Very interesting feedback so Satoshi Nakamoto did originally consider an IP-Addressed based blockchain, but for whatever reason unknown to use decided not too.

The argument stated is that it would be subverted by those with access to long ranges of IP addresses.

This may be a valid concern with the current design. I can indeed envision a situation where subsequent blocks are all produced by the same IP block range.

A solution to this concern is to RANDOMIZE the IP Threshold based on a RANDOMIZATION algorithm.

Thus would solve this problem, and allow the closest/nearest IP address to be accepted by the network, preventing and entire IP range of dominating the blockchain for a while.

I understand your critique and I will try to address it and explain some of it:

1. I tried to improve the text somewhat by seperating the consensus rules with an extra space, I was also unhappy with the layout, however this idea is fresh from the mind, one day/few hours old and could definetly use some more work. However I share it immediately in case something strange happens to me, like airplane landing on my building.

2. The all caps is because I record this on a youtube livestream, not all watchers might be using high-resolution displays, it can also be beneficial to watch video at low resolution to be able to skip through it more fastly.

This is indeed an old windows 7 machine from 2012, though it's rock stable concering the OS, the 3D chip is indeed damaged cause of overheat, nothing I can do about it, when Ryzen 7000 comes out I may purchase it, but for now this old hardware usage does not matter much for developing ideas.

3. This should be common knowledge... the initial few blocks were analyzed by somebody.. and his conclusion was... multiple machines were used... try and google this... I have little interest in proving this... I take it as a given... doesn't really matter that much... the point is mute... mining pools are a reality.

4. Not sure which words you mean, this may be indeed my sense of humor.

I am not sure what you are referring to in the first 3 minutes, perhaps this is my personal oppinion about why bitcoin failed and is a failure, if you disagree with this statement then I can understand that, but I think you are wrong to say that I am wrong, bitcoin has been mine-pooled and thus it's initial vision failed. Try to get over that...

Youtube video link where I discuss one out of two of bitcoin's main problems:

Problem 1: Coin distribution problem

Problem 2: Scalability problem.

I discuss problem 1:

https://youtu.be/QNKMpxZ2um0

So far the basic idea is to use "signed hashes" instead of "most powerfull hashes".

And the new/additional consensus rules that I have come up with so far are:

Basically I term/call/coin this new system: "Skybuck's Signed Hash Blockchain system"

Going to paste this text as it was described in the video above, maybe later I will work on it some more,

right now I am looking for feedback and critique if you think this system will work, or if you spot flaws and weaknesses in it ?!

PEER CONSENSUS RULES:

PEER CONSENSUS RULE 1. THE IP THRESHOLD RULE WITHIN A 10 MINUTE TIME FRAME.

PEERS WILL ONLY ACCEPT NEW BLOCKS WITHIN A 10 MINUTE TIME FRAME/PERIOD, WHERE THE BLOCK
WITH THE LOWEST IP ABOVE THE IP THRESHOLD WINS.


PEER CONSENSUS RULE 2. THE LONGEST BLOCKCHAIN WINS.

THE LONGEST BLOCKCHAIN WINS/IS SELECTED AS THE MOST VALID BLOCKCHAIN.


PEER CONSENSUS RULE 3. IF MULTIPLE DIFFERENT BLOCKS ARE DETECTED FROM A SINGLE PEER
THEN THESE BLOCKS AND THE PEER IS DISQUALIFIED AND THE IP THRESHOLD IS INCREMENTED + 1.


PEER CONSENSUS RULE 4. DISQUALIFICATIONS SHOULD BE BROADCASTED THROUGHOUT THE NETWORK,

BASICALLY THESE WOULD BE THE MULTIPLE BLOCKS. PEERS (GROUP A) THAT IGNORED THESE

DISQUALIFICATIONS SHOULD INFORM THE PEERS (GROUP B) (<-THAT HAVE DISQUALIFIED THESE BLOCKS OR

THESE PEERS) THAT THEY (GROUP A)(THE PEERS THAT IGNORED THESE DISQUALIFICAGIONS) DISAGREE AND

WILL CONTINUE WORKING ON A SPECIFIC CHAIN AND IT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL TO INFORM (GROUP B)

OF WHICH BLOCK OUT OF THESE MULTI BLOCKS THEY SELECTED, SO THAT AT LEAST (GROUP A) CAN KEEP

THAT CHAIN IN THEIR MEMORY OR MAYBE THIS CAN BE DONE LATER.


