet of paper and do not store it on a digital device.
Once Google Authenticator has been enabled, every time you sign into your account, you will have to input a six-digit code that looks similar to this. If you happen to lose or damage the device you have Google Authenticator installed on, you will be locked out of your account UNLESS you have access to the secret key (which you should have written down).

Hardware Wallets

A wallet is what you store Bitcoin and cryptocurrency on. I’ll provide resources on the different type of wallets later but I want to emphasize the use of a hardware wallet (aka cold storage).
Hardware wallets are the safest way of storing cryptocurrency because it allows for your crypto to be kept offline in a physical device. After purchasing crypto via an exchange, I recommend transferring it to cold storage. The most popular hardware wallets include the Ledger Nano S, and Trezor.
Hardware wallets come with a special key so that if it gets lost or damaged, you can recover your crypto. I recommend keeping your recovery key as well as any other sensitive information in a safety deposit box.
I know this all may seem a bit manic, but it is important you take the necessary security precautions in order to ensure the safety & longevity of your cryptocurrency.

Technical Aspects of Bitcoin

TL;DR
  • Address: What you send Bitcoin to.
  • Wallet: Where you store your Bitcoin
  • Max Supply: 21 million
  • Block Time: ~10 minutes
  • Block Size: 1-2 MB
  • Block Reward: BTC reward received from mining.

What is a Bitcoin Address?

A Bitcoin address is what you send Bitcoin to. If you want to receive Bitcoin you’d give someone your Bitcoin address. Think of a Bitcoin address as an email address for money.

What is a Bitcoin Wallet?

As the title implies, a Bitcoin wallet is anything that can store Bitcoin. There are many different types of wallets including paper wallets, software wallets and hardware wallets. It is generally advised NOT to keep cryptocurrency on an exchange, as exchanges are prone to hacks (see Mt. Gox hack).
My preferred method of storing cryptocurrency is using a hardware wallet such as the Ledger Nano S or Trezor. These allow you to keep your crypto offline in physical form and as a result, much more safe from hacks. Paper wallets also allow for this but have less functionality in my opinion.
After I make crypto purchases, I transfer it to my Ledger Nano S and keep that in a safe at home. Hardware wallets also come with a special key so that if it gets lost or damaged, you can recover your crypto. I recommend keeping your recovery key in a safety deposit box.

What is Bitcoins Max Supply?

The max supply of Bitcoin is 21 million. The only way new Bitcoins can be introduced into the economy are through block rewards which are given after successfully mining a block (more on this later).

What is Bitcoins Block Time?

The average time in which blocks are created is called block time. For Bitcoin, the block time is ~10 minutes, meaning, 10 minutes is the minimum amount of time it will take for a Bitcoin transaction to be processed. Note that transactions on the Bitcoin network can take much longer depending on how congested the network is. Having to wait a few hours or even a few days in some instances for a transaction to clear is not unheard of.
Other cryptocurrencies will have different block times. For example, Ethereum has a block time of ~15 seconds.
For more information on how block time works, Prabath Siriwardena has a good block post on this subject which can be found here.

What is Bitcoins Block Size?

There is a limit to how large blocks can be. In the early days of Bitcoin, the block size was 36MB, but in 2010 this was reduced to 1 MB in order to prevent distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS), spam, and other malicious use on the blockchain. Nowadays, blocks are routinely in excess of 1MB, with the largest to date being somewhere around 2.1 MB.
There is much debate amongst the community on whether or not to increase Bitcoin’s block size limit to account for ever-increasing network demand. A larger block size would allow for more transactions to be processed. The con argument to this is that decentralization would be at risk as mining would become more centralized. As a result of this debate, on August 1, 2017, Bitcoin underwent a hard-fork and Bitcoin Cash was created which has a block size limit of 8 MB. Note that these are two completely different blockchains and sending Bitcoin to a Bitcoin Cash wallet (or vice versa) will result in a failed transaction.
Update: As of May 15th, 2018 Bitcoin Cash underwent another hard fork and the block size has increased to 32 MB.
On the topic of Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash and which cryptocurrency is better, I’ll let you do your own research and make that decision for yourself. It is good to know that this is a debated topic within the community and example of the politics that manifest within the space. Now if you see community members arguing about this topic, you’ll at least have a bit of background to the issue.

What is Block Reward?

Block reward is the BTC you receive after discovering a block. Blocks are discovered through a process called mining. The only way new BTC can be added to the economy is through block rewards and the block reward is halved every 210,000 blocks (approximately every 4 years). Halving events are done to limit the supply of Bitcoin. At the inception of Bitcoin, the block reward was 50BTC. At the time of writing this, the block reward is 12.5BTC. Halving events will continue to occur until the amount of new Bitcoin introduced into the economy becomes less than 1 Satoshi. This is expected to happen around the year 2,140. All 21 million Bitcoins will have been mined. Once all Bitcoins have been mined, the block reward will only consist of transaction fees.

Technical Aspects Continued

Understanding Nodes

Straight from the Bitcoin.it wiki
Any computer that connects to the Bitcoin network is called a node. Nodes that fully verify all of the rules of Bitcoin are called full nodes.
In other words, full nodes are what verify the Bitcoin blockchain and they play a crucial role in maintaining the decentralized network. Full nodes store the entirety of the blockchain and validate transactions. Anyone can participate in the Bitcoin network and run a full node. Bitcoin.org has information on how to set up a full node. Running a full node also gives you wallet capabilities and the ability to query the blockchain.
For more information on Bitcoin nodes, see Andreas Antonopoulos’s Q&A on the role of nodes.

What is a Fork?

A fork is a divergence in a blockchain. Since Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer network, there’s an overall set of rules (protocol) in which participants within the network must abide by. These rules are put in place to form network consensus. Forks occur when implementations must be made to the blockchain or if there is disagreement amongst the network on how consensus should be achieved.

Soft Fork vs Hard Fork

The difference between soft and hard forks lies in compatibility. Soft forks are backwards compatible, hard forks are not. Think of soft forks as software upgrades to the blockchain, whereas hard forks are a software upgrade that warrant a completely new blockchain.
During a soft fork, miners and nodes upgrade their software to support new consensus rules. Nodes that do not upgrade will still accept the new blockchain.
Examples of Bitcoin soft forks include:
A hard fork can be thought of as the creation of a new blockchain that X percentage of the community decides to migrate too. During a hard fork, miners and nodes upgrade their software to support new consensus rules, Nodes that do not upgrade are invalid and cannot accept the new blockchain.
Examples of Bitcoin hard forks include:
  • Bitcoin Cash
  • Bitcoin Gold
Note that these are completely different blockchains and independent from the Bitcoin blockchain. If you try to send Bitcoin to one of these blockchains, the transaction will fail.

A Case For Bitcoin in a World of Centralization

Our current financial system is centralized, which means the ledger(s) that operate within this centralized system are subjugated to control, manipulation, fraud, and many other negative aspects that come with this system. There are also pros that come with a centralized system, such as the ability to swiftly make decisions. However, at some point, the cons outweigh the pros, and change is needed. What makes Bitcoin so special as opposed to our current financial system is that Bitcoin allows for the decentralized transfer of money. Not one person owns the Bitcoin network, everybody does. Not one person controls Bitcoin, everybody does. A decentralized system in theory removes much of the baggage that comes with a centralized system. Not to say the Bitcoin network doesn’t have its problems (wink wink it does), and there’s much debate amongst the community as to how to go about solving these issues. But even tiny steps are significant steps in the world of blockchain, and I believe Bitcoin will ultimately help to democratize our financial system, whether or not you believe it is here to stay for good.

Final Conclusions

Well that was a lot of words… Anyways I hope this guide was beneficial, especially to you crypto newbies out there. You may have come into this realm not expecting there to be an abundance of information to learn about. I know I didn’t. Bitcoin is only the tip of the iceberg, but now that you have a fundamental understanding of Bitcoin, learning about other cryptocurrencies such as Litecoin, and Ethereum will come more naturally.
Feel free to ask questions below! I’m sure either the community or myself would be happy to answer your questions.
Thanks for reading!

Related Links

Guides

Exchanges

submitted by MrCryptoDude to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Console gaming is hardly different from PC gaming, and much of what people say about PC gaming to put it above console gaming is often wrong.

I’m not sure about you, but for the past few years, I’ve been hearing people go on and on about PCs "superiority" to the console market. People cite various reasons why they believe gaming on a PC is “objectively” better than console gaming, often for reasons related to power, costs, ease-of-use, and freedom.
…Only problem: much of what they say is wrong.
There are many misconceptions being thrown about PC gaming vs Console gaming, that I believe need to be addressed. This isn’t about “PC gamers being wrong,” or “consoles being the best,” absolutely not. I just want to cut through some of the stuff people use to put down console gaming, and show that console gaming is incredibly similar to PC gaming. I mean, yes, this is someone who mainly games on console, but I also am getting a new PC that I will game on as well, not to mention the 30 PC games I already own and play. I’m not particularly partial to one over the other.
Now I will mainly be focusing on the PlayStation side of the consoles, because I know it best, but much of what I say will apply to Xbox as well. Just because I don’t point out many specific Xbox examples, doesn’t mean that they aren’t out there.

“PCs can use TVs and monitors.”

This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is the implication of one, and overall just… confusing. This is in some articles and the pcmasterrace “why choose a PC” section, where they’re practically implying that consoles can’t do this. I mean, yes, as long as the ports of your PC match up with your screen(s) inputs, you could plug a PC into either… but you could do the same with a console, again, as long as the ports match up.
I’m guessing the idea here is that gaming monitors often use Displayport, as do most dedicated GPUs, and consoles are generally restricted to HDMI… But even so, monitors often have HDMI ports. In fact, PC Magazine has just released their list of the best gaming monitors of 2017, and every single one of them has an HDMI port. A PS4 can be plugged into these just as easily as a GTX 1080.
I mean, even if the monitoTV doesn’t have HDMI or AV to connect with your console, just use an adaptor. If you have a PC with ports that doesn’t match your monitoTV… use an adapter. I don’t know what the point of this argument is, but it’s made a worrying amount of times.

“On PC, you have a wide range of controller options, but on console you’re stuck with the standard controller."

Are you on PlayStation and wish you could use a specific type of controller that suits your favorite kind of gameplay? Despite what some may believe, you have just as many options as PC.
Want to play fighting games with a classic arcade-style board, featuring the buttons and joystick? Here you go!
Want to get serious about racing and get something more accurate and immersive than a controller? Got you covered.
Absolutely crazy about flying games and, like the racers, want something better than a controller? Enjoy!
Want Wii-style motion controls? Been around since the PS3. If you prefer the form factor of the Xbox One controller but you own a PS4, Hori’s got you covered. And of course, if keyboard and mouse it what keeps you on PC, there’s a PlayStation compatible solution for that. Want to use the keyboard and mouse that you already own? Where there’s a will, there’s a way.
Of course, these aren’t isolated examples, there are plenty of options for each of these kind of controllers. You don’t have to be on PC to enjoy alternate controllers.

“On PC you could use Steam Link to play anywhere in your house and share games with others.”

PS4 Remote play app on PC/Mac, PSTV, and PS Vita.
PS Family Sharing.
Using the same PSN account on multiple PS4s/Xbox Ones and PS3s/360s, or using multiple accounts on the same console.
In fact, if multiple users are on the same PS4, only one has to buy the game for both users to play it on that one PS4. On top of that, only one of them has to have PS Plus for both to play online (if the one with PS Plus registers the PS4 as their main system).
PS4 Share Play; if two people on separate PS4s want to play a game together that only one of them owns, they can join a Party and the owner of the game can have their friend play with them in the game.
Need I say more?

“Gaming is more expensive on console.”

