Elon Musk is a thought-leader and brilliant prodigy-inventor on a completely different plane than any we have seen yet. He is a man inspired by the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy and, in his heart, he is still a kid who believes that we can indeed hitchhike at least till Mars. Its crazy how his existential crisis is going to avert a possible one for the rest of the world.

Love him to bits.

Prodigal son who turns investments 1000s of times is the secretary. Papa is the Home minister. I don't think if they try to go ahead with it, BCCI is gonna need to "fight" the government. Of course, they will make a show out of it so the news channels have something to talk about. For bending public opinion, we have the famed whatsapp army, which btw, is busy making self-goals these days when it comes to pissing off Nepali citizens.

Politics aside, i think they can go ahead with it anytime they want. Its just that most of the "celebrity owners" are probably not on-board considering the conditions in Mumbai and potential loss of investments as the stadiums won't feel. There is the player fees, auction money, advertisement etc that has to be taken care of. IPL runs really close to the entertainment industry and it is in shambles right now.

Everything depends on whether these stakeholders can turn a profit. From the general perception of the Indian public, it can be safely assumed that very few people would like to go out in a crowd of 60,000 in the stadiums. There is no business case for IPL, even if we count the viewing rights.

Although it is a short term correlation, I think we can expect this to continue because of renewed interest after Bitcoin showed relative stability during the March crash. Bitcoin has steadily developed as an alternative investment and it is remarkable that despite little action from institutions, it is following the S&P 500 solely on the basis of retail investors.

Baby is now like "Investment of the people, for the people, by the people". Each of us, as individuals, are contributing to the overall sentiment by making independent decisions as to whether we want to hold or liquidate. I think it will be safe to assume, that for a majority of bitcoiners, there is very little external bias in their decisions now. The times of shenanigans from the likes of McAfee are, most likely, gone.

It truly is heartening to realize this. Keep going buddy..

Like anything else, Free market is an idea which is good in moderation and bad in extreme. The free market needs to be bound by the conditions of the community in which it operates. The liberal world order has equated globalization with a free market. A local market can also be a free market sans the effects of globalization.
Obviously, if the market is free, the people are free too. Free to choose what they sell and what they buy, what they like and what they want more. But for this, a cycle of trust and feedback is necessary. When local markets are replaced by conglomerates, this trust and feedback cycle is taken over by virtual, unfeeling, distant customer care. Yet again, it is necessary to allow advances elsewhere to seep towards developing countries slowly, which warrants some form of regulation.

Its a balancing act but yes, we would rather have free markets. Though, not like the USA where a pharmaceutical company making an essential drug like Remdesivir (which it effectively already has monetized earlier), can price it at USD 3000+ for a single patient.

Inheritance and will are probably one of the simplest use cases for bitcoin. One of the main examples that Andreas Antonopuolos shares in his old video on advanced bitcoin scripting involved a similar multisig implementation that he explains in a very easy to understand way. The video is worth a watch. He also explains how the stack in bitcoin scripts works for verification of signatures and transactions.

There is so much confusion regarding HCQ due to conflicting inforamtion. Just in the morning, i read a CNN article about Trump's abysmal handling of the coronavirus crisis and the race issues that have left the US reeling with divisiveness and pain. In the article, it was commented that "Trump peddled HCQ which has later been shown to be non-effective".

Then i happened to stumble on a clipping from a local Hindi language newspaper where a senior doctor had sent out public advise to people to self-medicate in case of symptoms and not wait for symptoms to become worse or for the report to come. The recommended dosage was
A.) HCQ-400 mg, - 1 Tablet twice on the first day (Morning and Night)
1 tablet daily for the next 4 days
1 tablet weekly for the next 7 weeks

B.) Azithromycin-500 mg: 1 tablet daily for 5 days

It specifically says that the medicine has no adverse effects.

Apart from this,

C.) The usual herbal recipe of black pepper, Cinnamon, Garlic, Dried ginger, turmeric boiled in water.

D.) Zinc, Vitamin C and D for immunity.

Make of this what you will. I am sharing this not as some sort of authentic medical information. This is just what appeared in a local newspaper. In these tough times, i have also heard of instances when people are suffering so much and it is horrible to hear about Gilead pricing their Remdesivir at some 325 USD per vial,  which will be paid for by insurance. I don't know what to call this if not profiting off of the pandemic. And if this is the cost of potential life-saving drugs for Americans, I fear for those who won't be able to afford it.