PEER CONSENSUS RULE 5. IN CASE OF THE DETECTION/DETERMINATION OF DISQUALIFIED BLOCKS, WAIT

UNTIL IP THRESHOLD+1 (BASICALLY EITHER DISQUALIFIED BLOCK IP THRESHOLD +1) OR MAIN IP

THRESHOLD WHICH EVER IS HIGHER. IF THE PEER DECIDES TO DISQUALIFY THESE BLOCKS THE PEER SHOULD

MARK ITSELF AS DISQUALIFCATION-RE-SYNC-NEEDED.


PEER CONSENSUS RULES 6. IF THE DISQUALIFICATION-RE-SYNC-NEEDED FLAG IS SET THEN ON

INCREMENTATION OF THE IP THRESHOLD THE PEER SHOULD RE-SYNC ITSELF WITH OTHER PEERS THAT MAY

HAVE ACCEPTED THESE MULTI BLOCKS AND ASK THESE PEERS WHAT THEY NOW BELIEVE IS THE LONGEST

CHAIN...

MAYBE +1 IS A LITTLE BIT EARLY... BECAUSE THERE COULD BE MANY SPLITS ACROSS THE PEERS, MAYBE

THIS RE-SYNC THRESHOLD NEEDS TO BE SET A LITTLE BIT HIGHER LIKE +5 OR +6 OR +10.

THIS COULD BE CUSTOM SET AND REALLY LONG TERM IS NOT THAT MUCH OF A PROBLEM.

SO THERE MAY HAVE TO BE A PROTOCOL WHICH ALLOWS PEERS TO ASK ANOTHER PEER:
WHICH BLOCK DID YOU ACCEPT AT A CERTAIN IP THRESHOLD, OR ANOTHER IDEA COULD BE:
WHICH BLOCK DID YOU ACCEPT FOR BLOCK NUMBER X, X BEING THE BLOCK NUMBER WHICH WAS DISPUTED AND
MARKED AS DISQUALIFIED. GOOOD.

I figured as much, this is where the bitcoin community may need to wise up and realize that they must "come/unite" together and not play along with yo-yo schemes. Long term the bitcoin holders will be better of as the bitcoin price starts to go up, up, up etc.

The idea here is to not fully stabilize the coin, because that will most likely be impossible as the true/real market demands go up or down, but at least it takes the swing out of it and makes it less attractive for market manipulators to manipulate the market, there will be less profit in it for them, maybe even a loss

To expand on this idea and not cause blockchain "bloat".

Perhaps a number of exchanges could become centralized places where these groups of traders can united in "exchange stabilization groups".

The exchange then contacts these traders whenever a large buy or sell transaction happen.

This exchange(s) then tries to counter act this large buy or sell, by uniting transactions from these traders into their exchange accounting software.

Finally the exchange issues a "stabilization transaction" towards the blockchain, where these kinds of stabilization transactions are prioritized by miners and are added to blockchain free of any transaction cost.

Multiple smaller exchanges can then work together to try and stabilize the price of the coin, but issueing only a a few of transactions.

Here is a vague idea to stabilize the price of bitcoin somewhat.

Bitcoin owners/traders/companies interested in stabilizing the bitcoin price could "unite" into some kind of special pool of traders.

Each trader has a "buffer capacity" which can be used to buy or sell bitcoins with some other currency on exchanges.

They are all connected to each other via some protocol, either centralized or preferably decentralized.

Once the bitcoin price starts dropping, one of the traders is chosen to buy some bitcoins with it's buffer capacity.

As long as the bitcoin price keeps dropping, another trader is chosen to again buy some bitcoins with it's buffer capacity.