Part one, the Software
This is one that I find… genuinely surprising. There’s been a few times I’ve mentioned that part of the reason I chose a PS4 is for budget gaming, only to told that “games are cheaper on Steam.” To be fair, there are a few games on PSN/XBL that are more expensive than they are on Steam, so I can see how someone could believe this… but apparently they forgot about disks.
Dirt Rally, a hardcore racing sim game that’s… still $60 on all 3 platforms digitally… even though its successor is out.
So does this mean you have to pay full retail for this racing experience? Nope, because disk prices.
Just Cause 3, an insane open-world experience that could essentially be summed up as “break stuff, screw physics.” And it’s a good example of where the Steam price is lower than PSN and XBL:
Not by much, but still cheaper on Steam, so cheaper on PC… Until you look at the disk prices.
See my point? Often times the game is cheaper on console because of the disk alternative that’s available for practically every console-available game. Even when the game is brand new.
Dirt 4 - Remember that Dirt Rally successor I mentioned?
Yes, you could either buy this relatively new game digitally for $60, or just pick up the disk for a discounted price. And again, this is for a game that came out 2 months ago, and even it’s predecessor’s digital cost is locked at $60. Of course, I’m not going to ignore the fact that Dirt 4 is currently (as of writing this) discounted on Steam, but on PSN it also happens to be discounted for about the same amount.
Part 2: the Subscription
Now… let’s not ignore the elephant in the room: PS Plus and Xbox Gold. Now these would be ignorable, if they weren’t required for online play (on the PlayStation side, it’s only required for PS4, but still). So yes, it’s still something that will be included in the cost of your PS4 or Xbox One/360, assuming you play online. Bummer, right?
Here’s the thing, although that’s the case, although you have to factor in this $60 cost with your console, you can make it balance out, at worst, and make it work out for you as a budget gamer, at best. As nice as it would be to not have to deal with the price if you don’t want to, it’s not like it’s a problem if you use it correctly.
Imagine going to a new restaurant. This restaurant has some meals that you can’t get anywhere else, and fair prices compared to competitors. Only problem: you have to pay a membership fee to have the sides. Now you can have the main course, sit down and enjoy your steak or pasta, but if you want to have a side to have a full meal, you have to pay an annual fee.
Sounds shitty, right? But here’s the thing: not only does this membership allow you to have sides with your meal, but it also allows you to eat two meals for free every month, and also gives you exclusive discounts for other meals, drinks, and desserts.
Let’s look at PS Plus for a minute: for $60 per year, you get:
  • 2 free PS4 games, every month
  • 2 free PS3 games, every month
  • 1 PS4/PS3 and Vita compatible game, and 1 Vita-only game, every month
  • Exclusive/Extended discounts, especially during the weekly/seasonal sales (though you don’t need PS Plus to get sales, PS Plus members get to enjoy the best sales)
  • access to online multiplayer
So yes, you’re paying extra because of that membership, but what you get with that deal pays for it and then some. In fact, let’s ignore the discounts for a minute: you get 24 free PS4 games, 24 free PS3 games, and 12 Vita only + 12 Vita compatible games, up to 72 free games every year. Even if you only one of these consoles, that’s still 24 free games a year. Sure, maybe you get games for the month that you don’t like, then just wait until next month.
In fact, let’s look at Just Cause 3 again. It was free for PS Plus members in August, which is a pretty big deal. Why is this significant? Because it’s, again, a $60 digital game. That means with this one download, you’ve balanced out your $60 annual fee. Meaning? Every free game after that is money saved, every discount after that is money saved. And this is a trend: every year, PS Plus will release a game that balances out the entire service cost, then another 23 more that will only add icing to that budget cake. Though, you could just count games as paying off PS Plus until you hit $60 in savings, but still.
All in all, PS Plus, and Xbox Gold which offers similar options, saves you money. On top of that, again, you don't need to have these to get discounts, but with these memberships, you get more discounts.
Now, I’ve seen a few Steam games go up for free for a week, but what about being free for an entire month? Not to mention that; even if you want to talk about Steam Summer Sales, what about the PSN summer sale, or again, disc sale discounts? Now a lot of research and math would be needed to see if every console gamer would save money compared to every Steam gamer for the same games, but at the very least? The costs will balance out, at worst.
Part 3, the Systems
  • Xbox and PS2: $299
  • Xbox 360 and PS3: $299 and $499, respectively
  • Xbox One and PS4: $499 and $399, respectively.
Rounded up a few dollars, that’s $1,000 - $1,300 in day-one consoles, just to keep up with the games! Crazy right? So called budget systems, such a rip-off.
Well, keep in mind that the generations here aren’t short.
The 6th generation, from the launch of the PS2 to the launch of the next generation consoles, lasted 5 years, 6 years based on the launch of the PS3 (though you could say it was 9 or 14, since the Xbox wasn’t discontinued until 2009, and the PS2 was supported all the way to 2014, a year after the PS4 was released). The 7th gen lasted 7 - 8 years, again depending on whether you count the launch of the Xbox 360 to PS3. The 8th gen so far has lasted 4 years. That’s 17 years that the console money is spread over. If you had a Netflix subscription for it’s original $8 monthly plan for that amount of time, that would be over $1,600 total.
And let’s be fair here, just like you could upgrade your PC hardware whenever you wanted, you didn’t have to get a console from launch. Let’s look at PlayStation again for example: In 2002, only two years after its release, the PS2 retail price was cut from $300 to $200. The PS3 Slim, released 3 years after the original, was $300, $100-$200 lower than the retail cost. The PS4? You could’ve either gotten the Uncharted bundle for $350, or one of the PS4 Slim bundles for $250. This all brings it down to $750 - $850, which again, is spread over a decade and a half. This isn’t even counting used consoles, sales, or the further price cuts that I didn’t mention.
Even if that still sounds like a lot of money to you, even if you’re laughing at the thought of buying new systems every several years, because your PC “is never obsolete,” tell me: how many parts have you changed out in your PC over the years? How many GPUs have you been through? CPUs? Motherboards? RAM sticks, monitors, keyboards, mice, CPU coolers, hard drives— that adds up. You don’t need to replace your entire system to spend a lot of money on hardware.
Even if you weren’t upgrading for the sake of upgrading, I’d be amazed if the hardware you’ve been pushing by gaming would last for about 1/3 of that 17 year period. Computer parts aren’t designed to last forever, and really won’t when you’re pushing them with intensive gaming for hours upon hours. Generally speaking, your components might last you 6-8 years, if you’ve got the high-end stuff. But let’s assume you bought a system 17 years ago that was a beast for it’s time, something so powerful, that even if it’s parts have degraded over time, it’s still going strong. Problem is: you will have to upgrade something eventually.
Even if you’ve managed to get this far into the gaming realm with the same 17 year old hardware, I’m betting you didn’t do it with a 17 year Operating System. How much did Windows 7 cost you? Or 8.1? Or 10? Oh, and don’t think you can skirt the cost by getting a pre-built system, the cost of Windows is embedded into the cost of the machine (why else would Microsoft allow their OS to go on so many machines).
Sure, Windows 10 was a free upgrade for a year, but that’s only half of it’s lifetime— You can’t get it for free now, and not for the past year. On top of that, the free period was an upgrade; you had to pay for 7 or 8 first anyway.
Point is, as much as one would like to say that they didn’t need to buy a new system every so often for the sake of gaming, that doesn’t mean they haven’t been paying for hardware, and even if they’ve only been PC gaming recently, you’ll be spending money on hardware soon enough.

“PC is leading the VR—“

Let me stop you right there.
If you add together the total number of Oculus Rifts and HTC Vives sold to this day, and threw in another 100,000 just for the sake of it, that number would still be under the number of PSVR headsets sold.
Why could this possibly be? Well, for a simple reason: affordability. The systems needed to run the PC headsets costs $800+, and the headsets are $500 - $600, when discounted. PSVR on the other hand costs $450 for the full bundle (headset, camera, and move controllers, with a demo disc thrown in), and can be played on either a $250 - $300 console, or a $400 console, the latter recommended. Even if you want to say that the Vive and Rift are more refined, a full PSVR set, system and all, could cost just over $100 more than a Vive headset alone.
If anything, PC isn’t leading the VR gaming market, the PS4 is. It’s the system bringing VR to the most consumers, showing them what the future of gaming could look like. Not to mention that as the PlayStation line grows more powerful (4.2 TFLOP PS4 Pro, 10 TFLOP “PS5…”), it won’t be long until the PlayStation line can use the same VR games as PC.
Either way, this shows that there is a console equivalent to the PC VR options. Sure, there are some games you'd only be able to play on PC, but there are also some games you'd only be able to play on PSVR.
…Though to be fair, if we’re talking about VR in general, these headsets don’t even hold a candle to, surprisingly, Gear VR.

“If it wasn’t for consoles holding devs back, then they would be able to make higher quality games.”

This one is based on the idea that because of how “low spec” consoles are, that when a developer has to take them in mind, then they can’t design the game to be nearly as good as it would be otherwise. I mean, have you ever seen the minimum specs for games on Steam?
GTA V
  • CPU: Intel Core 2 Quad CPU Q6600 @ 2.40GHz (4 CPUs) / AMD Phenom 9850 Quad-Core Processor (4 CPUs) @ 2.5GHz
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA 9800 GT 1GB / AMD HD 4870 1GB (DX 10, 10.1, 11)
Just Cause 3
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-2500k, 3.3GHz / AMD Phenom II X6 1075T 3GHz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 670 (2GB) / AMD Radeon HD 7870 (2GB)
Fallout 4
  • CPU: Intel Core i5-2300 2.8 GHz/AMD Phenom II X4 945 3.0 GHz or equivalent
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA GTX 550 Ti 2GB/AMD Radeon HD 7870 2GB or equivalent
Overwatch
  • CPU: Intel Core i3 or AMD Phenom™ X3 8650
  • Memory: 4 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVIDIA® GeForce® GTX 460, ATI Radeon™ HD 4850, or Intel® HD Graphics 4400
Witcher 3
  • Processor: Intel CPU Core i5-2500K 3.3GHz / AMD CPU Phenom II X4 940
  • Memory: 6 GB RAM
  • Graphics: Nvidia GPU GeForce GTX 660 / AMD GPU Radeon HD 7870
Actually, bump up all the memory requirements to 8 GBs, and those are some decent specs, relatively speaking. And keep in mind these are the minimum specs to even open the games. It’s almost as if the devs didn’t worry about console specs when making a PC version of the game, because this version of the game isn’t on console. Or maybe even that the consoles aren’t holding the games back that much because they’re not that weak. Just a hypothesis.
But I mean, the devs are still ooobviously having to take weak consoles into mind right? They could make their games sooo much more powerful if they were PC only, right? Right?
No. Not even close.
iRacing
  • CPU: Intel Core i3, i5, i7 or better or AMD Bulldozer or better
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • GPU: NVidia GeForce 2xx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory / AMD 5xxx series or better, 1GB+ dedicated video memory
Playerunknown’s Battlegrounds
  • CPU: Intel Core i3-4340 / AMD FX-6300
  • Memory: 6 GB RAM
  • GPU: nVidia GeForce GTX 660 2GB / AMD Radeon HD 7850 2GB
These are PC only games. That’s right, no consoles to hold them back, they don’t have to worry about whether an Xbox One could handle it. Yet, they don’t require anything more than the Multiplatform games.
Subnautica
  • CPU: Intel Haswell 2 cores / 4 threads @ 2.5Ghz or equivalent
  • Memory: 4GB
  • GPU: Intel HD 4600 or equivalent - This includes most GPUs scoring greater than 950pts in the 3DMark Fire Strike benchmark
Rust
  • CPU: 2 ghz
  • Memory: 8 GB RAM
  • DirectX: Version 11 (they don’t even list a GPU)
So what’s the deal? Theoretically, if developers don’t have to worry about console specs, then why aren’t they going all-out and making games that no console could even dream of supporting?
Low-end PCs.
What, did you think people only game on Steam if they spent at least $500 on gaming hardware? Not all PC gamers have gaming-PC specs, and if devs close their games out to players who don’t have the strongest of PCs, then they’d be losing out on a pretty sizable chunk of their potential buyers.
Saying “devs having to deal with consoles is holding gaming back” is like saying “racing teams having to deal with Ford is holding GT racing back.” A: racing teams don’t have to deal with Ford if they don’t want to, which is probably why many of them don’t, and B: even though Ford doesn’t make the fastest cars overall, they still manage to make cars that are awesome on their own, they don’t even need to be compared to anything else to know that they make good cars.
I want to go back to that previous point though, developers having to deal with low-end PCs, because it’s integral to the next point:

“PCs are more powerful, gaming on PC provides a better experience.”