Years ago, I watched this documentary "Sicko" by Michael Moore which showcased the problems of American medical system. It was heartbreaking. Now, that same system has come to bite back. I think the world owes a lot of cures to the American Pharma Industry for their original research, yet, you cannot help but wonder that how can that system not be broken if the US has upwards of 1,25,000 dead people from the virus.

PS: As i said, don't treat this as authentic medical information. It appeared in a local newspaper. I can share the clipping later if someone wants. Consult your doctor and the dosage will be as per medical history and health. My heart goes out to the millions suffering and those who will continue to suffer world over, including the billions in my own country. The worst is definitely not yet behind us. Prayers for the families and those on the frontline, including researchers.

I am not worried about what they might do just to bitcoin. There goals are always bigger. Chinese co. like Bitmain cannot be expected to behave like other corporations in the "free-world" behave. There have been instances when major US or European corporations will go into litigation with their own Governments over policy issues. Sate policy doesn't always drive MNC policies. In China, on the other hand, you aren't dealing with just a profit-motive corporation alone but with the Chinese state entity as a whole. There desire for asserting world domination is well known. They would like to keep strengthening financial muscle. Take the example of their "Private" corporations that routinely under-bid other international companies in Africa because of state support.

The Chinese state has recognised cryptocurrency as a worthy investment of their attention and time. China was also at one time trying to push RMB as an alternative to USD. My worry is that Chinese don't see bitcoin as any form of financial freedom or privacy tool. Those concepts are antithetical to what China stand for. Pervasive policing and record of citizen activities and transactions, so as to enable perfect control over the communist utopia. With the support of BCash from Bitmain, their stands against BTC in general and the Chinese desire to make sure their writ runs large over any new ecosystem that evolves, they may very well try to use Bitmain as a Trojan Horse to target BTC and prop up one of their own horses. Everyone knows of their love for EOS.

Chinese wouldn't care much about investments of a company like Bitmain when it comes to their state goals. The best hedge against them though is that bitcoin as an ecosystem is diversified enough not to be completely dependent on Bitmain. The stakeholders are widespread and if the Chinese try to do anything, they will have the whole world against them. They have learnt this from the coronavirus debacle and the stand taken by EU states against their bids to buy up depressed stocks resulting from the pandemic.

They will learn and they will continue to try to dominate every system whenever they can.

Institutional investors usually buy into stocks of promising corporations when they see and upsurge in activity or potential. This is based on the fundamental value of the corporation behind the stock.

For bitcoin, this fundamental value comes from the individuals identifying its utility and importance as an investment into a p2p economy where people value their privacy and see their bitcoin holding as a hedge against inflation plus unlimited money printing. If institutions are buying, it could mean they recognize the potential of being left behind when the demand for BTC grows steadily among people, including HNI's.

Could this be the scenario that custodian facilities are preparing for by hoarding to BTC at current prices?? If enough people start recognizing this and want a piece of the pie, economies of scale will kick in and the institutions will rush to service this whole new class of customers.

The extent to which people will go to justify those sponsoring them is just abhorrent. I mean that is one of the reasons that sometimes, as an engineer and a person of science (in the STEM scheme of things), i find that all these humanities and allied sciences are little more than propaganda.

These people will fucking justify racism on the basis of eugenics when it suits their agenda. This dude has his first employment at Federal reserve after Wharton. All these schools which apparently take only the best of minds, refusing to acknowledge bitcoin as a solution for arriving at consensus in a decentralized manner, hence imparting it security and value as a P2P system, is simply too absurd to be accepted as not being agenda-driven.

I mean the guy goes on and does a whole classification of money just because he is told to put bitcoin in a strait-jacket. So they go on and "invent" a classification. Academic bankruptcy much? Fuck you Michael Junho Lee. We

Only in China can an employer threaten his employees as to what they choose to do or not do in their spare time as well as have the confidence that he can actually reliably monitor who his employees interact with. Considering that most Chinese "corporations" turn out to be controlled and funded by the state, how long is it before bitmain shows its true color and Chinese Govt use it to weaken Bitcoin. The fuckers already rate EOS as their top coin in some shitty state publication while Bitcoin is placed at some double-digit place.

The fuckers place Steem above Bitcoin at times. My ardent hope is for More power to this Zhan guy. Hope the two of them fight it out and burn this fucking deceptive chinese contraption to the ground. Watch out for sudden disappearance of the Zhan guy or some unknown "settlement" at the behest of Chinese govt.

