Bitcoin is a giant, global "Consensus-tron" based on a fundamental meta-rule: "51% Consensus based on Greed / Self-Interest" ("Nakamoto Consensus"). Blockstream/Core is trying change this meta-rule, to make it "95% Consensus" ("Extreme Consensus") - the MOST CONTENTIOUS change conceivable in Bitcoin
TL;DR: The main characteristic of Bitcoin is that it is basically a kind of global "consensus-producing machine" or "Consensus-tron" - which runs based on a fundamental meta-rule of "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" - also called "Nakamoto Consensus". Recently, Blockstream has started trying to quietly change this fundamental meta-rule of Bitcoin based on "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" ("Nakamoto Consensus"). Instead, they have proposed a totally different meta-rule based on "95% Consensus" - which they like to call "Strong Consensus", but a better name would probably be "Extreme Consensus", to show what an extreme change it would be. This would be the most massive, most all-pervasive, most CONTENTIOUS meta-change conceivable in Bitcoin - changing the fundamental meta-rule which defines Bitcoin itself - and they have been trying to quietly ram this rule through, sneaking it in under the radar - with almost no explicit debate whatsoever. This meta-change to Bitcoin's fundamental meta-rule would also be VERY DANGEROUS - because it would allow a tiny minority of 5% to block a change with almost everyone (but not quite 95%) wanted. The main thing that actually prevents "evil people" from making a "bad change" to Bitcoin is not (and never was) "the bigness of the number" required for making a "consensus change". Actually, the main thing that actually prevents "evil people" from making a "bad change" to Bitcoin always has been (and still is) people's economic greed / self-interest - which is always the underlying component driving any consensus in Bitcoin. So, as Satoshi was smart enough to understand, a simple meta-rule based on "51% majority + greed / self-interest" is the safest way to protect Bitcoin - making it:
impossible for a minority to change,
"difficult enough" but still possible for a majority to change,
while also ensuring that any change would reflect people's economic greed / self-interest (since they will naturally avoid making any changes which would reduce the value of their coins).
Satoshi also understood that setting that number higher (eg, 95%) would not only be unnecessary, but would actually introduce a new danger: the danger that a mere 5% could "hold Bitcoin hostage", preventing some change that "nearly everyone" (but not quite 95%) might agree was absolutely necessary. Now, Blockstream/Core have started trying to quietly change this fundamental meta-rule of Bitcoin. This would be the most massive, most all-pervasive, and most contentious meta-change conceivable in Bitcoin - and they are trying to quietly ram it through, sneaking it in totally under the radar - without any explicit discussion or debate. And by unnecessarily messing with the 51% threshold which Satoshi carefully chose for very good reasons, this kind of "95% Consensus" or "Extreme Consensus" would actually be dangerous for Bitcoin's future. This "95% Extreme Consensus" is purely faith-based, and it is can easily shown to be quite dangerous, based on a quick examination of the actual technical facts; Also, perhaps due precisely to the fact this new "95% Consensus" ("Extreme Consensus") meta-rule is faith-based and not fact-based, people are having a very hard time examining it and discussing it honestly and objectively. This dangerous new erroneous meta-rule being proposed by Blockstream/Core can be simply stated as follows:
"95% Consensus (Extreme Consensus) should be more safe than Bitcoin's original 51% Consensus (Nakamoto Consensus)" [- they erroneously claim]
Sounds great on its face, right? Everyone knows that 95 is bigger than 51. So (certain people naively believe) obviously "95% Consensus" ("Extreme Consensus") must be safer than Bitcoin's original "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest") ("Nakamoto Consensus") - in terms of making it "hard to change Bitcoin" in order to prevent any "bad guy(s)" from messing up Bitcoin. In other words (based exclusively on mathematics - and ignoring markets), the simplistic (and dangerously erroneous) reasoning of Blockstream/Core supporters proceeds as follows:
Bitcoin, as originally specified by Satoshi in the Whitepaper, defined "Nakamoto Consensus" as a simple 51% majority.
