What does your rebalance script do? Does it adjust fees once one side of a channel reaches a certain point? Or does it send a invoice to yourself that is paid to a channel with a high balance to a channel with a low balance?

The SEC rejecting a physical bitcoin ETF, but approving a cash-settled futures ETF is bureaucracy nonsense. Similarly, allowing the Greyscale investment trust to issue shares that cannot be redeemed, but charges a fee for investors to hold is only going to harm long-term investors.

It would be possible for an issuer to be nearly-guaranteed to match the long-term price of bitcoin (or even beat it by a small amount) if they were to invest in either physical bitcoin or physical-settled bitcoin futures, and were to charge a fee to buy or redeem shares directly to the issuer. The issuer could then not charge a fee to holders of the ETF, and the amount of bitcoin each share represents could remain constant (or even increase, if some of the fee is rebated to the ETF) over time.

Thank you for responding. A lot of what I had posted had already been addressed/discussed by others in this thread, so there is no need to rehash those issues.

Yes, I found that repo, however I am not confident it is possible to "prove" your server is using that specific code.

Except for the issue of "blackout transactions" (below), I don't think deleting an old key or using specific code is a big deal, because as your documentation says, the statechain is signed in a way that proves if the SE is colluding with an old owner of a statecoin.

So my concern would be a scenario as below:

Alice currently owns a 1BTC statecoin issued by a Mercury server
When Alice obtain her 1BTC statecoin, she also received a "blackout transaction" with an nLockTime expiration of block 710,000.
Alice and the Mercury server agree to collude with eachother to steal the statecoin, so they create a new "blackout transaction" with an nLockTime expiration of 709,050
Alice "sells" her 1BTC statecoin to Bob for 1BTC that is transferred on-chain.
As part of the above transfer, Alice uses her private key to sign the Statechain with Bob's public key, and with the help of the Mercury server, creates a "blackout transaction" payable to Bob's "blackout" address that is different and distinct from the public key she just signed. The "blackout transaction" payable to Bob has a nLockTime expiration of block 709,994 (710,000 minus 6).
Now Alice has a "blackout transaction" with a nLockTime expiration of 709,050 and Bob has a "blackout transaction" with a nLockTime expiration of 709,994.

If Alice were to broadcast her "blackout transaction" at block 709,065, based on the current protocol, there is no way for Bob to prove he had been scammed.

Using the same public key for both the "blackout transaction" output, and as documentation to be the "owner" of the statecoin would be one way to address the above issue. This issue could also be addressed by having the output address of the "blackout transaction" and the nLockTime expiration be "signed" and be part of the statechain.

aysg76 can be removed from the OP list

edit: so can Ya3rob

They are likely trying to determine if you are trying to involve government regulators in your dispute. 

They might be able to give you the txid of your withdrawal transaction they claim received a withdraw from your account. If they acknowledge your purchase but cannot even provide a claimed withdrawal transaction, IMO you probably have a strong case against them, but you would probably need to take legal action.

No. Not unless the futures market sees an extended period of backwardation.

Right now the ETF will see another approximately 1% loss due to rolling from November to December contract (assuming no slippage).

It might be trivial for a software program to perform the calculation, but the runtime will be slower calculating to infinity versus calculating the chances of x -1 not happening.

To demonstrate, I created two simple functions:
def to_inf():
    count = 0
    for x in range(100):
        count +=1
def sub_3x():
    count = 0
    for x in range(3):
        count -=1

I ran some test on both to see how fast they execute:
%timeit to_inf()
4.64 µs ± 67.7 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 100000 loops each)
%timeit sub_3x()
512 ns ± 4.11 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1000000 loops each)

I could create functions that calculate a poisson probability until the probability is zero, and that calculates all probabilities of x-1 down to 0, and the outcome would be the same (the later would have a quicker runtime)

This is about following the rules, and not being able to do whatever he wants. nutildah was not getting anything from moving his thread, he was not warning anyone about potential scammers. Not one person on his list has even attempted to post in the currency exchange sub this month, one person was last online last month, and three others have not logged onto their accounts in multiple months.

Meanwhile, on the first page of the currency exchange sub alone, I found threads[1] made by five people that have what appear to be valid scam reports against them, including one that nutildah himself left a neutral rating on about the scam reports. Why are the below people not on
nutildah's thread? The reason is that his thread is not a serious attempt to warn people about potential scammers. It is an attempt to make certain people upset, and to show people that he can do whatever he wants and get away with it.

TBH, I don't even understand how nutildah could think it would be appropriate to be in currency exchange. But that point doesn't even matter. He was clearly told his thread doesn't belong there, and he was clearly told that if he continued to move his thread, he would be banned (this was after he wrongly moved his thread many times). He even acknowledged that him moving his thread would lead to a ban, and he did it anyway. 