If you are go into this topic then the answers wouldn't be technical but rather political. Technically, the involved algorithm should make no difference to the price. In reality, A PoW miner has much more skin in the game than a PoS miner. Whether a PoW miner uses SHA-256 or a Scrypt algorithm is the same thing. The difference lies in it being PoW, PoS or some other variant of PoS being touted in the name of more decentralization. A PoW coin requires investment from the miners themselves which means they are a very important stakeholder in the price of the currency. Unlike PoS or its variants, you do not "own" the coin but you earn them against your investment.

Another important thing is that how does availability of ASICs or concentration of ASICs for a certain algo will impact the price. I think the case of Sia can be a good study on how ASICs and the involved politics can bring a project to a standstill. Apart from this, you may take a look at this discussion and subsequent comments by @philipma1957. There are some important points in there which can tell you more about the importance of Algorithm or the possibility to have them changed as required.

That was a much better link. This research dates back to 2014. The concept in itself is solid though the assignment servers seem an obvious central entity. Then again, they don't seem much different from the seed servers that bitcoin client connects to for initialization. The basic use-case seems to be to improve state of TOR network or any other bandwidth sharing network. Seeing that such research was at one point being sponsored by DARPA is interesting. What could the Navy be benefiting by sponsoring for something like this?

The authors haven't pointed to an actual implementation of the protocol and their own is probably closed source. The reason someone hasn't used this idea to actually implement and improve TOR network maybe because TOR is essentially a network of "willful conspirators". They don't need additional motivation. Yet, something like this can definitely be an incentive for lot of people to become TOR servers themselves. If someone starts an Alt-coin project using this idea, it would be a much better use of time than plenty other Proof-of-"Something" ideas. In fact, if the incentive currency is simply bitcoin mili-Sats with integration of LN on such a network, that would be a brilliant project by itself.

How much of it is feasible is for better minds than mine to comment on.

Thanks for the detailed reply Teosanru. Does that section 50D also cover the transfer of bitcoin as an asset transfer. For example, even if you transfer to an exchange for INR conversion, won't there be a tax liability on the source of the BTC itself.

I understand that people are suggesting about keeping such things untied to identity but every in-bound BTC transaction on an exchange is also an event in itself. I guess, for the purpose of taxation, the value of BTC on the day of inbound transfer into your exchange wallet may also be considered taxable. The taxman is always obsessed with "Source of Income".

It is definitely an interesting topic. Not just in relation to cryptocurrencies but by itself. While, we have all had a taste of the weirdness of quantum phenomena, real applications of quantum, although ubiquitous, still feel esoteric to most people. The paradigm of quantum computing is actually following the idea of solving problems in quantum methods rather than classical methods. For example, programming evolved before evolution of computing hardware from William Shockley's humble BJT.

Hence, anyone looking to understand quantum computing will first need to understand the theoretical framework of quantum "software". For example, in Neumann Logic, the state of a "0' and a '1', allows you to express Gates==>Memory==>Adders==>Calculation==>Program flow and so on. Then computer scientists use algorithms to express solutions to real world problems in ways that a computer can understand.

So when someone talks about Quantum computing, the question i ask myself is what exactly changes if instead of just a "0'" and a "1", you have access to superposed values, in-betwee values. What does that even mean? How does it make algorithm's faster? Those are all hugely interesting questions to dip your beak into.

Umm, "integrate quantum mechanics into mining software" sounds incompatible. The software will remain software. Maybe they'll call it quantum software.

I went through that link trying to understand what i could without going into details of PCA or Eigenvector (which honestly sounds amazing but would need more effort to actually understand). From what the paper says, this method allows peers to identify each others' actual available bandwidth in a trustworthy manner. Self-reporting and the possibility of reporting false bandwidth in peer-to-peer systems like Napster or bit-torrent is thus avoided.

Now, This admittedly is a P2P concept but nowhere have the authors proposed to either call it Proof-of-Bandwidth or gave any sort of analogy to Proof-of-Work, which by the way is a trustless solution to Byzantine general's problem. How does this particular paper or calling it "Proof of Bandwidth" solves the Byzantine problem??

You need to elucidate this more than linking "streaming economy" rewards based on bandwidth. That is a completely different thing compared to currency issuance or maintaining of a ledger. Bitcoin's PoW and cryptography solves multiple problems to be called a "PROOF". Maybe I haven't looked into this as much, yet why people keep insisting on declaring every new "Proof of so and so" as the next PoW is beyond me.