This continue until the bitcoin price is somewhat stabilized.

If the opposite happens and the bitcoin price rises, then a random trader from this pool is selected, or it could even be round robin, and then some bitcoins from the buffer capacity is sold.

So the buffer capacity could be like a double capacity buffer. Some bitcoins in the buffer and some other currency in the buffer.

Then some bitcoins are sold from this buffer to make the bitcoin price rise less steeple.

Such an algorithm and protocol should reduce the up and down swings somewhat and make bitcoin more resistent against price manipulation by large ammounts of bitcoin buying and selling to make it yo-yo and make it unstable for trading goods and services.

The aid this group in "price stabilization" a special transaction type could be added to bitcoin, which miners will allow to be included in the next block, where no transaction costs/fees are applied by the miners, in an effort from/of miners to help in the stabilization of the coin price.

If miners benefit from a more stable price is unknown to me.

There are some possible reasons why he is sharing it with this forum:

1. He did not know about wallet cracking services. Though a quick google would have shown it up.

2. He don't trust the wallet cracking services and wants it out in the open.

3. He wants to see if anybody has the computational horse power to crack these passwords to verify how safe bitcoin actually is.

4. Most likely the wallet.dat is stolen and it is therefore too risky to send it to a wallet cracking service, this way he is hoping to catch some of the money for the cracking work of others.

Whatever the case may be my advise to whoever cracks it if real is to do the following:

1. Keep 3.0 BTC for yourself.
2. Send 0.5 BTC to him.
3. Show screenshots that 0.5 BTC was send to him.

Step 3 is very important, because this builds some level of trust and word of mouth that forum-ites on this forum can actually help and re-gain funds. This may bring in more oppertunities for forum-ites.

So at first glance sending 0.5 BTC to him seems sour, but it could be a very smart thing to do long term.

Anyway finally if the original poster does receive some BTC he also be smart to post it here with some screenshot for the exact same reaosn as 3. LOL.

GOOD LUCK.

(P.S.: The last time I investigate such an offering, it was in a different way, it was real... so....)

*addition*:

One remaining and intrigueing question remains:

Suppose it's number 4. The wallet was/is stolen, then how does the poster know that the password is 8 characters long and numbers and letters ? This would imply that somebody observed somebody else typing in the password and may have seen the number of fingers being used or key pressed being made. It could also be the number of clicks on the keyboard.

This could also explain why the estimate is not exact but somewhere between 6 and 8. (If you do try I would recommend going up to 9, if feasible/possible ! )

Interesting question. When could also invert the question: why use multiple hashes ?

Anyway PascalCoin does use multiple hashes. It re-hashes the existing hashes, it also has something called random hash.

There are some obvious down sides to using multiple hash algorithms:

1. More code required, thus:

1.1 More possibility of code bugs.
1.2 Slower compile time.
1.3 More disk usage to store source files.
1.4 More places to hide malicious code.
1.5 Almost impossible to check every hash algorithm/code for a single programmer, lot's of work to-do.

Point 1.5 is pretty heavy weighing. Here a single hash algorithm and single code base has some adventages and at least can be verified to function/work correctly.

I worry that with PascalCoin and randomhash one comprise of one hash function might make the rest of the hashing weaker, though currently I have seen no evidence of this.

Ultimately the final hash is still sha256.

Other more practical reasons might be:

2. There were no alternatives ready/available at the time, maybe no access to code.
2.1 Or security of other hashes less well studied, less confidence in them.

Other problems also illustrated by RandomHash / multiple hashes of PascalCoin:

3. Slower verification. I believe this was solved somehow, not exactly sure how.

Adventages of having multiple hashes:

4. Can more easily switch to another hash, since code base already there, used and tested over time.

The hash function is probably not the main weakness of bitcoin.

The main weakness of bitcoin could be the ecliptic curve algorithm which is used/involved in the generation of private keys.

If there is a pattern in this generation process then that is bad news for bitcoin.

Even as much as 1 bit pattern in the "keys" could comprise it, though still difficult.