This one isn’t so much of a misconception as it is… misleading.
Did you know that according to the Steam Hardware & Software Survey (July 2017) , the percentage of Steam gamers who use a GPU that's less powerful than that of a PS4 Slim’s GPU is well over 50%? Things get dismal when compared to the PS4 Pro (Or Xbox One X). On top of that, the percentage of PC gamers who own a Nvidia 10 series card is about 20% (about 15% for the 1060, 1080 and 1070 owners).
Now to be fair, the large majority of gamers have CPUs with considerably high clock speeds, which is the main factor in CPU gaming performance. But, the number of Steam gamers with as much RAM or more than a PS4 or Xbox One is less than 50%, which can really bottleneck what those CPUs can handle.
These numbers are hardly better than they were in 2013, all things considered. Sure, a PS3/360 weeps in the face of even a $400 PC, but in this day in age, consoles have definitely caught up.
Sure, we could mention the fact that even 1% of Steam accounts represents over 1 million accounts, but that doesn’t really matter compared to the 10s of millions of 8th gen consoles sold; looking at it that way, sure the number of Nvidia 10 series owners is over 20 million, but that ignores the fact that there are over 5 times more 8th gen consoles sold than that.
Basically, even though PCs run on a spectrum, saying they're more powerful “on average” is actually wrong. Sure, they have the potential for being more powerful, but most of the time, people aren’t willing to pay the premium to reach those extra bits of performance.
Now why is this important? What matters are the people who spent the premium cost for premium parts, right? Because of the previous point: PCs don’t have some ubiquitous quality over the consoles, developers will always have to keep low-end PCs in mind, because not even half of all PC players can afford the good stuff, and you have to look at the top quarter of Steam players before you get to PS4-Pro-level specs. If every Steam player were to get a PS4 Pro, it would be an upgrade for over 60% of them, and 70% of them would be getting an upgrade with the Xbox One X.
Sure, you could still make the argument that when you pay more for PC parts, you get a better experience than you could with a console. We can argue all day about budget PCs, but a console can’t match up to a $1,000 PC build. It’s the same as paying more for car parts, in the end you get a better car. However, there is a certain problem with that…

“You pay a little more for a PC, you get much more quality.”

The idea here is that the more you pay for PC parts, the performance increases at a faster rate than the price does. Problem: that’s not how technology works. Paying twice as much doesn’t get you twice the quality the majority of the time.
For example, let’s look at graphics cards, specifically the GeForce 10 series cards, starting with the GTX 1050.
  • 1.8 TFLOP
  • 1.35 GHz base clock
  • 2 GB VRAM
  • $110
This is our reference, our basis of comparison. Any percentages will be based on the 1050’s specs.
Now let’s look at the GTX 1050 Ti, the 1050’s older brother.
  • 2.1 TFLOP
  • 1.29 GHz base clock
  • 4 GB VRAM
  • $140 retail
This is pretty good. You only increase the price by about 27%, and you get an 11% increase in floating point speed and a 100% increase (double) in VRAM. Sure you get a slightly lower base clock, but the rest definitely makes up for it. In fact, according to GPU boss, the Ti managed 66 fps, or a 22% increase in frame rate for Battlefield 4, and a 54% increase in mHash/second in bitcoin mining. The cost increase is worth it, for the most part.
But let’s get to the real meat of it; what happens when we double our budget? Surely we should see a massive increase performance, I bet some of you are willing to bet that twice the cost means more than twice the performance.
The closest price comparison for double the cost is the GTX 1060 (3 GB), so let’s get a look at that.
  • 3.0 TFLOP
  • 1.5 GHz base clock
  • 3 GB VRAM
  • $200 retail
Well… not substantial, I’d say. About a 50% increase in floating point speed, an 11% increase in base clock speed, and a 1GB decrease in VRAM. For [almost] doubling the price, you don’t get much.
Well surely raw specs don’t tell the full story, right? Well, let’s look at some real wold comparisons. Once again, according to GPU Boss, there’s a 138% increase in hashes/second for bitcoin mining, and at 99 fps, an 83% frame rate increase in Battlefield 4. Well, then, raw specs does not tell the whole story!
Here’s another one, the 1060’s big brother… or, well, slightly-more-developed twin.
  • 3.9 TFLOP
  • 1.5 GHz base clock
  • 6 GB VRAM
  • $250 retail
Seems reasonable, another $50 for a decent jump in power and double the memory! But, as we’ve learned, we shouldn’t look at the specs for the full story.
I did do a GPU Boss comparison, but for the BF4 frame rate, I had to look at Tom’s Hardware (sorry miners, GPU boss didn’t cover the mHash/sec spec either). What’s the verdict? Well, pretty good, I’d say. With 97 FPS, a 79% increase over the 1050— wait. 97? That seems too low… I mean, the 3GB version got 99.
Well, let’s see what Tech Power Up has to say...
94.3 fps. 74% increase. Huh.
Alright alright, maybe that was just a dud. We can gloss over that I guess. Ok, one more, but let’s go for the big fish: the GTX 1080.
  • 9.0 TFLOP
  • 1.6 GHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $500 retail
That jump in floating point speed definitely has to be something, and 4 times the VRAM? Sure it’s 5 times the price, but as we saw, raw power doesn’t always tell the full story. GPU Boss returns to give us the run down, how do these cards compare in the real world?
Well… a 222% (over three-fold) increase in mHash speed, and a 218% increase in FPS for Battlefield 4. That’s right, for 5 times the cost, you get 3 times the performance. Truly, the raw specs don’t tell the full story.
You increase the cost by 27%, you increase frame rate in our example game by 22%. You increase the cost by 83%, you increase the frame rate by 83%. Sounds good, but if you increase the cost by 129%, and you get a 79% (-50% cost/power increase) increase in frame rate. You increase it by 358%, and you increase the frame rate by 218% (-140% cost/power increase). That’s not paying “more for much more power,” that’s a steep drop-off after the third cheapest option.
In fact, did you know that you have to get to the 1060 (6GB) before you could compare the GTX line to a PS4 Pro? Not to mention that at $250, the price of a 1060 (6GB) you could get an entire PS4 Slim bundle, or that you have to get to the 1070 before you beat the Xbox One X.
On another note, let’s look at a PS4 Slim…
  • 1.84 TFLOP
  • 800 MHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $300 retail
…Versus a PS4 Pro.
  • 4.2 TFLOP
  • 911 MHz base clock
  • 8 GB VRAM
  • $400 retail
128% increase in floating point speed, 13% increase in clock speed, for a 25% difference in cost. Unfortunately there is no Battlefield 4 comparison to make, but in BF1, the frame rate is doubled (30 fps to 60) and the textures are taken to 11. For what that looks like, I’ll leave it up to this bloke. Not to even mention that you can even get the texture buffs in 4K. Just like how you get a decent increase in performance based on price for the lower-cost GPUs, the same applies here.
It’s even worse when you look at the CPU for a gaming PC. The more money you spend, again, the less of a benefit you get per dollar. Hardware Unboxed covers this in a video comparing different levels of Intel CPUs. One thing to note is that the highest i7 option (6700K) in this video was almost always within 10 FPS (though for a few games, 15 FPS) of a certain CPU in that list for just about all of the games.
…That CPU was the lowest i3 (6100) option. The lowest i3 was $117 and the highest i7 was $339, a 189% price difference for what was, on average, a 30% or less difference in frame rate. Even the lowest Pentium option (G4400, $63) was often able to keep up with the i7.
The CPU and GPU are usually the most expensive and power-consuming parts of a build, which is why I focused on them (other than the fact that they’re the two most important parts of a gaming PC, outside of RAM). With both, this “pay more to get much more performance” idea is pretty much the inverse of the truth.

“The console giants are bad for game developers, Steam doesn't treat developers as bad as Microsoft or especially Sony.”

Now one thing you might’ve heard is that the PS3 was incredibly difficult for developers to make games for, which for some, fueled the idea that console hardware is difficult too develop on compared to PC… but this ignores a very basic idea that we’ve already touched on: if the devs don’t want to make the game compatible with a system, they don’t have to. In fact, this is why Left 4 Dead and other Valve games aren’t on PS3, because they didn’t want to work with it’s hardware, calling it “too complex.” This didn’t stop the game from selling well over 10 million units worldwide. If anything, this was a problem for the PS3, not the dev team.
This also ignores that games like LittleBigPlanet, Grand Theft Auto IV, and Metal Gear Solid 4 all came out in the same year as Left 4 Dead (2008) on PS3. Apparently, plenty of other dev teams didn’t have much of a problem with the PS3’s hardware, or at the very least, they got used to it soon enough.
On top of that, when developing the 8th gen consoles, both Sony and Microsoft sought to use CPUs that were easier for developers, which included making decisions that considered apps for the consoles’ usage for more than gaming. On top of that, using their single-chip proprietary CPUs is cheaper and more energy efficient than buying pre-made CPUs and boards, which is far better of a reason for using them than some conspiracy about Sony and MS trying to make devs' lives harder.
Now, console exclusives are apparently a point of contention: it’s often said that exclusive can cause developers to go bankrupt. However, exclusivity doesn’t have to be a bad thing for the developer. For example, when Media Molecule had to pitch their game to a publisher (Sony, coincidentally), they didn’t end up being tied into something detrimental to them.
Their initial funding lasted for 6 months. From then, Sony offered additional funding, in exchange for Console Exclusivity. This may sound concerning to some, but the game ended up going on to sell almost 6 million units worldwide and launched Media Molecule into the gaming limelight. Sony later bought the development studio, but 1: this was in 2010, two years after LittleBigPlanet’s release, and 2: Media Molecule seem pretty happy about it to this day. If anything, signing up with Sony was one of the best things they could’ve done, in their opinion.
Does this sound like a company that has it out for developers? There are plenty of examples that people will use to put Valve in a good light, but even Sony is comparatively good to developers.

“There are more PC gamers.”

The total number of active PC gamers on Steam has surpassed 120 million, which is impressive, especially considering that this number is double that of 2013’s figure (65 million). But the number of monthly active users on Xbox Live and PSN? About 120 million (1, 2) total. EDIT: You could argue that this isn't an apples-to-apples comparison, sure, so if you want to, say, compare the monthly number of Steam users to console? Steam has about half of what consoles do, at 67 million.
Now, back to the 65 million total user figure for Steam, the best I could find for reference for PlayStation's number was an article giving the number of registered PSN accounts in 2013, 150 million. In a similar 4-year period (2009 - 2013), the number of registered PSN accounts didn’t double, it sextupled, or increased by 6 fold. Considering how the PS4 is already at 2/3 of the number of sales the PS3 had, even though it’s currently 3 years younger than its predecessor, I’m sure this trend is at least generally consistent.
For example, let’s look at DOOM 2016, an awesome faced-paced shooting title with graphics galore… Of course, on a single platform, it sold best on PC/Steam. 2.36 million Steam sales, 2.05 million PS4 sales, 1.01 million Xbox One sales.
But keep in mind… when you add the consoles sales together, you get over 3 million sales on the 8th gen systems. Meaning: this game was best sold on console. In fact, the Steam sales have only recently surpassed the PS4 sales. By the way VG charts only shows sales for physical copies of the games, so the number of PS4 and Xbox sales, when digital sales are included, are even higher than 3 million.
This isn’t uncommon, by the way.
Even with the games were the PC sales are higher than either of the consoles, there generally are more console sales total. But, to be fair, this isn’t anything new. The number of PC gamers hasn’t dominated the market, the percentages have always been about this much. PC can end up being the largest single platform for games, but consoles usually sell more copies total.
EDIT: There were other examples but... Reddit has a 40,000-character limit.

"Modding is only on PC."

Xbox One is already working on it, and Bethesda is helping with that.
PS4 isn't far behind either. You could argue that these are what would be the beta stages of modding, but that just means modding on consoles will only grow.

What’s the Point?