I think it is unnecessary and even counter-productive to assign any kind of "controversy" to this topic. The whole thing was quite maturely and amicably settled by Cobra as well as Binns. If you read their discussion, cobra had no intention of trying to portray bitcoin.org as some sort of "sole source on bitcoin", so the question of a competitive site does not arise.

Plus, the way Bitcoin functions, nobody should need to trust the site anyways. You simply verify it for yourself. It is just that despite there no being a single central authority, there will always be some sort of trustworthy figures that bitcoin community will look up to. Legacy and continuity of commitment is what matters then. Cobra has that and that is the reason he had the last word in this despite Binn being pretty confident that he can represent the site by himself.

The post by Cobra where he showed all the DM screenshots convincingly show that Binns assumed he had right over the domain as he had been working on the site for sometime. He is the one who mentioned at one point, "Maybe we should talk about this with an attorney?".

It may have come to him as a rude shock that Cobra was not willing to let him play the role of bitcoin.org representatives to Mozilla and other organisations. Cobra clearly told him that he can accept the grant in his own name as "Mozilla supports Will Binn's work on bitcoin.org". He did not want the media spin to be "Mozilla invests in bitcoin.org". That is in line with his repeatedly shown desire to not corporatize bitcoin.org.

He devotedly stuck to his stand and explained it to Binns. At the end of which, Binn seem to have shown a desire to assert his ownership by talking about bringing attorneys. On his rights being revoked, he took over the treasury funds which, seemingly, was a coercive measure. To Binn's credit, he realized that it'll only harm his image and Cobra still has community's trust on this. He sent back the 9.8 BTC on the treasury and for the moment, all seems to have settled.

That doesn't change the fact that Cobra was and is still looking to handover the reins to someone trustworthy. (He talked about a developer which i think could be Greg.) Nothing is compromised and Cobra may have in fact, just warded off another takeover attempt.

Can you elucidate a little more on how you see Bitmain's game? From your post, it seems that you are concerned, rightfully so, about adoption and ease of usage as well as the fee-market issue.

The thing about Bitmain being a double edged sword probably points to their ability to influence the mining and their interests with Ver. It 'd be great if you articulate the actual fears as we need more discussion on these things.

I think that other currencies that have some sort of central entity are busy marketing themselves while Bitcoin is basically left alone to do its own thing by its followers. Apart from a bunch of core developers, it will be hard to find anyone else still in it without the allure of commensurate personal benefit.

Earlier we used to see a lot of push towards adoption. Now most of the SM timelines are taken over by people shilling their respective alts. That really has taken away attention from adoption and usage of Bitcoin and its layer-2 developments.

No matter how much you try to reason with such people, they simply want you to agree to their stupid FUD.

If you try to insult them or make them realize that their opinion doesn't matter and we are fundamentally not interested in the same thing, they will resort to behaving in this irritating, know-all manner (signing off posts..LOL). Such preposterous behavior, shitposts all pointing to the exact same things and you can't help but realize that these people are basically just internet trolls. They say shit for the sake of getting some attention and are hardly interested in real discussion or agreeing to disagree.

The forum allows useless people like him to continue to operate because well, we are all Satoshi and we think you are entitled to waste your time, respect and dignity whatever way you deem fit. If it was up to me, I'd simply just ban a lot of these assholes after such repeated wastage of human interaction. Be thankful that the mods are only deleting your trolling shitposts.

Also, there are hundred of people doubting bitcoin on this forum. We all talk about how adoption and use-cases are the need of the hour. We discuss about possible social and economic ramifications and what they mean to bitcoin. We talk about the new technological add-ons been worked on by the open source community. So, NO, this forum is NOT about pumping bitcoin. Lowlife trolls like you cannot understand that. You are just interested in your stupid agendas. We don't need the likes of you, so yeah, FUCK OFF!

That is some clickbait title for the article. What it is essentially ruing about is that 96% of the price movement is because of retail investors trading it on exchanges. I don't know how they have come to that figure of 96%. The actual point the article made was that if institutional investment had been attracted towards bitcoin, we would start seeing more rapid surges.

This is worth some discussion if we had figures about what is driving or can drive the price apart from retail demand. Ffor such a movement, we will need some fundamental developments like revenue generating companies and products adopting bitcoin usage through LN-based solutions.

Till we see such an increase in real-world adoption, people waiting to realize their "moon" dreams can bid them goodbye.