But hey, 75% - or even 95% - is waaay more better than 51% ... So, just to be totally on the "safe" side, (and make it even more harder for evil people to change Bitcoin), let's go with 95% - that way we'll be super-duper safe!
Blockstream/Core supporters probably feel pretty smart at this point. By "merely" altering a key parameter contained in the original whitepaper, they think they're smarter than Satoshi himself, because he only used 51% consensus, and they cleverly "improved" on that by bumping it up 95% consensus - "just to be on the safe side". But actually the above "reasoning" is unfortunately erroneous - and very dangerous for Bitcoin's future - because it would allow a tiny group of only 5% to "hold Bitcoin hostage" - when nearly everyone (but less than 95%) might agree that a certain change would be necessary or urgent. And by the way, did you see what they they're trying to do here??
They are trying to quietly introduce (or "sneak in") a MASSIVE, ALL-PERVASIVE, CONTENTIOUS META-CHANGE TO THE ORIGINAL META-RULE IN BITCOIN - THE META-RULE WHICH DEFINES "CONSENSUS" ITSELF IN BITCOIN!!
This is actually BIGGEST CHANGE CONCEIVABLE IN BITCOIN - way bigger than simply tweaking some blocksize parameter.
They are trying to quietly introduce (or "sneak in") this massive, all-pervasive contentious meta-change totally "under the radar" - without basically no debate whatsoever - perhaps not even noticing it themselves - or perhaps assuming that it's not a big deal - or perhaps hoping that nobody would notice this massive, all-pervasive, maximally contentious proposed meta-change to the most fundamental meta-rule of Bitcoin.
Satoshi could have easily picked 75% or 95% to define "Nakamoto Consensus" - but he didn't. Why? As we know, Satoshi was a pretty smart guy. He managed to pull together some concepts from cryptography and game theory and economics to provide a practical solution to the long-standing "Byzantine Generals" problem, creating Bitcoin. One of the most important components of his solution was figuring out how to get a bunch of people from all around the world - who have conflicting interests and who don't trust or even know each other - to work together and be honest and "do the right thing", securing the Bitcoin network. He did this by using "incentives" which make it actually more profitable for each individual actor to be honest and secure the network. In other words, greed / self-interest is an important incentive-component which guarantees that Bitcoin actually works. [And by the way, as we know, this is why all those fin-tech companies are doomed when they try to implement their own "private blockchains" without the incentive of any actual valuable tokens (coins) - because it is precisely the economic value of those tokens (the coins), and the greed / self-interest of the miners pursuing those coins, which provides the economic incentives that are a crucial ingredient in securing the system, by making it more worthwhile for people to be honest, rather than attacking the system, which would only end up devaluing their own coins.] Anyways, the rest is history: the Bitcoin network has been running safely for over 7 years now, bitcoin has made spectacular gains in value, and the world is buzzing about "the blockchain". Now, as we'll see below, Satoshi actually had a very good reason for picking 51% - and not some bigger number. This is because:
Bitcoin's original "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" meta-rule ("Nakamoto Consensus") always provides the following 3 important guarantees:
it's impossible for a minority to make a change,
it's "difficult enough" but still possible for a majority to make a change,
any change will necessarily reflectthe economic greed / self-interest, of the majority, because they have an incentive not to devalue the tokens (bitcoins) which they hold.
Switching to a higher number for consensus (such as 95%) would not only be unnecessary - it would actually downright dangerous - because it would allow a tiny group of only 5% to "hold Bitcoin hostage" - when nearly everyone (but less than 95%) might agree that a certain change would be necessary or urgent.