At 2, 3 or 4 bits of patterns in the keys it's game over for bitcoin.

So holders of bitcoins are literally a few bits away from bankruptcy.

What needs to happen is more analysis of ecliptic curve algorithm, especially with fourrier transform analysis algorithms and such to determine/detect if there are any patterns in the "signals" where keys can be thought as signals.

At least that is my take from all of this.

I think it is necessary to warn people for the dangerous of buying second hand computers, especially now that the Corona crisis is a bit lower.

Many gamers/people are selling their computers/gaming machines. Trying to find people to buy it.

There is an increased risk that these gaming machines which appear beautifull on the outside and a great buy of value could be manipulated and infected with trojans and others spying software and equipment such that if the buyer were to use internet banking or bitcoin that these "sellers" of "second hand gaming personal computers" could then observe the internet or bitcoin banking and this could lead to compromise of the banking accounts and stealing of funds from the buyer !

So consider this a BIG FAT WARNING to be very carefull with buying second hand computers, that almost seem to good to be true.

(Even first hand/new computers run risks of being infected, but that is a story for a different time)

Try upload a picture of the purchase data, for us readers for some credibility, perhaps if true people can start a crowd funding operation for you ! =D

So ya think bitcoin is better ?

See title.

Euhm, so you suggesting people take bags full of millions of dollars and deposit them there ?! Shady ! LOL.

See title.

Somebody on discord brought this to my attention:

https://www.idena.io/

Proof of Person blockchain.

Don't know yet how it works, but I will look into it ! =D

This has been subdued by infiltration and system infiltration by intelligence services. The counting and transmission of votes is manipulated. You may believe that this is not happening, but then you "believe" in democrazy, just like "believing in god".

Here is now a different system presented where voting can be verified/analyzed by system software and users, so there is no more believe but mathematical proof and verification by users themselfes.

---

Somebody on discord brought this to my attention:

https://www.idena.io/

Proof of Person blockchain.

Don't know yet how it works, but I will look into it ! =D

[moderator's note: consecutive posts merged]

The ideas of "democrazy fixed" where 1 human-only-solveable-puzzle = 1 vote can also be applied to cryptocoin systems:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5391860.0

This idea can be taken and slightly adjusted as follows:

1. The programmers of the cryptocoin system program a new human-only-solveable-puzzle system, possibly keeping it secret or keeping it open at their choice, openness would give a bit more trust.

2. Others can try and program bots/machine learning/deep learning to try and attack it/solve it, in doing so/succeeding they could be rewarded with some coins now or later.

3. In case nobody has successfully programmed any software to solve the puzzles then the system developed at number 1 can be "scheduled" to go into "production" for one run only, very maybe multiple runs, but one run only would perhaps be best.

4. A specific date/time should be chosen when the system goes "into effect" this date/time should be sooner than later to prevent development of bots.

5. From that specific date/time users of the crypto coin system can solve puzzles and earn coins. For example for 1 day or 3 days or 1 week determined by how good the system at 1 is thought to be.

6. During this time the developers of system 1 can also monitor to creation of coins by solved puzzles and could halt the dispensing of coins if ireggularities are detected.

Thus the generation of coins only happens in "phases", "periods", "moments of oppertunity" when systems are available to prevent one's humanity and uniqueness.

To keep the network operational, miners with the usual hashing/proof of work can continue to earn income based on transaction costs/fees.

The human voter must solve a puzzle only a human can solve within reasonable time.

The human-only puzzle can be generated by a computer algorithm, the computer algorithm must not know the solution before hand.

The human-only puzzle must not be solveable by deep learning network or machine learning. It must be too difficult or it must be detectable that it was solved by a deep learning network/machine learning network.

Perhaps a slightly wrong answer, which may by typical for humans but not computers might also be of some value to determine the humanness of the voter. Even multiple puzzles could be tried to detect a human brain from a deep learning/machine learning brain.

Once the solved puzzle(s) are analyzed and determined to originate from a human brain, the voter may proceed and cast their vote.

The solution to the puzzles are then broadcasted to a peep 2 peer/distributed system where they are collected.