This isn’t to say that there’s anything wrong with PC gaming, and this isn’t to exalt consoles. I’m not here to be the hipster defending the little guy, nor to be the one to try to put down someone/thing out of spite. This is about showing that PCs and consoles are overall pretty similar because there isn’t much dividing them, and that there isn’t anything wrong with being a console gamer. There isn’t some chasm separating consoles and PCs, at the end of the day they’re both computers that are (generally) designed for gaming. This about unity as gamers, to try to show that there shouldn’t be a massive divide just because of the computer system you game on. I want gamers to be in an environment where specs don't separate us; whether you got a $250 PS4 Slim or just built a $2,500 gaming PC, we’re here to game and should be able to have healthy interactions regardless of your platform.
I’m well aware that this isn’t going to fix… much, but this needs to be said: there isn’t a huge divide between the PC and consoles, they’re far more similar than people think. There are upsides and downsides that one has that the other doesn’t on both sides. There’s so much more I could touch on, like how you could use SSDs or 3.5 inch hard drives with both, or that even though PC part prices go down over time, so do consoles, but I just wanted to touch on the main points people try to use to needlessly separate the two kinds of systems (looking at you PCMR) and correct them, to get the point across.
I thank anyone who takes the time to read all of this, and especially anyone who doesn’t take what I say out of context. I also want to note that, again, this isn’tanti-PC gamer.” If it were up to me, everyone would be a hybrid gamer.
Cheers.
submitted by WhyyyCantWeBeFriends to unpopularopinion [link] [comments]

Three Laws of BTC Bull and Bear Cycle and Its Applications — Freezing Point Forecast — One

Three Laws of BTC Bull and Bear Cycle and Its Applications — Freezing Point Forecast — One
📷
https://preview.redd.it/ithso6k9w7531.jpg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e87d53120d9cc645b080c070afc5f9b402d56bf3
TOKEN Roll x FENBUSHI DIGITAL
Analyst: Song Shuangjie
Special Adviser: Shen Bo Rin
Guide:
The fourth price-rising cycle of BTC might commence around May 2019. The mainstream institutions join the game and ETF might be the driving force of the fourth round of price cycle.
Summary:
BTC has undergone three rounds of price cycles. ‘It is different this time’ has always been a terrible lesson for investors. The tokens, typical represented by BTC, are special in nature to other financial products, which makes it easily get mistaken that BTC will go up straightly and never decline. When the cycle power works, the asset price, which was thought to create a different history, will collapse. There are 3 major rules of the BTC price cycle:
A. BTC price cycle is closely related to its halving cycle. A complete BTC price cycle lasts for about four years. The price-rising section will commence one year ahead of the time before the output is halved. The BTC output was halved for the first time at the end of November 2012, and before that the BTC price touched the bottom in November 2011. The BTC output was halved for the second time in July 2016, as the BTC price touched the bottom in August 2015. As you can see, each time BTC output halving, is the start of a price-rising cycle, and the price speeding up begins with it.
B. BTC price fluctuation range decreases as market value increasing. The BTC’s (in circulation) market value varies with its price fluctuations, which means BTC’s price rising makes its market value increases, and the price fluctuation range decreases. It is similar to the historical process of other asset classes. During the first price cycle, the price of BTC rose by 10636 times which was the biggest gain, and the maximum drawdown was declined by 93.76%. During the second price cycle, the price of BTC rose by 623 times, and declined by 83.93% maximum. During the third price cycle, BTC rose by 98.57 times at most, the maximum declining has not been confirmed yet.
C. The innovation led by BTC is constantly evolving and more and more approved by the mainstream. From BTC to Altcoin, from Altcoin to Crowdsale, there are iconic innovations and applications in every price cycle. In the first cycle, the birth and gradual application of BTC was a landmark event. In the second cycle, with the re-emergence of BTC in 2013, the tide of the Altcoins was rampant, and a large number of Altcoins appeared. In the third cycle, Crowdsale began to be popular around the world, and many websites started to provide Crowdsale's news and discussion forum. Since 2017, Crowdsale has dominated the blockchain investment, far exceeding VCs and corporate investment. With the development of blockchain technology, the evolution of digital certification, the improvement of practitioners' awareness, and the evolution of government regulation, the innovation led by BTC has evolved and is more approved by the mainstream.
The third round of the price cycle might come to an end around May 2019, and followed by the fourth round of price cycle. The maximum rise in the BTC's fourth price-rising cycle will be smaller than last three cycles. BTC's increasing market value demands more capital. Digital token shall embrace supervision to absorb more institutional funds. ETF will be a viable solution. In the future, it will shift from Crowdsale to ETF, and from deregulation to embracing supervision.
Risk Tips: ETFs have put capital amount into this market less than that we expected. Quantum computer technology is advancing by leaps and bounds
Content
1 The First Round of Price Cycle .
2 The Second Round of Price Cycle
3 The Third Round of Price Cycle
4 Three Major Rules of BTC Price Cycle
4.1 BTC price cycle is closely related to its halving cycle
4.2 BTC price cycle is closely related to its halving cycle
4.3 BTC-led innovatioized by the mainstream
5 The new journey of BTC will Start in May 2019
List of Graphs
Graph 1: BTC Price Trend in The First Price Cycle (in USD)
Graph 2: BTC price trend in the second round of price cycle (in USD)
Graph 3: The number of tokens in 2013 has increased significantly Graph 4: BTC price trend in the third round of price cycle (in USD)
Graph 5: VIX index and BTC price are negatively correlated
Graph 6: Crowdsale has dominated blockchain investment since 2017 (millions of US dollars)
Graph 7: A large number of Crypto Funds were established in recent years.
Graph 8: ETH price trend (in USD)
Graph 9: ETH price is positively related to the size of Crowdsale financing
Graph 10: Lightning network capacity continues to grow
Graph 11: The number of lightning network channels continues to grow
Graph 12: The global Crowdsale growth rate slows down in 2018 .
Graph 13: Crowdsale’s fundraising has started to decline since 2018 .
Graph 14: Significant growth in venture capital in the blockchain sector in 2018
Graph 15: BTC block reward trend reduction
Graph 16: BTC price cycle and halving mechanism (in USD)
Graph 17: BTC market value scale trend increase
Graph 18: BTC price fluctuations become smaller
Graph 19: Admission to mainstream institutions has continued since the end of 2018
Graph 20: The third round of the price cycle may be completed around May 2019
Graph 21: The current stage of the price cycle has been probable more than half, and the downside space is limited
History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme. --Mark Twain
‘It is different this time’ has always been a terrible lesson for investors. The tokens, typical represented by BTC, are special in nature to other financial products, which results in producing an idea, in some investors’ mind, that the price of BTC will go up straightly and never decline. When the cycle power works, the asset price, which was thought to create a different history, will collapse. No matter it is the A-share market of 2007 or the one of 2015, or any ‘bubble time’ in human history, the cycle power played its role. As far as BTC is concerned, its price has also experienced three rounds of cycles.
In addition, when the asset price is in a dark period of continuous decline and weak rebound, the power of the cycle also works. As long as it is a valuable asset, its price will eventually bounce back from the bottom. Opportunities have always been there, if you have an asset with high potential in hand. In the dark moments before dawn, the more you are afraid, the more you will be confused. At this time, you have to believe in the value investing. ‘Be fearful when others are greedy and be greedy when others are fearful’, not the other way around. That means, we shall invest reversely, buying undervalued assets gradually in the bottom region of price decline cycle; selling overvalued assets gradually in the top region of price-rising cycle; and following the trend in other time region of the cycle.
1 The First Round of Price Cycle
The first round of BTC price cycle lasted for 610 days, from March 2010 to November 2011, and in this cycle, BTC price rise rate was the highest of BTCs three price cycles.
The price rise stage of the first round of price cycle, from March 2010 to June 2011, lasted for 447 days. The starting price was 0.003 USD/piece, and the highest price was 31.91 USD/piece, the rise rate reached 10,636 times. The price decline section of the first round of price cycle, from June 2011 to November 2011, lasted for 163 days. In this price decline section, the starting price of BTC was $31.91 per piece, and the lowest price was $1.99 per piece. The decline rate was 94%.
On May 22, 2010, the famous BTC Pizza dealt. Laszlo Hanyecz from Jacksonville, FL, bought two pizzas with 10,000 BTCs. Each price ofBTC is less than 0.01US dollars.
In the first round of the price cycle, there is no explicit positive or negative factors causing BTC's price huge fluctuation. Fluctuations are more like in a “natural” situation. Before the first BTC bubble bursted in November 2011, its price was in a trend of increasing. The reason of rise was that the price base of BTC was very low. With the understanding of BTC gradually getting better, the demand increased, and then, the price rose. For example, June 2011, WikiLeaks and some organizations began accepting BTC donations.
https://preview.redd.it/ol9mlz0kw7531.png?width=688&format=png&auto=webp&s=7f76ac24ef02d785f56c8a770be745cfeddbb1e7
2 The Second Round of Price Cycle
The second round of BTC price cycle lasted for 1377 days, from November 2011 to August 2015, and in this cycle, the price of BTC exceeded gold for the first time.
The price rise stage of the second round of price cycle, from November 2011 to November 2013, lasted for 743 days. The starting price was $1.99 USD/piece, and the highest price was 1,242 USD/piece, the rise rate reached 623 times. The price decline section of the second round of price cycle. From November 2013 to August 2015, lasted for 634 days. In this price decline stage, the starting price of BTC was 1,242 USD per piece, and the lowest price was 199.57 USD per piece. The decline rate was 84%.
At the second price cycle, the range of application of BTC has been greatly expanded. In November 2012, WordPress began to accept BTC; and in October 2013, the world's first BTC ATM was deployed in a coffee shop in Vancouver where customers could buy and sell BTC. In November 2013, the University of Nicosia announced accepting BTC for tuition, the university's chief financial officer called it "gold of tomorrow"; In addition to some underground economy and gray economy began to accept BTC, BTC is also getting closer to daily life.
The success of BTC popularized altcoins. The first type of altcoin LTC (Litecoin) was created in October 2011, and it is the time when the BTC price came to the end of price decline. In 2011, Namecoin and SwiftCoin were born successively. In 2012, Bytecoin and Peercoin were issued, however, BTC was still in the stage of rising slowly from the bottom, and the market was not hot. Along with the re-emergence of BTC in 2013, the tide of the altcoins is rampant, and a large number of altcoins are issued. According to CoinMarketCap data, there were 66 kinds of altcoins at the end of 2013, while there were less than 10 at the beginning of the year.
The safe-haven properties of BTC are widely approved. BTC was a choice for people in many countries that are in crises. The residents flocked to BTC, hoping to maintain assets value through BTC. This phenomenon has occurred many times during the European debt crisis. For example, in early 2013, in order to get the bailout, the Cyprus government imposed taxes on deposits and imposed strict capital controls. In order to prevent property from shrinking, the Cypriot people rushed to bank runs and exchanged their currencies for BTC. The price of BTC quickly rose from 30 something to 265 US dollars.

https://preview.redd.it/slw2443lw7531.png?width=684&format=png&auto=webp&s=33181be556dbfc3a3f0e78e5c6a7674801787951
Due to the lack of supervision, BTC is often affected by negative events, which makes the market confidence in the danger of collapsing. In October 2013, the FBI seized approximately 26,000 BTCs from the Silk Road website, causing the BTC price to collapse to 110 US dollars. On December 5, 2013, the People's Bank of China banned the use of BTC by Chinese financial institutions, which made the price of BTC declined. In February 2014, Mt. Gox, the largest BTC exchange at the time, said that 850,000 BTCs of its customers were stolen, worth nearly 500 million US dollars, and BTC prices fell nearly half, from 867 to 439 US dollars.
The emergence of a large number of altcoins caused market bleeding. Since 2014, the number of altcoins has exploded. By August 2015, the number has reached 556, resulting in diversion of funds and market expansion. On May 1, 2013, BTC accounted for 94.29% of the market value of all tokens, and the market value of other tokens except the top 10 tokens was about 1%. By August 25, 2015, the proportion of BTC is about 83%, and the other tokens account for 4%, which is obvious.
No matter how magical token is, it is still a kind of asset. The mean return of value is a basic common sense of investment. The value will pull the price back to it, just like the gravity. The risk increases with the price rises, and the value appears when the price declines. In the rising section of this cycle, the price of BTC rose by 623 times, which is a great rise rate. When the price is too high, and the potential return in the future is insufficient, the attractiveness to new investors will fall, and the old investors will leave and look for more lucrative assets. Once the power of trend investors exhausted, the trend will reverse.
3 The Third Round of Price Cycle
The third round of price cycle of BTC is not over and is currently in the downward phase of the cycle. The price increased from August 2015 and lasted for 845 days till December 2017. The starting price of the price-rising cycle BTC was 199.57 USD/piece, and the highest price was close to 20,000 USD/piece. The rise rate is up to 99 times. Since December 2017, the price started to decline. The price has fallen to the lowest 3,191.30 US dollars up to now, a drop of 84%.
BTC networks expanded rapidly, and BTC has gained increasing recognition among legislators and traditional financial companies. Studies have shown that by November 2013, the commercialization of BTC is no longer driven by the underground economy, but by legitimate businesses. During this price cycle, people from more countries can get in touch with, select, trade and use BTC on a daily basis. In January 2016, Bitcoin computing capacity reached 1 exahash/S for the first time; In March 2016, the Japanese cabinet acknowledged that BTC has a function similar to real money. In 2017, Norway's largest online bank Skandiabanken integrated BTC accounts. In December 2017, Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) officially launched BTC futures, which is an important step for BTC to take toward mainstream investment. In October 2018, Fidelity launched its independent subsidiary Fidelity Digital Asset Services to provide digital asset services to institutional customers. In December 2018, the first round of financing was completed by the token exchange Bakkt launched by the Intercontinental Exchange. In February 2019, Nasdaq officially launched - Bitcoin Liquid Index (BLX) and Ethereum Liquid Index (ELX)- two indexes. The pension fund of US invests in the encryption fund, the mainstream organization is accelerating, and the relevant infrastructure is gradually improved.
BTC has become a risky asset. Under the current “three lows” environment - low interest rates, low spreads and low volatility, investors are seeking high returns, which leads to excessive financial risk behaviors and complacency, investors' risk appetite, and high leverage tools and the acceptance of high-risk products has increased, arbitrage transactions have prevailed, liquidity mismatches have been severe, and the overall market is fragile. As the results we can see that, the price of BTC is increasingly correlated with the VIX index (Chicago Options Exchange Volatility Index). A lower VIX index indicates that investors expect less volatility, while a higher VIX indicates higher expected volatility. The lower VIX index indicates that investors are optimistic about S&P 500, while the higher VIX means that investors are uncertain about the market outlook. When market volatility declines, investors buy stocks and other types of risk assets, when the market volatility rises, investors sell risky assets.
Risk assets will be dumped when risk appetite reduces panic market. BTC bid farewell to the nature of safe-haven assets and become a risky asset. Since December 2017, with the decline of the VIX index, the price of BTC rises, and the price of BTC is negatively correlated with the VIX index. At the beginning of 2018, the VIX index skyrocketed and BTC fell rapidly. In October 2018, the global market risk aversion trend increased, the VIX index went up, and the BTC price also fell sharply.