It is important to recall the two essential points below: (1) If the threshold for changing Bitcoin were to be set higher, at 95%, then a mere tiny 5% can "hold the majority hostage". For example, while it is of course normally good for Bitcoin to be "conservative" and "very hard to change" - it is also possible that someday a situation or crisis could occur where Bitcoin actually would need to change - maybe even quite urgently - in a certain obvious way that nearly everyone agrees on. The danger then would be: if "nearly everybody" in that case happens to actually be less than 95% - then Bitcoin will not be able to change - and a tiny minority (requiring only 5% support, which is very easy to get) could "hold Bitcoin hostage" - preventing that "urgent change" which "nearly everybody" (but not quite 95%) happens to agree is desirable or necessary or urgent. Now, point (2) below is a little bit more subtle, because it also requires taking into account markets - ie the psychology of greed and self-interest - rather than just the simplistic mathematics of "95% must be more better than 51% because 95 is more bigger than 51 - QED". But it should still be fairly obvious to anyone right away, once it's spelled out. (2) The thing that actually prevents "evil people" from making a "bad change" to Bitcoin is not (and never was) "the bigness of the number (threshold)" required for consensus". The thing that actually prevents "evil people" from making a "bad change" to Bitcoin always has been (and still is) "people's greed / self-interest" which always provides the economic incentives underlying any consensus - because the majority will never want to make a change which decreases the value of their coins. So, let's unpack the concept stated in (2) above. What this means is:
Bitcoin has always required a simple 51% majority or "consensus" to make any changes.
But Bitcoin has also always had an economic component or incentive (involving greed or self-interest).
In other words, the main thing that prevents people from making a "bad change" to Bitcoin is not (and has never been) the sheer numerical difficulty of achieving a big-enough majority.
Instead, the main thing that actually prevents people from making a "bad change" to Bitcoin has always been (and will always be) their own economic greed / self-interest based on the incentives of the Bitcoin system (eg, people's natural economic incentive to maximize the value of the token itself).
This is easy to see in the most obvious example: the 21 million coin limit. Nobody would ever want to change this - because it would dilute (reduce) the value of the token itself, thus decreasing the value of the bitcoins they hold. And that (economic greed / self-interest) is the real reason why the 21 million coin limit will never be changed. Conclusions:
Bitcoin itself is just a giant global Consensus-tron, which has always been successful based on a single fundamental meta-rule of "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" or "Nakamoto Consensus", which was carefully designed by Satoshi in the white paper.
Simple "51% majority / consensus plus the essential ingredients of greed / self-interest" (also known as "Nakamoto Consensus", as specified in Satoshi's whitepaper) is the fundamental meta-rule that actually makes Bitcoin work.
The Greed / Self-Interest component, based on economics (which is always a part of any majority or consensus) is the key aspect that makes this rule actually work - and a simple majority of 51% (plus the essential component of greed / self-interest) is enough to provide the following 3 important guarantees:
it's impossible for a minority to make a change,
it's "difficult enough" but still possible for a majority to make a change,
any change will necessarily reflect people's economic greed / self-interest, because they have an incentive to maximize the value of the tokens (bitcoins) which they hold.
A higher threshold (eg, 95%) would actually dangerous, because it could allow a tiny minority (eg, 5%) to "hold Bitcoin hostage" - to block a change which "nearly everybody" (but not quite 95%) actually agrees is desirable or necessary or urgent.
Quietly changing Satoshi's original meta-rule of "51% Consensus + Greed / Self-Interest" (without even having any open debate) to a totally different meta-rule of "95% Consensus" would be the biggest and most "contentious" change ever in Bitcoin. (Reasonable arguments could be made that the resulting system wouldn't even be Bitcoin any more.)
Finally, Core/Blockstream have been trying to sneak in / ram through this massive, all-pervasive, maximally CONTENTIOUS meta-change to the must fundamental meta-rule of Bitcoin, totally "under the radar" - with no explicit debate.
Can someone, in the most simple format possible, explain how a change can occur to the Bitcoin network? Here is my super high-level understanding right now:
A researcheengineer makes a white paper or Bitcoin improvement proposal (BIP) that suggests a change.
The community reviews and comes to a consensus about the quality of this new proposal and if it should be used. For the sake of this, I am assuming the overall consensus was positive and the community would like to enact this new update. (This process seems to be heavily dominated by Bitcoin core devs at the moment as most people who own BTC don't really understand this process and sort of just follow along with what the 'smart people' say.)
The new version of bitcoin code is released and anyone running a node just downloads this new soft fork code?