Before transmission these puzzle solutions + votes are lightly hashed by the voter to prevent manipulation allong the communication line.

Encrypted communication channels with strong miners may be preferred where strong mines can communicate over an encrypted channel and re-hash/re-secure the puzzle solution + vote data with a stronger hash.

The stronger hashed puzzle solution + vote data is then send back to the voter for verification/checking that it is indeed his cast vote.

The voter has a signature which allows the votes to re-call his vote if any irregularity is detected by the voter within period V... in which V is the legal time within votes may be record into the system. Any votes arriving beyond V are invalid.

The voter must have a grace period to recall any wrongly or manipulated votes.

This recall time will be R on top of V so it will be RT = V+R

RT = RecallTime

From 0 to RT the voter may issue re-call transmissions to inform the network that his votes has been manipulated and should be recalled and not counted in the vote totalling.

Or at the very least the vote should be marked as "invalid/recalled" by voter.

To compensate for the vote loss, the voter may re-cast his vote one time by contacting another miner and proceeding to vote again.

This voting times will be VR for votes recalled and will be placed on top of

V+R so it will be V+R+VR thus there will be a time penalty for the voter to do it again to prevent abuse/unnecessary communications with the voting system at the expense of the voters time.

Now one more recall period is issued. V+R+VR+R2 where the voter again may re-call his vote.

As they say, three times is a lucky charm.

This may then be done one last time

V1+R1+VR1 + R2 + VR2 + R3

So basically we can clean this up as:

V1 + R1 + V2 + R2 + V3 + R3

So they voter may broadcast his vote to the system 3 times and he may recall it 3 times.

Where the votes must have gone via a different miner for each V1, V2, V3.

By marking recalled votes in the system, this gives users to possibility to indicate that they believe irregularties or manipulation has occured and then others can investigate the systems of these miners and if they ammount of re-called votes is very high, votes can then decide to not use those miners anymore and thus the system can become a "self-cleaning" system were manipulating systems are out-expelled from the system.

Finally one the total voting period is over:

TV = V1 + R1 + V2 + R2 + V3 + R3

the votes are tallied/summed by the p2p system, everybody participating with a node can then start summing the results and see the voting results.

What is left to do is an injection system where nominees/groups can inject themselfes into the system ready to be voted upon.

Such an injection system is necessary as well to prevent "pre-selected candidates" by a small control group.

Such an injection system may be and will possibly be abused though it will be necessary to store all injectees into a nice tree of some sorts and a search system should be enabled so votes can search for the parties or groups or people they want to vote for.

One possible idea which comes to mind is that nominees can create a public key/number which they can put on their cards/websites/e-mails etc to inform the voters that it is them.

The voter can then search for this public key in the system. These public keys are also distributed among the p2p system and the associated nominee data.

The voter can thus cast it's vote by including this public key in it's vote as the nominee.

Additional data about the candidate/nominee should also be included into the system. So that the system itself also becomes a slight information distribution system, such that voters can read about intentions of the candidate/nominee especially in light with todays boycotts/bans of certain candidates from existing media/communication channels.

Thus the candidate will have a remaining/functioning communication channel to broadcast it's view points for the voter to decide upon.

This data may be limited to within reasonable limits, 1 megabyte of data seems reasonable per candidate, where an expected maximum candidate is 1000.

In case more and more candidates are added to the system, this upper limit can start to shrink down to a minimum limit of 32 kilobytes.

In the case of system/candidate attack, this should still allow some reasonable ammount of information to be acquired/stored/broadcasted.

To inject candidate information into the system should require some light mining by the candidate themselfes to prevent candidate spam.

To further prevent candidate spam there will be an opening time when the system can be injected with candidate information.

This date will be D.

The system itself will present the candidate again with a human-only-solveable puzzle. The candidate must solve this puzzle first.

Once this puzzle is solved the candidate will be injected legally into the system. (Additional some light mining could be introduced, but barring candidates by technical means does not feel good, thus a human-only solveable puzzle should be sufficient).