https://preview.redd.it/49ld77xlw7531.png?width=664&format=png&auto=webp&s=af5b7ff492fe7e8253640f9e6df7820a10c59f52
Crowdsale has become the main financing method in the blockchain field. Crowdsale was born in the second round of the price cycle, Mastercoin did the world's first Crowdsale in July 2013. In 2014, Ethereum also raised funds through Crowdsale, when the price of ETH was less than 0.22 USD per piece. After 2016, when it is in the third price cycle, Crowdsale is popular around the world, and many websites began to provide information and discussion communities for Crowdsale. From a global perspective, Crowdsale has dominated the blockchain investment since 2017, far exceeding VCs and corporate investment. In 2017, Crowdsale raised 7.4 billion US dollars, and in the first half of 2018, Crowdsale Raised 12 billion US dollars.
The Crypto Fund emerged. Along with the Crowdsale boom, a large number of Crypto Funds were created. The number of Crypto Funds newly established in 2017 was nearly 200, far exceeding the total amount of the Crypto funds created in previous years, which fully demonstrated that, with the rise in the price of the token, the enthusiasm of funds to blockchain field is high.

https://preview.redd.it/31badgpmw7531.png?width=659&format=png&auto=webp&s=3e7bdf4dbf07b83d405298aa57424e2b61b5d84a
The rise of blockchain 2.0, the Crowdsale tide pushed ETH up nearly 10,000 times. In the third round of the BTC (Token) price cycle, the biggest star is not BTC, but ETH. Crowdsale after 2016, issued tokens mainly through Ethereum, which represented the rise of ETH in the blockchain 2.0 era. Crowdsale prosperity boosted the rise of ETH. On January 13, 2018, the price of ETH rose to a peak of 1,432.88 US dollars per piece, which is 6512 times rise rate comparing to its initial price.
The ETH price has a significant positive correlation with the growth rate of Crowdsale financing. The growth rate of Crowdsale financing decreased by 69.23% in 2015, the price of ETH decreased by 66.30% in the same year. In 2016, the growth rate of Crowdsale financing increased by 2737.5%, and ETH increased by 753.74%. In 2017, the growth rate of Crowdsale financing increased by 3,159.91%, and ETH rose by 8809.91%.

https://preview.redd.it/ssvz3bonw7531.png?width=660&format=png&auto=webp&s=b91b15aaa7fc4333a7bf1b0bca1fb3bf7ac6fc67
Plan for public blockchain performance improvement emerged, and significant progress were made in lightning network. With the popularization of blockchains, the congestion of BTC and other public chains has gradually emerged, and performance has become one of the bottlenecks in the blockchain industry. In 2018, the performance-improvement plan of the public blockchain emerged. Improvements were made to the difference in blockchain logical architecture, including on-chain capacity expansion schemes by improving consensus mechanism and sharing, and off-chain capacity expansion schemes by status channel, sidechain, off-chain computing, and Layer 0 expansion scheme that enhance the scalability of the blockchain by optimizing the underlying data transmission protocol of the blockchain. Since the main net of BTC lightning network goes live, the number and capacity of channels have been increasing. As of March 10, 2019, the capacity has reached 790 BTC, and the number of channels has reached 35,464.

https://preview.redd.it/qfgryviow7531.png?width=660&format=png&auto=webp&s=59f8f45fb4320fcbf1dff1b50925cb9a8bfb9a7a
Note: The Unique channel refers to the channel that is directly connected to the node for the first time, and the Duplicate channel refers to the channel between the nodes that have been connected.
The standardization of the token is promoted. On January 22, 2018, South Korea required all BTC dealers to disclose their identity, thereby prohibiting anonymous trading of BTC. During the first quarter of 2018, Facebook, Google and Twitter prohibited the promotion of Crowdsale, while the US Securities and Exchange Commission investigated a large number of Crowdsale projects, and issued bans to some Crowdsale projects. Regardless of the government's attitude towards the token, it is committed to incorporating the token into the regulatory framework for legal compliance.
The Crowdsale bubble bursted and the magical story is no longer magical. According to incomplete statistics, in 2017, 871 Crowdsale were completed in the world. These projects involved directions as distributed analogous Facebook, twitter, amazon, and next-generation public chain (blockchain 3.0), etc. These projects have raised a large amount of funds, but the actual operating is worrying. The promotion of the project dissipated a large amount of funds, but the actual development progress was far less than expected, resulting in the market's expectation failure and the diversion of funds from the mainstream token. Superimposed the impact of more and more negative news, technical adjustment requirements and market sentiment fluctuation. The market enters a negative cycle, as the decline begins.

https://preview.redd.it/s51gsunpw7531.png?width=677&format=png&auto=webp&s=f3a2e01c57eece54c9d442b141194faec083350a
In 2018, there has been rapid growth in venture capital in the blockchain sector, indicating that venture capital still have good expectations about the application and future prospects of the blockchain. According to Coindesk data, the risk investment in the blockchain sector in 2018 reverse the decline of 2017, year-on-year increase of 257%, and the total amount for the year 2018 reached 3.1 billion US dollars.

https://preview.redd.it/7bujn1fqw7531.png?width=452&format=png&auto=webp&s=5719239aa4f3447b4320ea47dbe88eec766cdcae
BTC peaked first. In terms of time, in the third round of the price cycle, the first to peak is BTC, which reached 19,870.62 USD per piece in December 2017. The peak of ETH happened later than BTC, in January 2018. EOS did not peak until April. The important reason for BTC to peak first is that the amount of funds needed to support the BTC market value scale is the largest. When the market’s ability to carry on is not enough, it is inevitable for the price of BTC to react first.
4 Three Major Rules of BTC Price Cycle
The price cycle of BTC has obvious regularity, and some unchanging factors determine the price fluctuation of BTC.
4.1 BTC price cycle is closely related to its halving cycle
One full BTC price cycle lasts approximately four years. In the first round of price cycles, the measure of time span is not reliable because of the availability of BTC trading prices. The second round of the price cycle lasted for 1,377 days, from November 2011 to August 2015, about four years.
The price-rising cycle of BTC is closely related to its halving period, and the price-rising cycle starts one year before each halving. At the end of November 2012, the first production of BTC was halved, that is, the number of BTC generated by each block was 25, and in November 2011, the price of BTC has bottomed out, and the halving of BTC is one year after the second price-rising cycle. In July 2016, production of BTC was halved the second time, that is, the number of BTC generated by each block was 12.5. In August 2015, BTC had already bottomed out, and BTC's production was reduced again one year after the third price-rising cycle started.

https://preview.redd.it/9529268rw7531.png?width=445&format=png&auto=webp&s=fe1050eefe6d70403ddcdc053bdbccb0bc47818f
BTC output halving blows the horn of each price-rising cycle, and the price speeding up begin. Although it is not BTC output halving that brings the price-rising cycle, but the halving of BTC output significantly reduced the growth rate of BTC supply, speeding up the rise of BTC price and the price-rising cycle. From November 2011 to November 2012, before the halving of BTC output, BTC increased by 6.74 times in one year. From November 2012 to November 2013, BTC price increased by 99.57 times. In the third price-rising cycle, BTC price rose by a maximum of 2.87 times in about 11 months before the production cut. After halving, BTC price rose by a maximum of 29.73 times in about 11 months.

https://preview.redd.it/dft83mprw7531.png?width=687&format=png&auto=webp&s=82014d03eaee7136a6995a1b2df1faa9d22c6a5f
4.2 BTC price cycle is closely related to its halving cycle
The change in the market value scale of BTC (circulation) is mainly caused by its price fluctuations, and has little to do with the changes in the total amount of BTC output. According to CMC data, by April 28, 2013, the total amount of BTC that had been mined was about 11.18 million pieces, which is more than 53% of the total amount of BTC of 21 million pieces. The halving mechanism of BTC also accelerated the marginal decline of BTC total growth rate. Compared with the amount of BTC already mined, the new supply of BTC is very insignificant. In addition, the volatility of BTC prices far exceeds the volatility of BTC's total output, and the market value of BTC fluctuates with its price.
The market value of BTC has increased in trend. Because of the trend of BTC price-rising, the number of BTC total output has also increased in one direction, and the market value of BTC has increased in the long run. According to CMC data, on April 28, 2013, BTC's market value in circulation was only 1.5 billion US dollars. By the peak of the third price-rising cycle, the market value increased to 326.1 billion US dollars, and the current market value also reached 113.8 billion US dollars, increased by 74.87 times.
The price volatility of BTC is gradually getting smaller. With the increasing of BTC market value in trend, the BTC market is becoming more and more mature, more and more accepted by the public, more and more professional organizations are participating, the compliance operation is becoming mainstream, and the BTC price volatility is decreasing. Similar to the historical process of other asset classes, and the same thing is repeated again and again. In the first price cycle, the price of BTC increased by 10636 times, and the fell by 93.76% maximum. In the second price cycle, the price of BTC increased by 623 times, and fell by 83.93% maximum. In the third price cycle, the maximum increase of BTC price was 98.57 times, and the biggest decline has not been confirmed

https://preview.redd.it/kmk5qeesw7531.png?width=674&format=png&auto=webp&s=bf9d8fd61b833c87c3f859a3bf0f4f63b9c0ff88
4.3 BTC-led innovation continues to evolve and is more and more recognized by the mainstream
From BTC to Altcoin, from Altcoin to Crowdsale, there are iconic innovations and applications in every price cycle. In the first cycle, the birth and gradual application of BTC was a landmark event. In the second cycle, with the re-emergence of BTC in 2013, the tide of the Altcoins was rampant, and a large number of Altcoins appeared. In the third cycle, Crowdsale began to be popular around the world, many websites started to provide Crowdsale's news and discussion forum. Since 2017, Crowdsale has dominated the blockchain investment, far exceeding VCs and corporate investment.
The original intention of Nakamoto to create BTC is to establish a more efficient means of trading that can be electronically transferred in a safe, verifiable and non-tamperable form. During the early days of bitcoin and blockchain development, this drove the development of most applications of BTC and blockchain. However, with the development of blockchain technology, the evolution of digital token, the recognition of practitioners, and the evolution of government regulation, the changes led by BTC continue to evolve and gain more mainstream recognition.
More and more countries recognize that the blockchain reflects its unique value in many fields. The government has gradually incorporated digital token into regulation, and mainstream institutions are increasingly recognizing BTC. In 2017, the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) officially launched BTC futures, as BTC took an important step toward mainstream investment, improving the accessibility of BTC to traditional financial institutions. In March 2017, Cameron's Cliveworth and Taylor W. Crawworth brothers attempted to submit an application to the US Securities and Exchange Commission for BTC ETF (transactional open-ended index fund). Although on September 22, 2018, US Securities and Exchange Commission rejected nine BTC ETF applications, the approval of BTC ETF application is a high probability event in the long run. With the continuous improvement of related infrastructure and the gradual maturity of the market, the pace of institutional entry has shown signs of acceleration. Since the end of 2018, news about the organization of encrypted assets by mainstream institutions has continued.

