What if we include blocks mined by BlockSeer and DCMNA pools?  They claim to be "regulatory compliant" too, although I haven't heard much about them since their respective announcements.

Also, because I raised the question in the DCMNA topic, I'll repeat it here.  How do we know they are being as strict as they claim and not just making a gesture towards compliance so the authorities give them the benefit of the doubt?  How closely is anyone really looking?

This is the narrative we urgently need to confront.  If anyone attempts to suggest it will be a competitor to Bitcoin, they are either misguided or are being deliberately misleading.  CBDCs, if they go ahead, will literally just be the current fiat we already have (in this case Pound Sterling), minus the physical cash.  They are not going to be "new coins".  So don't think of them in that way.  It's just a continuation of the same old boring existing national currency while declaring war on cash.  Don't hype them up to be something they aren't.

I'm not sure it is.  Looks like this might be the third one.  We've had two topics in the Press sub along a similar theme.

BlockSeer pool:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5288918.0
DCMNA pool:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5310508.0


//EDIT:  Possible false alarm, all three might be the same entity.

Bitcoin can do many things, but it can't do everything.  It's an alternative to using the traditional financial system, but I don't think it's going to replace legacy banking.  People will still be able to abuse that system and will always be looking for new methods of doing that.  People need to be realistic and accept that Bitcoin isn't some magic cure that fixes all the world's problems.

Then you'll have to split the network to do it.  I guarantee you I won't be on that fork.  If you think "betterment of the community" means forming a new one of your own with a different ethos around what constitutes 'ownership', then I wish you the best of luck.  But count me out.  It's a line I refuse to cross.

I'd go a step further and say it goes completely against the principles of the network.  I tend not to think of it as a choice, because it would be an immoral act to me.

If I said "these seemingly vacant houses don't look secure enough, so, even though we have no claim to them, we should all agree to burn them to the ground to make sure no one can steal them", clearly no one would accept that.  So why would it be acceptable to do that to bitcoins?  It's the owners' responsibility to secure their own property.  We have no say in the matter.

I remember it being referenced in 'The Falcon and the Winter Soldier' recently, but forgot to make a note of which episode it was.

I hope you're right.  Maybe I'm just being cynical.  Nothing ever seems to break the cycle where money = power and what you're describing would very much shift the emphasis away from the power of commercial banks.  The point was continuously reinforced that commercial banks are an essential pillar of the economy, which fully justified all the bailouts/bailins so I can't see how their influence could be so suddenly diminished with the advent of CBDCs.

Once the gatekeepers have granted you access.  And given that they'll be the same gatekeepers who are currently keeping people unbanked in the current legacy financial system, I honestly don't expect CDBCs to be any different in that regard.  The floodgates are not going to rush open (IMHO).  They'll probably still want your multiple forms of ID, your proof of address, all the security checks they ask for now.  Wouldn't surprise me if they added some new checks as well.  Don't have some of those things they insist on having to prove your identity and satisfy their government-mandated checklist?  Too bad.  No entry for you. 

The people pushing for these CBDCs can give lip service by listing any number of potential advantages, but will be suddenly silent when none of those advantages materialise in execution.  They don't know how to change for the better.  It's an alien concept to them.

One of the few things banks do get right is their marketing spiel.  Just about every article on the internet regarding quantum computing and banking is a list of advantages and positive messages about all the benefits it will supposedly bring.  Conversely, just about every article with quantum computing and Bitcoin is the complete opposite.  Nothing but dire consequences and doomsday scenarios.  As a result, everyone seems to think the money in their bank is totally safe and that Bitcoin is somehow more vulnerable.  I've been in bank branches where staff have admitted they still use DOS-based applications, which are 30+ years old now.  Hell, I work in insurance, a financial services industry.  My company still uses DOS-based applications.  Let's stop pretending that banks are going to adapt to a change in technology more rapidly that we are.  The idea is laughable.

Slightly off-topic, but:

I was with you up until that point.  Huh?  I'm going to need a step-by-step on the thought process there.  When I think of people pushing socialist agendas, I tend not to find myself instinctively including hedge fund managers, banksters and the directors of large multinational holding companies. 

Is this one of those curious libertarian "anyone-who-wants-to-control-money-is-a-socialist" notions?  I think you'll find it's what you choose to do with the money that determines whether you're a socialist or not.

I don't know if some people find it more exciting when there's perceived drama, but this is just software development and economics.  It's not a meant to be a soap opera or so-called "reality television".  If you're looking for such lowly, base entertainment, there are better mediums to find that sort of thing.  We don't need to amplify every little disagreement or clash of personalities that occurs.  Discuss the technology, not the people involved.

I've told you where you can find it.  If you're incapable of locating the code repositories for the very project you claim to be knowledgeable about, that looks far more suspect.  

EDA:  https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/search?q=emergency+difficulty+adjustment&type=
Miner tax/IFP:  https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/search?q=infrastructure+funding&type=

You can find two of the three, the EDA and the miner fees, within the BCH open source code itself.  If you can't read code, you're going to have to take someone's word for it.

How is implementing an emergency difficulty adjustment because the network was too weak to survive its own launch an improvement?  Having to cheat to hit the difficulty target is effectively an admission of failure.

How is a miner tax to fund development an improvement?  I suppose if they are incapable of attracting sufficient developer talent with ethos and principles alone, it stands to reason money is the only avenue open to them.

How is falling victim to a successful hashrate attack by voluntarism.dev an improvement?  I don't understand how anyone could still have faith in a chain that has proven it cannot maintain its alignment of incentives.

These aren't "tradeoffs".  More like a cheap knockoff.  These are signs of a compromised and vulnerable chain.  

Indeed.  We also need to apply pressure to conferences, as they provide an audience for him to propagandise in front of.  It needs to be a total embargo.

Where do we begin?

If you're only capable of looking at something from the perspective of "Planet America - Centre of the known universe, around which all other entities revolve"  ( ), then it stands to reason you're only getting a fraction of the true picture.  Try opening your mind a little.

That's only if the USA permit their CBDC coin to be transferred to exchanges. 

Everyone seems to naturally assume they'll be trading this shit on exchanges, but that's not a safe bet in my view.  If they don't want you to be able to do that, they can either block the transaction, or just straight up confiscate your funds or any funds that any exchange holds.  They will have total control over their ledger.  Any notions of "ownership" you have will be completely meaningless.  People in this space have become so accustomed to decentralised currencies, it's as though they've forgotten the dangers of centralised ones.

What is wrong with your brain?

If the value of USDT is pegged to the Dollar, why would you expect USDT to go up in price if the dollar crashes?

You have posted dozens of topics with the same moronic premise.  People have repeatedly told you over and over again why you're wrong to think this.  And yet you still persist with this idiocy?  You either have the IQ of a root vegetable or you're a troll.  Please just shut up.

Firstly, I honestly doubt it's going to exist any time within the next 10 years.  They haven't even decided for sure if they're going to make it yet.  There's nothing to "fall for" at the moment.

Secondly, if they do eventually make it, it'll just be a continuation of Pound Sterling.  I'm fairly sure it won't actually be called "Britcoin".  

No need to get all agitated and excitable about it.