So is my understanding loosely correct? Do nodes just start running the new software? What happens if only 51% of nodes decide to run the new software? If it is a soft fork of the previous version does that mean the old version and 'new' version are still technically compatible? Also, is it the case that not all nodes are miners but all miners are nodes? Like when people say a 51% attack would require 51% of the network's computing power what exactly does that mean? When the term computing power is used are we talking about 51% of miners, 51% of nodes, or 51% of all of it combined? It seems to me the direction of the network it voted upon by what software version you wish to run if you are a node. Other than the detailed specifics of how transactions are processed, the system of governance seems to be the most tricky concept to grapple with. For me, at least.. Thanks for the answers ahead of time.
Bitcoin actually has two areas of "consensus": consensus on the next block to append to the chain, *and* consensus on the rules defining a valid block. Both forms of consensus *must* use a simple majority of 51%. Changing this to 95% would be dangerous, because it would allow 6% to hijack Bitcoin.
Summary: Bitcoin actually has two areas of "consensus":
consensus regarding the next block to append to the chain, and
consensus regarding the rules defining a valid block.
Both forms of consensus must use a simple majority of 51% - but always combined, of course, with the other "meta-rule" of Bitcoin: the economic incentive where everyone wants to maximize the value of the bitcoins they hold (also known as "greed"). For example, the reason we will always have only 21 million coins is because of the meta-rules of 51% + economic incentives. People are greedy, and so they will never want to devalue their coins. (In other words, the permanence of the 21 million coin rule is not guaranteed by inertia, or 95% consensus, or censorship, or anything of that nature. It is guaranteed by Satoshi's original meta-rules of 51% + greed.) Now some people want to change Bitcoin - from 51% consensus to 95% consensus. (They like to call this "strong consensus" but a better name would probably be "extreme consensus".) To them, 95% sounds "safer". But actually, 95% would be dangerous. This is because sometimes most people might agree that Bitcoin might actually need to change (eg, right now, when blocks are full, and the network is congested and people's transactions aren't getting through). This shows that requiring 95% to make this kind of desirable / urgent change would actually be dangerous - because it allows a mere 6% to prevent a needed change. (Plus, by the way: the 1 MB "max blocksize" was never even a "consensus rule" - it was actually just a "temporary anti-spam kludge.") Conclusion: The only way that Bitcoin can succeed is by keeping Satoshi's original meta-rules of 51% + economic incentives. Details: Since the network is too congested today for me to do any transactions, I guess I'll just have to write another post. =) As we know, Satoshi's main innovation with Bitcoin was to create a giant, incentive-based, worldwide "Consensus-tron" (which in turn drives a world-wide ledger):
Every ten minutes, the ledger in this Consensus-tron (the "blockchain") gets another block appended to it.
Also... "every once in a while"... the ledger-appending software which runs this Consenus-tron can also get upgraded. Such changes might include:
changes which impact only the rules governing how transactions and blocks are relayed in the "mempool" on the network - ie, changes to the "protocol";
changes which impact the rules governing what constitutes a valid block - ie, changes to the "ruleset".
Changes to the ruleset (ie, changes to the definition of what constitutes a valid block) are sometimes further subdivided into "hard forks" versus "soft forks", where:
A "soft fork" involves changes which would "tighten" (restrict) the ruleset. In theory, a "soft fork" can usually be rolled out without updating all nodes (because nodes which would accept blocks under the old rules would continue to accept blocks under the new, tighter rules).
However, this doesn't actually always apply (realistically, in practice) because for certain types of "soft fork", such as SegWit, non-upgraded nodes actually might not work correctly any more. This means that the "rollout process" would have a "domino effect" - requiring massive code changes in other software - eg, wallets. So that the soothing-sounding name "soft fork" is actually misleading - because in many cases, a soft-fork often actually ends up requiring more changes to more software, since so much more code needs to be rewritten, retested, and redeployed.
A "hard fork" involves changes which would "loosen" (liberalize) the ruleset, and thus requires all nodes to upgrade (because if they didn't, they might incorrectly reject some blocks which are valid under the new looser rules).