https://preview.redd.it/pf0u2patw7531.png?width=349&format=png&auto=webp&s=eb603172001520e62eee309e8d37df44c4f8bad9
5 The new journey of BTC will Start in May 2019
The fourth price-rising cycle of BTC will start in May 2019, and mainstream institutions will enter the market, while ETF may become the core trend of the fourth round of BTC price cycle.
From the perspective of supply, the third halving of BTC begins around May 21, 2020. The price-rising cycle of BTC is closely related to its halving period. The price-rising cycle starts about one year before halving. From this perspective, the BTC price-rising cycle may be opened around May 2019.

https://preview.redd.it/29dzwhwtw7531.png?width=695&format=png&auto=webp&s=7e69a27442cd093611027fd067cb4bbd784cb2b0
From the time dimension, the complete BTC price cycle lasts for about four years. The third round of the price cycle, which started in August 2015, will be completed around August 2019, and the fourth round of the price cycle of BTC will begin thereafter. Considering that the data in the second round of the price cycle is more reliable, only the second round of price cycle data is used as the measurement standard, the complete price cycle is 1377 days, about 3 years and 9 months, and the third round price cycle may end around May 2019.
Combined with the previous two BTC price cycles, the downturn phase of the current price cycle has been probably more than half, and further downside space is limited. In the first two rounds of the price cycle, the duration of the downlink phase is less than the duration of the uplink phase. The duration of the third phase of the price cycle has been confirmed (845 days), while the duration of the downturn phase has been more than half of the upstream phase (450 days). From the first two rounds of the price cycle, the rapid decline in prices occurred in the early stage of the downtrend phase. The price fluctuations of BTC in the second half of the downturn phase have been significantly reduced. The BTC price declines reached 61% in the first half and 74% in the second round of the price cycle, and the corresponding maximum declines in BTC were 94% and 84% respectively. In the current round of the price cycle, the biggest drop has reached 84%, so take it from now, even if the price is further down, the downside space is already limited.
https://preview.redd.it/kra7vduuw7531.png?width=684&format=png&auto=webp&s=4f1eda32d42a15b4e34ebfa5dbdaee78065ab110
Note: The data of the third round of the price cycle and the total duration are up to March 12, 2019.
From the price dimension, the downside space of the current round of BTC prices is limited, and the maximum increase of BTC's fourth price-rising cycle will become smaller. In the first price cycle, the price of BTC increased by 10636 times, and fell by 93.76% maximum. In the second price cycle, the price of BTC increased by 623 times, and fell by 83.93% maximum. In the third price cycle, the maximum increase of BTC price was 98.57 times, and the biggest decline has not been confirmed. On February 6, 2018, BTC fell to a minimum of 3,191.30 US dollars per piece, drop by 84.07%, has reached the low of second round of price cycle, from the perspective of price adjustment, BTC price downside has been more limited. The maximum increase in the fourth price-rising cycle of BTC will be smaller.
From the perspective of risk, after a year of continuous adjustment, BTC prices have fully fallen, risks have been gradually released, and investor’s risk appetite has risen to create favorable conditions for BTC prices to stabilize. Beginning at the end of December 2018, the VIX index has fallen, and now it has reached 15 or below. The investor's risk appetite has gradually picked up, creating favorable conditions for the BTC price to rise stably.
Last but not least, from the perspective of capital, the mainstream institutions accelerated their entry and many positive signals were released. With the continuous improvement of related infrastructure and the gradual maturity of the market, the pace of institutional entry has shown signs of acceleration. Since 2018, on the one hand, the entry of mainstream institutions can bring incremental funds to the entire market, on the other hand, it also contributes to the formal development of the entire industry.
The value of the BTC's market value in circulation continues to increase, and the digital token embraces regulation. It is expected that the ETF will be the core trend in the fourth price cycle. As the value of the BTC and digital token market increases, their use will be more tied-up to legitimate use than illegal activities. According to the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) data, only 10% of the current BTC transactions is related to illegal activities and 90% is used for legal transactions. BTC's increasingly large market value requires more financial support. Digital token will embrace supervision to absorb more funds, and ETF will be a viable solution. In the future, there is going to be an evolution from Crowdsale to ETF, from regulation to embrace supervision.
Note:
Although in this report, we try to predict the bottom and time of Token, especially BTC, by using time and space cycle, we would like to tell investors that it is very dangerous to invest basing on a specific dot and time. An investment shall base on the assessment of the value of the token.
Here are our suggestions: 1. Do not try to predict the market. Mistakes are liable to happen when you try to predict market harshly. 2. Feel the cycle. Cycle is always there, because of the constant human nature;3. Be with a good Token, which will bring you more chance to win. 4.Keep valuation in mind. The most important thing in value investing is to keep the valuation in mind. If the price is reasonable, everything is getable. The key is the difference between price and value (Absolute valuation method is not available with Token because of its specialty. However, a relative valuation method can be applied. Please refer to Token Toll’s report series).
Notions:
For some reasons, some definition in this report are not very defined, such as: Token, Digital Token, Digital Currency, Currency, Crowdsale, etc.
If you have any questions, be free to call us to discuss with us.

https://preview.redd.it/bjnu2hjvw7531.png?width=698&format=png&auto=webp&s=43df46d8337c63a52b8a7089ed5e24360f3b281d
submitted by Token_Roll to u/Token_Roll [link] [comments]

On the Separation of Assets – The Financial Cost of the BSA/LDS Split

This is a follow up report on a report made on May 10, 2018 entitled “A Mormon Divorce – The Ending of a Boy Scout Era by the Numbers”.
“Love is grand; divorce is a hundred grand." ~ Shinichi Suzuki
Overview (tl;dr): On paper, neither the BSA nor the LDS Church should walk away from this split without losing substantial financial assets on both sides; however, further analysis suggests both entities have sufficient war-chests to remain in a strong financial position post-separation:
  • The BSA gets the better part of this deal depending on a number of factors, not least of which includes a surprising increase in membership dues collected post-separation and first dibs to all assets belonging to the dissolved Utah councils – an estimated $50,619,729 depending on how things are actually split up between the BSA and LDS. The BSA will lose out on $220,116/yr in National Service Fees if the three councils dissolve, and continues to struggle in its 10 year decline in magazine sales. Overall contributions and BSA equipment/uniform sales show solid gains, and this combine with total assets of $1,471,984,000 in 2016 leaves the BSA in a strong position to move forward in its mission to prepare young people to make ethical and moral choices over their lifetimes by instilling in them the values of the Scout Oath and Law.
  • The LDS leave behind an estimated $50,619,729 in Boy Scout camps, buildings, and other assets to the BSA in just the act of dissolving three of the five existing Utah BSA Councils. This figure does not take into account the amount of funds the LDS Church as a whole and Mormon families individually have invested in other Local BSA Councils across the nation. This figure also does not take into account the untold tens of millions of dollars it will cost the LDS to replicate youth organization on the same level as the BSA. With this said, the LDS Church collects $8 Billion in tithing each year – $50 million lost plus another $50 million or more invested in creating a new youth organization is a drop in the bucket for the LDS Church and more than worth the expense to create a program better suited to the LDS Church’s international missionary needs.
How is the BSA National Organization Funded?
Funds to support the national organization of the Boy Scouts of America come from registration fees, local council service fees, investment income, Scouting and Boys’ Life magazines, sale of uniforms and equipment, and contributions from individuals. These monies help to deliver the program of the BSA (through four regional service centers and more than 300 local councils) to chartered organizations that use the Scouting program to meet the needs of their youth.
Lets break down each of these funding sources:
Registration Fees
On paper, this is the scariest loss of funding for the BSA National Organization. The BSA membership fee as of Dec. 1, 2017 was $33 a year for both youth AND adults.
With 470,000 Mormon youth exiting the BSA in 2019-2020, the BSA National Organization is looking at losing $15,510,000/yr in membership dues – essentially eclipsing the LDS $50 million loss in just four years.
However, this $15 million figure is misleading for three reasons. (1) It doesn’t account for registered Mormon adults in each Troop who also pay the $33 membership fee; (2) As covered in depth in a prior article and detailed further below, LDS Troops receive a discounted rate on their membership dues; (3) The membership fee was RAISED from $24/scout in 2014 to $33/scout in 2017 by the BSA National Organization in response to an anticipated departure by the LDS Church.
So let’s look at these calculations again in 2014 to 2019 terms:
2014
= ($24 Membership Fee)x(2,419,000 Mormon and non-Mormon Scouts) = $58,056,000 per year in Membership Fees
2019
= ($33 Membership Fee)x(1,871,000 non-Mormon Scouts) = $61,743,000.00 per year in Membership Fees
In the worst case scenario, where (1) 470,000 Mormon scouts all leave at once, (2) the BSA does not add or lose any other non-Mormon scouts (girls, LGBT, or otherwise) to its ranks, and (3) Mormon scouts paid the same dues as everyone else, the BSA still makes $3,687,000 MORE revenue without LDS scouts in its ranks than the organization made with LDS scouts.
However, we know not all 470,000 LDS scouts are leaving at once as some will stick around for a year or more to complete their Eagle Scout Award. We also know LDS scouts do not paid the same dues as everyone, as show by the BSA's own 2014 Financial Statement:
The Boy Scouts of America (BSA), consisting of 280 local councils, continued to deliver an exciting and valuable program to young people in 2014, with approximately 2,419,000 youth members and Explorers registered in individual programs. Approximately 981,000 registered adult leaders provide support to these youth.
Fees decreased in 2014 by $9,934 with the absence of the 2013 National Scout Jamboree fees totaling $32,784. This is offset by a membership fee increase effective January 1, 2014, which led to increased membership revenues despite a decline in membership.
The 2014 Financial Statement reports Revenue generated from Registration (Membership) Fee was $62,732,000 in 2014 with 2,419,000 youth and 981,000 adults.
($24 Membership Fee per youth/adult)x(3,400,000 youths and adults) = $81,600,000
This is $18,868,000 more than revenues reported by the BSA's 2014 Financial Statement - there are approximately 786,167 youths/adults ($18,868,000/$24 Membership Fee) missing from the 2014 Financial Statement. As the Utah BSA Councils stated to the Salt Lake Tribune:
The national BSA normally charges a $24 registration fee for each Scout and adult leader per year. However, a 2015 statement from the three BSA councils in Utah said those fees "are negotiated between the national BSA and the LDS Church. All registration fees are retained at the national BSA level."
Ironically enough, depending on how large a discount on membership fee LDS scouts get, the BSA National Organization may be earning way more revenue from its membership fees with the exit of the LDS and the addition of young women and the LGBT community into its ranks.
Local Council Service Fees
This fee is two parts paid on a yearly basis by each of the 280 Local BSA Councils across the nation.
The first is a fixed charter fee of $1,000 – this fee can be waived if the Local BSA Council turns in its Renewal Application before Mar. 1 of each year.
The second is the National Service Fee. The final amount of this fee is based upon data extracted from the council’s general ledger, and using the following formula:
(1) 2015 professional salaries (account No. 7002) for all funds (all funds being defined as Operating, Capital, and Endowment)
(2) 2015 office salaries (account No. 7003) for all funds (all funds being defined as Operating, Capital, and Endowment)
(3) Calculate the qualifying salaries for use in determining the 2017 national service fee (sum of figures 1 and 2 above)
(4) The council’s national service fee for 2017 is 3.5 percent of the qualifying salaries above* (multiply figure 3 above by .035)
*For those councils that will be charged a national service fee of $40,000 or greater for the year 2016, their fee will increase at the same rate of qualifying salary growth from 2014 to 2015, not to exceed 10 percent.
Examples: (1) If the council’s 2016 national service fee will be $48,783 and the qualifying salaries recorded in accounts 7002 and 7003 increased by 6.2 percent from 2014 to 2015, then the council’s national service fee for 2017 would also increase by 6.2 percent, or be $51,808.
(2) If the council’s 2016 national service fee will be $48,783 and the qualifying salaries recorded in accounts 7002 and 7003 were the same or decreased, the council agrees to and will be invoiced a national service fee of $48,783 for 2017.
The National Service Fee is pegged to the professional and office salaries of those employed in the BSA Local Council – changes in the number of scouts a local council has will not impact the National Service Fee assessed. Hence, across the nation, only Local BSA Councils at risk for closing because they do not serve enough scouts will be impacted.
Currently, only three BSA Councils are anticipated to be at risk of closing:
The BSA National Organization is likely to lose the following yearly revenue generated by the National Service Fee for these three Councils should they be dissolved:
  • GSL = $57,578
  • UNP = $89,166
  • TT = Unknown; Estimated to be average of GSL and UNP -> $73,372
In a worst case scenario, should all three Utah Councils go under, the BSA will lose at most $220,116/yr in National Service Fees due to the LDS split. In 2016, the BSA made $5,994,000 from interest and dividends alone on its investments - $220,116/yr is an easily absorbable loss.
Investment Income
In short, investments are affected by market conditions – not by the internal affairs of a single non-profit. Regardless, a short summary of the BSA’s investments:
Endowment Total
Balance Dec 21, 2015 $250,233,000
Investment return: -
Interest and Dividends $5,994,000
U Gains $20,599,000
Investment Manager Fee ($910,000)
Net investment return $25,683,000
Scouting and Boys’ Life magazines
The BSA National Organization’s flagship magazine is actually one area the BSA could really feel the hurt – nearly ever year Financial Statements were kept, the magazine’s revenue declined until hitting negative in both 2015 and 2016.
While the LDS/BSA split will certainly not help this situation, the BSA magazine has been declining in revenue for the last decade. Clearly the BSA needs to consider either scrapping the magazine entirely or moving to more cost effective options like sending out electronic subscriptions over email to save on printing costs.
Year Magazine Revenue
2005 $2,786,000
2006 $2,742,000
2007 $3,217,000
2008 $2,025,000
2009 $1,928,000
2010 $2,099,000
2011 $957,000
2012 $1,054,000
2013 $903,000
2014 $185,000
2015 ($753,000)
2016 ($2,651,000)
In short, the BSA magazine was an issue before the LDS/BSA split and will continue to be an issue long after the split. Again though, the BSA can temporarily cover this loss in revenue with gains in other areas of the organization – such as $5,994,000 interest gains on investments.
Sale of uniforms and equipment
Unlike the BSA flagship magazine, uniform and trading post sales have nearly tripled from 2005 to 2016, benefiting from a new wave of low overhead online shopping. While it remains to be seen how these sales might be impacted by the loss of 470,000 scouts, the addition of new demographics into the Scouts program means new uniforms and new equipment.
Year Trading Post Sales Revenue
2005 $5,953,000
2006 $4,278,000
2007 $4,108,000
2008 $6,559,000
2009 $4,835,000
2010 $7,702,000
2011 $12,246,000
2012 $8,232,000
2013 $10,495,000
2014 $10,773,000
2015 $14,892,000
2016 $13,367,000
Even in the most extreme situation where 20% loss of membership = 20% loss of Uniform and Equipment revenue, a 20% reduction in 2016 Sales means ($$13,367,000) - ($13,367,000)(0.20) = $10,693,600.00 in 2019 Sales Revenue -> Still better than almost every year up to 2014.
Contributions from Individuals
Individual contributions rose considerably in the 11 years spanning from 2005 to 2016, but at an unpredictable rate. The BSA will certainly be missing out on contributions given by LDS families, but the BSA has such a large endowment ($218,224,000 in invested assets in 2016) that the organization will be able smooth out any transition period between the LDS leaving and new demographics entering.
Year Contributions and Bequests
2005 $8,377,000
2006 $5,191,000
2007 $10,659,000
2008 $15,255,000
2009 $54,431,000
2010 $65,405,000
2011 $61,041,000
2012 $27,030,000
2013 $37,457,000
2014 $54,495,000
2015 $28,191,000
2016 $33,535,000