After DT time this candidate period will be over.

Where DT is the time candidates have to inject themselfes into the system.

DT could be set to 1 day.

After DT has passed voting can begin. Where V + R and such begin.

This should keep candidate spam to a minimum.

In case it's still to high. DT can be lowered to 1 hour right before voting begins.

(Consider this document/idea an initial draft for such a proposed system !)

Bye for now,
  Skybuck Flying ! =D

The United States of America went through three great shocks:

1. Creation of Federal Reserve
2. 1933 gold confiscation
3. Nixon ending gold/dollar convertability

Now the United States of America is planning a secret fourth shock:
4. The destruction of the dollar/cash and the introduction of a digital dollar !

(The fear is that this will give the goverment to much control over it's citizens)
(The 2022 Russia special military operation in Ukraine has lead to the rest of the world banning Russia from all kinds of systems, including banking systems, services, companies, etc. a major sign of things to come. Will Russia transition towards bitcoin ? Will other countries transition towards bitcoin ? Will there be a war between bitcoin and digital dollar ? Will there be a crack down on bitcoin ? Was the covid-19 pandemic a beta test to see how people would react to cashless systems and lock downs, restrictions, denied access, etc ?!)

The rumor is that on 20 may 2022 current USA president Biden will announce this on television, just like a USA President Nixon shocker !

Details:

    Research Firm’s Past Prediction 1: DotCom Bust. In the March 2000 issue of International Speculator, Doug Casey wrote: “Will this be the first bubble in history that doesn’t bust? I think not. … I’m of the opinion that the world’s financial structure is a gigantic house of cards, and when the inevitable happens it’s going to be a catastrophe.” The Nasdaq reached a then-peak of 5,132 on March 10, 2010. https://finance.yahoo.com/chart/%5EIXIC)

    Nancy Pelosi’s Leaked Document: Refers to an early draft of the CARES act, which contained language for a digital dollar on page 314: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6817441-House-Democrats-Counterproposal-For-Stimulus

    Senate Bill introduced by Sherrod Brown contains language to establish a digital Dollar: https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SIL20449.pdf

    Organizations that support digital currencies through Better than Cash Alliance includes U.N., Clinton Foundation, and IMF: https://www.betterthancash.org/about/members

    Federal Reserve exploring digital Dollar: https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/brainard20200813a.htm

    Headline: Fed Prepares to Launch Review of Possible Central Bank Digital Currency: https://www.wsj.com/articles/fed-prepares-to-launch-review-of-possible-central-bank-digital-currency-11633339800

    Chase, Wells Fargo, Citigroup all have issued digital wallets in preparation for digital currencies:
        https://www.citi.com/credit-cards/credit-card-rewards/digital-wallets-and-virtual-wallets
        https://www.wellsfargo.com/mobile/payments/
        https://www.chase.com/digital/digital-payments/additional-wallets

    Starbucks, McDonalds and Whole Foods have each taken steps to ban cash to varying degrees

    Visa patent: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20200151682.PGNR.

    Three shocks referred to are creation of Federal Reserve, 1933 gold confiscation, and Nixon ending gold/dollar convertability

    Claim: ‘$1.9 Trillion’ refers to number of paper US Dollars in circulation: https://www.federalreserve.gov/faqs/currency_12773.htm

    Reference to Monday morning is Monday, March 23rd. Nancy Pelosi introduced the Cares Act with Digital Dollar language: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/banking-law/house-democrats-consider-digital-wallets-for-crisis-payments

    Bill Gates Supports the End of Cash: Betterthancash.org is a project of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. The organization’s goal is to replace cash with digital currencies worldwide.