[1]-
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5368968.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1757611.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=2417495.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5353451.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5138828.0

maleability was solved years ago when transactions that were maleabilated became non-standard.

You are grasping at straws. The issue is not that he posted a thread in the wrong sub. The issue is that he repeatedly moved his thread back into the wrong sub after his thread was properly moved out of currency exchange. He had zero intention of actually trading any bitcoin.

There are reasons why the cited threads are not moved out of the bitcoin subs and these reasons are well established. The fact that someone wants to upset people is not a reason to have a thread in currency exchange. Nor is the fact that suchmoon wants to have a thread there that she knows doesn’t belong there.

In order for a thread to be posted in the section it was posted in, it needs to meet the following criteria:
His thread very clearly did not meet this criteria. This is true despite his attempt to pretend to be trading bitcoin.

By my count, the following accounts have warned him about his actions, specifically that his actions could lead to a ban:
Quickseller
Royse777
hilariousandco

I am not going to comment on the above accusation, although I don’t see any basis in fact to the above, and I do look forward to you having someone else present evidence you find to come to the above conclusion.

If you need that amount of money, given your circumstances, you should use your credit card, or take out a signature loan. The interest you will pay would be lower than the 50% you are offering. Lenders on here really don’t have any way to collect on debts besides giving negative trust, and that would do very little to get you to pay.

I don’t see any reason why adjusting fees couldn’t be automated depending on the specific circumstances.

If a lot of BTC is required to earn from running a LN node, perhaps a reasonable interest amount should be charged against earnings to account for what could have been earned by lending your bitcoin to whatever reputable DeFi company.

I think you know very well that once a thread is moved by a moderator, it should not be moved back without first getting the mod (or someone above him) to agree. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any point in having moderators move threads.

nutildah was clearly warned by multiple people, including myself that his actions were going to lead to a ban. (Which it appears has happened). Specific action was taken many times against nutildah, each of which should have served as a warning to him. I can’t speak to any generic “hyper troll” however these people clearly did not have sufficient actions taken against them to get a ban. There is a difference between someone posting something that suchmoon doesn’t like and breaking the rules.

If nutildah had listened to my advice, he would not be banned now. I didn’t advocate for his ban, but I don’t feel bad that he is banned. He knew exactly what he needed to do to avoid a ban, and specifically took action counter to that.

nutildah is free to disagree that his thread is wrongly posted, and he can make arguments in favor of keeping his thread in currency exchange. However until and unless the moderation agrees, he should not move his thread into that section. 

See this thread. My guess is that he decided to try to move his thread one more time.

He was warned of the consequences of doing this by multiple people and it was clearly explained to him why what he was doing was wrong and he apparently continued.

Thats interesting. I wonder if some people are closing channels (or not closing channels) based on fees on various routes. If there is competition offering free routes, it might not be worth it to tie up bitcoin, but once a channel is closed for likely low future fees, they might not open a new channel due to the associated initial costs of doing so (tx fees).

It would be interesting to see how much someone might be able to earn running a LN node if they were trying to maximize their profit.

Maybe. However a dual licensing system would more or less force the OP to keep the same features in his free version forever because the source code would be public. Also, a lot of software with "paid" features that also has a "free" version often has very useful additional features above the free version, however the work required to implement the additional features is minimal. So publishing the source code to a free version would potentially result in the OP seeing competing versions of his software from forks of his software that have the same features as his paid versions.

The chances of not finding n blocks within one block interval is the same as 1 - chances of finding n or more blocks within one block interval.

If you need a precise chance of 'x or more' occurrences happening, it is probably better to calculate the chances of x -1 or less occurrences not happening. 

You're right. I had not considered that.

Although you are still limited as to how many potential signers there are in a script (this is my understanding), and there is still the issue of having to change keys whenever an employee leaves, and changing keys with multi-sig means that a transaction is required, including the cost of said transaction.

Also, the employees need to be in a location specified by the employer in order to sign a transaction when using SSS with my setup. If a group of employees are fired for misconduct, as long as you can keep them outside of the room containing the computer used to sign transactions (and otherwise limit their access to said computer), your private keys are safe.

If you are using multi-sig without sharing keys, the company could just look at the blockchain, specifically the signature of the transaction to see who signed the transaction.

This thread is an example of certain people believing they are above the rules, can do whatever they want, and see above the rest of the community.

The thread in question hasn’t been updated in months (except for an attempt to exploit what certain people believed was a loophole). The purpose of the thread in question is not to protect forum members. The purpose is to upset forum members (aka troll).