Ms. Peggy Stack and Mr. Lee Davison from The Salt Lake Tribune wrote an interesting article back in August on a topic generating much discussion with the Boy Scouts and Latter-Day Saints Wards – how badly will the BSA be hit financially for losing approximately 20% of its members in 2020 when the LDS Church officially parts ways with the Boy Scouts? In short, the Ms. Stack and Mr. Davison come to the conclusion any split will…
…have dire financial consequences for BSA. The LDS Church is far and away the nation's largest Scouting sponsor, serving 437,160 boys in 37,933 troops.
In 2013, more than a third (37 percent) of troops were LDS sponsored, accounting for 18 percent of the BSA's 2.4 million total membership (Mormon troops, while more numerous, tend to be smaller in size).
An LDS Church withdrawal also could ruin the three Scout councils in Utah, which say between 96 percent and 99 percent of their members are in Mormon units.
In Utah, the three councils say they have a combined 320,000 registered Scouts and adult leaders, the vast majority of whom are Mormon. Losing them could bring big financial blows to Scouting.
For example, the national BSA normally charges a $24 registration fee for each Scout and adult leader per year. The fee just for Mormon youths would cost $10.5 million a year. However, a statement from the Utah councils says those fees "are negotiated between the national BSA and the LDS Church. All registration fees are retained at the national BSA level."
In Utah, the Orem-based Utah National Parks Council says 99 percent of its Scouts are in LDS units. The Salt Lake City-based Great Salt Lake Council says 98 percent of its Scouts are. And the Ogden-based Trapper Trails Council says 96 percent of its youths are in Mormon-sponsored units.
Each year, the LDS Church supports a "Friends of Scouting" drive to ask members for donations to boost the local Scout councils — money which could disappear if the faith leaves. The Utah National Parks Council says the Friends of Scouting push provides 43 percent of its budget; the Trapper Trails Council says it generates 36 percent; and the Great Salt Lake Council receives 34 percent of its money from the effort. "The large majority of Friends of Scouting funds come from LDS units," according to the joint statement from the councils.
Questions also arise about what may happen to the many Scout camps in Utah if the LDS Church exits the organization.
In response to Salt Lake Tribune questions, the local councils wrote, "All camp properties are either owned by the council or are leased properties from the Forest Service. Each council is a 501(c)3 corporation separate from the Boy Scouts of America or any other council. The properties would continue to serve Scouting and the needs of religious and other youth groups in our communities."
There is a lot to unpack in this article. We have already covered facts concerning BSA's suprsingly solid financial footing despite loosing 20% of its membership. Let’s next focus on what Local BSA Councils are and what happens when Local BSA Councils dissolve.
BSA Organization and Local BSA Councils in Utah
The Organization of the Boy Scouts of America is a topic that requires a post of its own (conveniently found here!). In short, the BSA is run by a National Executive Council that, among other functions; develops program; sets and maintains quality standards in training, leadership selection, unforming, registration records, literature development, and advancement requirements; and publishes Boys' Life and Scouting magazines.
The National Executive Council does not attempt to administer directly the more than 150,000 registered Boy Scout units (troops, packs, venturing crews, etc.). To achieve this, each year, the National Council issues a charter to an autonomous organization called a Local Council. The United States and its territories is divided into local councils. Local councils are usually not-for-profit private corporations registered within the State in which they are headquartered.
The State of Utah actually has five Local BSA Councils - not three - however, The Salt Lake Tribune can be forgiven for this slight accounting error because: (1) the Great Southwest Council (GSW) is headquartered in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and provides Scouting to 7,260 youth in northern New Mexico, northeast Arizona, Utah south of the Colorado River, and the Durango and Mesa Verde areas of Colorado; and (2) the Snake River Council (SN) serves a number of Scouts in Idaho, Nevada, and Utah.
There are three Utah based BSA Councils who are composed of between 96% - 99% Mormon youth and focus only on the State of Utah:
Of these five Local BSA Councils, only GSL, UNP, and TT are at risk of dissolving in 2020 once the Latter-Day Saints Church officially splits from the BSA. Both GSW and SN have enough geographic dispersment and diversity of membership to survive the split relatedly unscathed.
So what would happen if a Local BSA council suddenly dissolved?
Well fortunately the Boy Scouts of America have been around for nearly 120 years as a national youth organization, and in this time plenty of Local BSA Councils have come and gone. Hence, the BSA National Executive Council has had plenty of time to develop and enact procedures for what happens to Local BSA Councils when they dissolve:
BSA Rules and Regulations; III. Local Councils
Council or Unit Assets Upon Dissolution
Consistent with the Bylaws, in the event of the dissolution of a council or the revocation or lapse of its charter, the Executive Committee may, at its option, authorize the National Council to assume charge of the affairs of the council and continue operation pending reorganization or reestablishment of the council or wind up the business of the council. All funds and property in the possession or control of such council must be applied to the payment of the council’s obligations. Any surplus funds or property may thereafter be administered as deemed to be in the best interests of Scouting.
In the event of the dissolution of a unit or the revocation or lapse of its charter, unit funds and assets must be used to first satisfy any outstanding unit obligations. Any remaining assets obtained with funds raised in the name of Scouting must be redeployed for Scouting use in the local area. Any assets obtained with funds from the chartered organization or parents of registered members may be redeployed as agreed upon by the chartered organization and local council.
Any property or funds acquired by the National Council upon the dissolution of a Scouting unit or local council will be administered so as to make effective, as far as possible, the intentions and wishes of the donors.
Real Estate
Except as hereafter provided with respect to incorporated local councils, the title to all real estate acquired for a unit or local council must be vested in a bank or trust company, in trust for the use of the unit or local council in accordance with the wishes of the donor with the provision that if such property cannot be utilized in such a manner, and title does not revert to the donor, that title or beneficial use of the property must nonetheless be for the benefit of Scouting in the local area.
Any incorporated local council may hold title to real property in its own name provided that in the event of the dissolution of the unit or council or the revocation or lapse of its charter said trustee or trustees will, after satisfying any claims against such unit or council to which such real estate may be subject, convey said property or, if sold, pay the net proceeds of such sale to the Boy Scouts of America, which may hold or use said property or funds for the benefit of Scouting in such locality or elsewhere if there is not suitable opportunity to use said property or funds in such locality. Any incorporated local council holding title to real property in its own name must ensure that its certificate or articles of incorporation expressly provide for the conveyance of such property or the net proceeds from the sale thereof to the Boy Scouts of America in the event of the dissolution of the local council or the revocation or lapse of its charter in a manner consistent with this provision.
Restricted Funds
Restricted funds received by a unit or local council must in all cases be held (a) in trust by either a corporate trustee for a bank or trust company, the National Boy Scouts of America Foundation, or the Boy Scouts of America Endowment Master Trust; or (b) in the Boy Scouts of America Commingled Endowment Fund LP for the use of the unit or the local council, in accordance with the wishes of the donors, with the provision in the statement of the conditions governing the administering of the funds that in the event of the dissolution of the unit or council or revocation or lapse of its charter said funds will, after any claims against said funds are satisfied, be turned over to the Boy Scouts of America for use by the Boy Scouts of America for the benefit of Scouting in such locality and for the specific purposes for which the fund was granted. If there is no suitable opportunity for the use of said funds in such locality, they may be used elsewhere.
This is A LOT to unpack, but here are the highlights;
Registration
  • Every Local BSA Council across the US is registered as a separate 501(c)3 corporation separate from the Boy Scouts of America or any other council. Every Council owns assets and liabilities separate from the BSA parent organization.
  • However (and this is very important), every Local BSA Council, including all five Councils in the State of Utah, are legally bound to the rules and provisions as laid out by the BSA Executive National Committee. These rules clearly spell out the actions that will be taken once a Council is dissolved, including the BSA’s right to all of the Council’s property and most of the Council’s assets.
Steps Taken Upon Utah Council Dissolution
  • (1) National Committee will step in and take control of all Utah Local BSA Councils under threat of dissolution. The Committee will do everything in its power to keep the Local Councils alive including moving remaining scouts to other troops or other councils in extreme cases. You can already see this process starting with the GSL Council here.
  • (2) If the Local BSA Council cannot be saved, then the Councils will be permanently shuttered. Now here is where things get really interesting – all Local BSA Council assets and liabilities are turned over to the BSA Executive Council. These assets are first used to pay off all outstanding debt carried by the Local BSA Council. The remaining assets “raised in the name of Scouting” will be kept by the BSA Executive Council, while assets “obtained with funds from the chartered organization or parents of registered members may be redeployed as agreed upon by the chartered organization and local council.”
  • Real Estate - Any buildings and land owned outright by Local BSA Councils is first used to pay off outstanding liabilities. After this, the buildings and land is turned over to the BSA Executive Committee to be given over to other BSA Local Councils. If no other Councils can make use of the property or land, the real estate is sold off and the funds are kept by the BSA to deploy to other Local Councils across the nation. This will be important when we examine the Financial statements of Utah Local BSA Councils next.
So now that we have an idea of the process each Local BSA Council must go through if it dissolves, lets look at what assets and liabilities two Utah BSA Councils have which, at least on paper, will be turned over to the BSA:
GREAT SALT LAKE COUNCIL CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND ADDITIONAL INFORMATION - 2016
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL POSITION ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS 2016 USD AMOUNT
Cash and cash equivalents $3,845,891
Accounts receivable $25,779
Pledges receivable $84,365
Note receivable $91,456
Inventories $117,699
Due from (to) other funds -
Deferred activity expenses $1,011,094
Prepaid expenses $46,379
Note receivable from subsidiary -
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 5,222,663
NON-CURRENT ASSETS 2016 USD AMOUNT
Note receivable, less current position $746,432
Cash restricted to investment L/B/E $456,392
Land/Buildings/Equipment, net $17,084,440
Due from (to) other funds -
Note receivable from subsidiary -
Long-term investments $5,571,352
Investments in subsidiary -
Deferred income taxes $33,400
Other assets $4,290
TOTAL NON-CURRENT ASSETS $23,896,306
TOTAL ASSETS $29,118,969
LIABILITIES
CURRENT LIABILITES 2016 USD AMOUNT
Current position of long-term debt $205,625
Accounts payable $639,138
Accrued expenses $54,610
Custodial accounts $85,079
Deferred income $1,153,079
Other current liabilities -
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITES $2,137,531
LONG-TERM DEBT, net of current position $2,202,476
OTHER NON-CURRENT LIABILITES $1,643,304
TOTAL LIABILITES $5,983,311
What do these numbers mean?
In 2020, approximately 72,844 Mormon scouts (98% of the GSL) will walk away from the GSL leaving approximately 1,487 non-Mormon scouts behind. The BSA National Executive Committee will take over the GSL, and take control of $29,118,969 in assets and $5,983,311 in liabilities that the Latter-Day Saints Church walks away from. Lets look at some interesting things the LDS Church is leaving behind (at least initially and according to the BSA Bylaws) to the Boy Scouts:
  • $84,365 Monetary Pledges from mostly Mormon Scout Families in 2016
  • $17,084,440 in Land, Buildings, and Leaseholds in 2016; This figure includes construction costs for the Thomas S. Monson Lodge which amounted to $6,229,000. It is likely the lodge will retain its name when it is initially turned over to the BSA as seen in past cases of councils dissolving. It also includes 564.82 acres purchase the on the East Fork of the Bear River from the State of Utah Schools and Institutions Trust Lands Administration (“SITLA”), as well as the Federal lease ownership of Camp Steiner. Additionally, Hinckley Scout Ranch and Millcreek Canyon Camps will be initially retained by the BSA.
  • The following Money Market Accounts, Treasury Notes, Corporate Bonds, and Real Estate Trusts:
INVESTMENTS 2016 USD AMOUNT
Money Mkt Accounts $900,822
Fixes Income Securities: -
U.S. Treasury Notes $117,964
Corporate Bonds $50,326
Mortgage Backed Gov Sec $287,747
Mutual Funds: -
Domestic $735,224
International $696,577
Equities: -
Domestic $1,099,311
International $628,107
Real Estate Investment Trusts $478,477
Alternative Investments $576,767
TOTAL $5,571,352
It goes without saying this level of professional investment is really really unique to find in a Local BSA Council. I honestly have never seen anything like this – though I do come from a poor and tiny Local BSA Council.
On a side note, “Alternative Investments” is accounting slang for things like Bitcoin – so it is pretty humorous to think there is a remote possibility that scouting in Utah could be funded in part by Bitcoin.
  • The following land restrictions:
“The Council owns two parcels of land, which have permanent restrictions on them. The Council’s Headquarters is on a piece of land that was given to the Council as long as it is used as the Scout Headquarters. The property’s restriction was removed in 2016 through the Council’s payment of $1,590,000 to the holder of the restrictions. The other restricted property is the Bear Lake Camp in Rich County, Utah, which represents approximately 289 acres that was given to the Council to use strictly as a Boy Scout Camp.”
  • The purchase of the Council Headquarters land in 2016 to remove the Boy Scout restriction is an interesting move. This move was made around the same time the LDS Church began to take active measures to claw back as much as it could from Local BSA Councils around the US before announcing a split in 2018. No matter what happens with this split, the LDS will lose Bear Lake Camp to the BSA.
Summary of GSL Council Dispersal of Assets and Liabilities
$29 million in assets is at stake for both the BSA and the LDS in the termination of just one BSA Council. It is clear from a legal standpoint all assets and liabilities will be initially turned over to the BSA in an attempt to salvage the GSL Council. It is also clear that should these efforts fail, approx. $6 million in assets will be sold off to cover the existing debt. From this point forward, the BSA has legal claim to all the property holdings of the GSL Council and can choose to retain this property or sell some, all, or parts of these properties to the LDS or other organizations. The only certainty from a real estate perspective is that the BSA will retain ownership of Bear Lake Camp due to deed restrictions as well as the Federal lease for Camp Steiner. What will happen to other non-real estate assets is less clear, but the language of the BSA bylaws asserts the BSA will make a determination which assets to keep and which to return or sell back to the LDS.
UTAH NATIONAL PARKS COUNCIL - 2014
In the interest of type space, time, and because Hinton & Burdick are awful awful people for inverting their Financial Statement, I will not be inserting this F/S into the post. I left the link above to the UNP Financial Statement if anyone wants to go hog wild. [2014 is the newest F/S posted]
Big take aways after reviewing the 2014 UNP Financial Statement:
  • Total Assets in 2014: $17,275,633; Total Liabilities: $734,307
  • $2,941,642 invested in Securities and REIT
  • $244,838 in total contributions
  • $10,731,547 in Land, Buildings, and Equipment
  • $124,500 in Scout Camp land is permanently earmarked for the BSA
  • $3,241,341 in total endowments
There isn’t really much more that can be said for the UNP that wasn’t already covered by our discussion of GSL. In short, the BSA will initially retain all assets and liabilities of the UNP, and should the UNP resolve, $734,307 in assets will be liquidated to cover existing debt. The remaining $10,731,547 is legally owned by the BSA with some, part, or all of these holdings being either retained or sold off the LDS or other third party interests. Part of the remaining $5,809,779 will either be retained by the BSA as it was raised for the purpose of scouting, while an unknown portion will be returned to the LDS Church.
Unfortunately after an exhaustive search online, no Financial Statements for TT could be found.
Roughly Estimating the Final Cost to the LDS from the BSA Split
So how much does the Latter-Day Saints Church lose by parting ways with the Boy Scouts? Well a rough estimation can be made with the following assumptions in mind:
  • (1) Assuming the LDS Church will either lose control of all land held by the BSA Councils or will have to buy the land back; [In reality some land will be gifted or donated back to the Church by the BSA]. Either way, all assets found in the “Land, Buildings, and Equipment” ledger of both Financial Sheets will be given to the BSA. GSL = $17,084,440 [Real-Estate (RE)]; UNP = $10,731,547 [RE]
  • (2) Assuming all liabilities are paid off by non-real estate assets dollar for dollar; [In reality, there will be a cost to manipulating assets and debts in a short term]. **GSL = $6,051,218 [Total Assets (TA) - Liabilities (L) - RE]; UNP = $5,809,779 [TA – L – RE]
  • (3) Assuming remaining assets are equally split between BSA and the LDS Church; [In reality, it is unknown how much of the remaining assets the BSA will retain after covering debt and securing real estate]. **GSL = $3,025,609 [$6,051,218 / 2]; UNP = $2,904,890 [$5,809,779 / 2]
  • This puts total LDS losses from the GSL ($20,110,049) and UNP ($13,363,437) at $33,746,49.
  • It is not unreasonable to assume TT will exact similar loses on the LDS Church as did GSL and UNP despite having no available Financial Statement. For this reason, the average of GSL and UNP was taken as the losses exacted by TT. Hence, TT = $16, 873,243 [$33,746,49 / 2].
It is from these assumptions we can arrive at a ball park figure of the LDS Church surrendering $50,619,728 in assets to the BSA in just the dissolution of three Utah BSA Councils.
This figure does not account for the substantial investment the LDS Church has put into other BSA Councils across the US, or the invest Mormon families have made in paying for Scouting uniforms, campouts, membership fees, and other costs. This figure also does not take into account the $50 million or more it will take to replicate a youth organization on the same scale as the Boy Scouts.
With this said, Bloomberg reports the Mormon Church collects $8 Billion a year in tithing alone from its wards around the world - $50 million lost plus another $50 million or more invested in creating a new youth organization is a drop in the bucket for the LDS Church and more than worth the expense to create a program better suited to the LDS Church’s international missionary needs.
submitted by Zfriske to BSA [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Price History, July 2010 - Today Michael Mross bleibt bei seiner Aussage: Bitcoin Price Prediction by Experts (Long Term) A Brief History of Bitcoin in 5 Minutes The BIGGEST Bitcoin HACK in History  184 Billion BTC BUG  Lost BTC