For naïve users, the name "hard" sounds more difficult and more dangerous. But ironically, as most experienced devs have stated, it turns out that a "hard fork" is actually easier and safer than a "soft fork" - simply because a hard fork involves a "clean break" where everyone is explicitly notified to upgrade to a clearly specified new version, and no additional software needs to be rewritten, retested, and redeployed.
So what's the point of all this? Maybe you can already see that this is heading to the following two main points:
The BLOCK-APPENDING CONSENSUS was directly built-in by Satoshi - so it gets decided automatically and algorithmically by the software on the network
The SOFTWARE-INSTALLING CONSENSUS was not specified as forcefully / explicitly - and it now being negotiated by certain people - on IRC, on Reddit and other forums, at congresses, in back rooms, etc.
Let's examine these two points in more detail below: The BLOCK-APPENDING CONSENSUS was directly built-in by Satoshi - so it gets decided automatically and algorithmically by the software on the network The mechanism for determining the 51% consensus regarding the next block to append is baked directly into the software itself. This is Satoshi's famous "good enough" solution to the long-standing Byzantine Generals Problem. A key element of this "good enough" solution was Satoshi's clever introduction of a "valuable token" (bitcoins). (Aside: Most plans by financial institutions to use some sort of private, permissioned "blockchain technology" fail to include the essential ingredient of the "valuable tokens" themselves. This is why their efforts are doomed to fail. Bitcoin is held together by economic incentives, which are provided by the valuable token: the bitcoins themselves.) These valuable tokens are granted as the "coinbase subsidy / mining reward" for the miner whose block happens to get chosen for appending (via the hashing lottery). Also a miner gets some "fees" for mining a transaction. For the first few decades of operation, fees are negligible compared to the amount of the "coinbase subsidy / mining reward" - in order to encourage the system to grow. As the past 7 years have shown, these "economic incentives" are enough to discourage miners from various "selfish" behaviors which would harm the value of the "valuable tokens" themselves. Aside: This "coinbase subsidy / mining reward" is quite big - currently 25 BTC every 10 minutes, and then, from mid-July 2016, it will "halve" to 12.5 BTC every ten minutes for the next 4 years until the next "halving", and so on asymptotically "halving" every four years until 2140. Satoshi purposely made the "coinbase subsidy / mining reward" quite large like this for the first several halvings, in order to:
encourage rapid adoption by miners
discourage premature "fee markets" - since, as blocks get bigger (as he planned) and bitcoin price gets higher (as the "economic incentives" of the system were designed to guarantee), the "coinbase subsidy / mining reward" itself would provide more than enough profit motive for miners.
Decades from now, when bitcoin price is very high, and the "coinbase subsidy / mining reward" is very low, fees will become a more important component of miner revenues. The SOFTWARE-INSTALLING CONSENSUS was not specified as forcefully / explicitly - and it now being negotiated by certain people - on IRC, on Reddit and other forums, at congresses, in back-room deals, etc. This off-line negotiation towards consensus might actually work - but only if Bitcoin's essential "meta-rules" (51% + greed) continue to be preserved. In other words:
This negotiation towards consensus must be decentralized / market-based / economically incentivized as originally specified;
"Winning" must be continue to be defined via a simple majority of 51% (to prevent a "tyranny of the minority" where less than 50% can hijack Bitcoin by unfairly exploiting inertia in order to block necessary changes).
Observations (1) Each of the above "meta-rules" alone would not be sufficient to guarantee the desirable properties of the system. (2) But taken together, the combination of:
an "economic incentive" (greed) plus
a "51% majority"
... is enough to secure the network and maximize people's wealth - as we have seen empirically for the past 7 years, with Bitcoin's price rising from 0 to 700 USD, and the network humming along perfectly. The next point (3) - including its various subpoints - is what some people don't understand: (3) Regarding the determining of the "software-installing consensus" part of Bitcoin:
"Inertia" (difficulty of change) is not and has never been the thing which guarantees the desirable properties of the system.
"Economic incentive" plus a "51% majority" has always been and always will be the only things which guarantee the desirable properties of the system.
Note that the above "meta-rules" are in some sense "natural" (ie, inevitable or unstoppable): ie, Satoshi didn't "invent" them, they already occur "on their own" in decentralized economic systems, and he merely leveraged them - by observing that their natural influence would always be enough to make sure that the majority don't do anything against their own interests, and that the majority's wishes can't be overridden by a minority.