    Microsoft Patent: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2020060606

    Companies using various ‘cashless’ policies:
        https://www.pymnts.com/cash/2019/mcdonalds-kiosks-useless-millions-unbanked-united-states-households/
        https://www.disneyfoodblog.com/2018/09/14/disney-worlds-animal-kingdom-lodge-has-gone-cashless-but-what-does-that-mean/
        https://www.eater.com/2018/8/8/17664984/shake-shack-cashless-kiosks
        https://www.seattletimes.com/business/starbucks/starbucks-will-reopen-85-percent-of-its-coffee-shops-but-with-new-protocols/
        https://fortune.com/2020/04/27/whole-foods-cash-payments-restricted-some-stores/
        https://www.eatthis.com/cashless-restaurants-coronavirus/
        https://www.paymentssource.com/list/7-companies-that-dare-to-deny-cash

    Bill Gates quote: https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2020/04/23/bill-gates-on-how-to-fight-future-pandemics

    Panic of 1907: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panic_of_1907

    “Dangerous legislation’ refers to Federal Reserve Act of 1913: https://www.google.com/search?q=federal+reserve+act+of+1913&oq=federal+reserve+act+of&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l6.3725j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    Great Depresson “Employment in manufacturing declined to 67 percent of its 1929 level by 1933.”: https://www.encyclopedia.com/economics/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/industry-effects-great-depression

    96% of dollar value lost: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2010/nov/24/virginia-tea-party-patriots/virginia-tea-party-says-dollar-has-lost-98-percent/

    Gold confiscation refers to Emergency Banking Act of 1933 and Executive Order 6102:
        https://www.federalreservehistory.org/essays/emergency_banking_act_of_1933
        https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/executive-order-6102-requiring-gold-coin-gold-bullion-and-gold-certificates-be-delivered

    $30 million in wealth: https://auctions.stacksbowers.com/lots/view/3- 6TDFN/1933-saint-gaudens-double-eagle

    The 3rd Shock refers to the Nixon Shock, address given August 15, 1971: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_Xw5tWsOQo

    https://www.thedrive.com/news/9942/check-out-this-cool-infographic-of-ford-f-150-prices-over-the-years Truck prices here. – Spreadsheet: Real Price of Wheels

    https://www.infoplease.com/business-finance/poverty-and-income/capita-personal-income Assume 2,080 working hours in a year:
        https://www.google.com/search?q=how+many+working+hours+in+a+year&oq=how+many+working+hours&aqs=chrome.0.0j69i57j0l6.3365j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

    Hours to afford a mortgage in each city: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amydobson/2018/10/30/how-many-hours-you-need-to-work-a-month-to-afford-a-mortgage-in-each-city/?sh=e4b613a42857

    A Digital Nixon Shock? https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/digital-money-alternatives-to-dollar-by-harold-james-2021-07

    1971 References: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/

    Claim: 7-year auto loan: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-seven-year-auto-loan-americas-middle-class-cant-afford-their-cars-11569941215

    Early draft of CARES Act: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6817441-House-Democrats-Counterproposal-For-Stimulus

    Senate Bill: Sherrod Brown introduced a bill in the Senate in March, 2019 that introduced a Digital Dollar: https://www.banking.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SIL20449.pdf

    Microsoft Patent 060606: https://patentscope.wipo.int/search/en/detail.jsf?docId=WO2020060606

    Visa patent: http://appft1.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PG01&p=1&u=/netahtml/PTO/srchnum.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=20200151682.PGNR.

    Bill Gates Pledge: https://givingpledge.org/About.aspx

    The Better Than Cash Alliance:
        https://www.betterthancash.org/about/purpose
        List of BTC Alliance members can be found on ‘members’ link

    ID2020: https://www.biometricupdate.com/201909/id2020-and-partners-launch-program-to-provide-digital-id-with-vaccines

    Digital Dollar Control Over Population: https://www.coindesk.com/digital-dollars-will-give-the-state-too-much-control-over-money

    China Social Credit Score: https://www.businessinsider.com/china-social-credit-system-punishments-and-rewards-explained-2018-4

    Introducing the ‘Great Reset,’ World Leaders’ Radical Plan to Transform the Economy: https://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/504499-introducing-the-great-reset-world-leaders-radical-plan-to

    Fed’s Lael Brainard Pushes Digital Dollar as Central Bank Currency Race Heats Up: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/05/24/feds-lael-brainard-pushes-digital-dollar-as-central-bank-currency-race-heats-up.html

    https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/don-beyer/expenditures?cid=N00036018&cycle=2016&type=I