As of august 2010 there are roughly 30 sites accepting payment via Bitcoin, spanning areas such as digital telephony services, currency trading systems, online games, physical goods, advertising services, auction systems, web hosting, computer security auditing and other online services. The Electronic Frontier Foundation [EFF] has switched to accepting donations in Bitcoins through BitPay. From Bitcoin Wiki. Jump to: navigation, search. On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created 184,467,440,737.09551616 bitcoins for three different addresses. Two addresses received 92.2 billion bitcoins each, and whoever solved the block got an extra 0.01 BTC that did not exist prior to the transaction. This was possible because the code used for ... Pantera Capital chief executive officer Dan Morehead has predicted a 50% chance the price of bitcoin will hit $115,000 by August next year.In a recent letter to investors, Morehead said: “If the ... Bitcoin history for 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019. Bitcoin price chart since 2009 to 2019. The historical data and rates of BTC ... 2010 was the year after the year of Bitcoin's launch. Contents. 1 Events. 1.1 February; 1.2 April; 1.3 May; 1.4 July; 1.5 August; 1.6 September; 1.7 October; 1.8 November; 1.9 December; 2 References; Events February. 06 – Bitcoin Market, the first exchange, is launched. April. 14 – Martti Malmi starts the Bitcoin Wiki. May. 22 – Laszlo Hanyecz, a GPU miner, makes the first documented ...

[index] [24859] [25911] [28415] [20609] [17778] [21887] [14148] [36791] [21007] [31678]

Bitcoin Price History, July 2010 - Today

2018 for bitcoin wasn’t something we expected, but there is the reason why it happened what it happened. Bitcoin was in the bubble in 2017, it skyrocketed by 1,800% reaching its all time high ... August 15 2010. 184Bn bitcoin have just appeared out of thin air. Script: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lCDW0sov7q7LpliXFxz9_I2vVymByR0_80bHo2B34tY/edi... The video includes Bitcoin price history in United States Dollars from July 17, 2010 to today December 25, 2019. Important Days of Bitcoin * The first Bitcoin block was created on January 3, 2009 ... Finanzexperte Michael Mross (mmnews.de) hatte sich im August 2017 im Inside Wirtschaft-Interview weit aus dem Fenster gelehnt und gesagt, dass die Kryptowährung Bitcoin auf eine Million und der ... 1. May 2010 In 2010, Laszlo Hanyecz agreed to pay 10,000 bitcoins for two pizzas. It was the most expensive pizza in history. 2. Jul 2010 Mt. Gox,was responsible for more than 70% of bitcoin ...

#