    “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System is authorized to issue digital versions of Federal reserve notes in addition to current physical Federal reserve notes.”: https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4741/text

    Ron Paul Quote: https://internationalman.com/articles/the-war-on-cash-transparently-totalitarian/

    Dual threat here: savings in cash could expire: https://www.thelocal.se/20160629/use-it-or-lose-it-swedish-bank-notes-expire-this-week/ -or- banks could take interest rates negative, and depositors would lose on every dollar in the bank: https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-negative-interest-rates-take-money-out-of-your-pocket-2016-04-12

    Cyprus Central Bank Announces 47.5 Percent Haircut: https://www.reuters.com/article/cyprus-bankofcyprus/cyprus-central-bank-announces-47-5-percent-haircut-on-large-bank-of-cyprus-deposits-idUSL6N0G033120130730

    Chase accused of purging accounts of conservatives: https://nypost.com/2019/05/25/jpmorgan-chase-accused-of-purging-accounts-of-conservative-activists/

    Expiring currency technlogy: https://bfsi.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/policy/digital-currency-yuan-comes-with-an-expiry-date-spend-or-it-will-vanish/82059471

    FinTech: https://www.thewealthadvisor.com/article/fintech-killing-banks-23-trillion-opportunity-ahead

    Biden Bank Regulator Nominee Reveals Her Plan to Radically Transform US Economy: https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/578153-biden-bank-regulator-nominee-reveals-her-plan-to-radically-transform-us?rl=1

    Biden’s Task: Overhaul the Economy, as Fast as Possible: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/business/biden-economy-infrastructure.html

    Biden Pitches ‘Historic’ Spending Plan to Transform America: https://www.barrons.com/news/biden-announces-1-75-trillion-us-spending-deal-ahead-of-europe-trip-01635426608

    Investors Can’t Get Enough of Fintech. Here’s Why: https://www.netsuite.com/portal/business-benchmark-brainyard/industries/articles/entrepreneur/fintech-investors.shtml

    Fintech Mark Reports Rapid Growth During Covid-19 Pandemic: https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2020/12/03/fintech-market-reports-rapid-growth-during-covid-19-pandemic

    Fintech will lead the charge in the post-COVID-19 recovery: https://www.fintechmagazine.com/financial-services-finserv/fintech-will-lead-charge-post-covid-19-recovery

    2 Out of 3 Americans say they would take a pay cut to work remotely full time: https://www.businessinsider.com/65-percent-americans-take-pay-cuts-work-remotely-full-time-2021-8

    Why are Corporations Moving to Texas and Florida? https://www.ny-engineers.com/blog/why-are-corporations-moving-to-texas-and-florida

    February 28, 2022 date of action refers to report from Bloomberg that Biden administration will issue executive order in February with language about Central Bank Digital Currency: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-21/white-house-is-set-to-put-itself-at-center-of-u-s-crypto-policy?sref=qpwbmgSU

    May 20, 2022 date refers to end of comment period for Federal Reserve/CBDC white paper: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-21/white-house-is-set-to-put-itself-at-center-of-u-s-crypto-policy?sref=qpwbmgSU

Feedback ends 20 may 2022:

https://www.bloomberg.com/crypto?sref=qpwbmgSU

Here is the latest:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-03-09/biden-pushes-for-more-coordinated-approach-to-crypto-oversight?srnd=cryptocurrencies-v2

Software controlled money which expires ! spend it or loose !

Some of this is already happening:

Negative interest rates on bank accounts !
Taxes on imaginery profits on bank accounts !
Disappearing 500 euro bills, will they come back because of inflation ?
Disappearing ATM machines.
Disappearing banking facilities.

2% loss means enemy has 52% and "our/your" army has 48% if their parachutes don't fail.

At 54% vs 46% the war is already over haha. 2% away from defeat !

Concerning DNA it's very complex and still not very well understood... at least the structures that come from it and the interactions !

Bye,
  Skybuck =D