For example, the reason we would never increase the maximum number of coins above 21 million is not because it's difficult, nor because some kind of super-consensus would be needed, nor because some online forums are censored. The reason we will never change the 21 million coin limit is natural and inevitable, because it is based on greed and not on any fragile centralized mechanism: since we don't want to "dilute" the value of our coins.
The only way the above meta-rules could possibly be short-circuited is by cheating in some way (ie, by centralizing development or mining, by censoring forums, etc.)
Redefining the numerical threshold to require a higher percentage, such as 95%, is not what guarantees the desirable properties of the system.
In fact, redefining the numerical threshold for consensus for making changes to Bitcoin, changing it from 51% to 95% (which supporters like to call "strong consensus" to make it sound nice - but which detractors more correctly call "extreme consensus" to emphasize how radical and dangerous it it) would actually destroy the desirable properties of the system.
This is because requiring a 95% majority in order to "change Bitcoin" would actually allow a "tyranny of the minority" to happen - where a mere 6% could prevent a change from happening - when such a change would have been easily approved by Satoshi's original meta-rule of "51% simple majority" + "economic incentives".
The "consensus area" (ie, the question of whether a change would impact the "block-appending consensus" or the "software-installing consensus") is an irrelevant issue, totally unrelated (orthogonal) to the only important question, which is: whether a particular change would continue to guarantee the desirable properties of the system.
The "rollout hardness" (ie, the question of whether or not nodes must upgrade in order for the change to be rolled out) is an irrelevant "accident of implementation" and, as such, is also totally unrelated (orthogonal) to the only important question: whether a particular change would continue to guarantee the desirable properties of the system.
Satoshi created a very brilliant system, which some clueless newbies are trying to change. Based on Satoshi's original meta-rules of "51% + greed", you get this simple and robust system called Bitcoin which has been working fine for the past 7 years. Satoshi's simple meta-rules of "51% + greed" not only allow coins to be moved securely while maintaining and increasing their value. They also allow software to be upgraded securely while also maximizing the value of everybody's bitcoins. Unfortunately, now Bitcoin has been infiltrated by a group of "small-block" supporters who don't understand various parts of (3) above. They don't understand the power of Bitcoin's meta-rules (51% + greed), and they've started to try to change them. (Some of these clueless newbies have actually been heard at conferences saying "Fuck Satoshi"!) Small-block supporters are basing their arguments on the following fallacies, which are only convincing to naïve people (ie, people who forget about the "economic incentives" which Satoshi built in to the original system):
they erroneously believe that "95%" would be "safer" than "51%";
they erroneously believe that "harder to change" (due to inertia) would be "safer" than "easier to change".
By the way, some of us have recently started to notice that most of these "naïve people" appear to be relatively new to Bitcoin, and/or have smaller holdings (eg, they missed the boat due to being uninformed or skeptical in earlier years, or they lost money on MtGox). These factors might be contributing to their desire to not see the value of the "valuable tokens" (bitcoins) go up right now. So, Bitcoin's "Eternal September" which some small-block supporters worry will happen in the future (similar to the "Eternal September" of the internet, when clueless newbies rushed in)... is actually already happening right now. Small-block supporters are actually Bitcoin's "Eternal September". They're the clueless newbies whose failure to understand Bitcoin's economic incentives is threatening to destroy Bitcoin. We can see this right now - where the system is becoming congested, causing needless delays, artificially inflating fees, and driving away users. The small-block supporters are to blame for this mess. They're so dogmatically against bigger blocks, that they'd rather see the system stop working, rather than change their dogma. (One of the most well-known of these "clueless newbies" has stated - on another forum - that he would rather see the price of Bitcoin go to zero, rather than allow Satoshi's original meta-rules of "greed + 51%" to continue to be applied.) The thing which such "naïve people" always fail to include in their analysis is the "economic incentive" or "greed": ie, the desire, on the part of miners / users / holders, to maximize the value of the "valuable tokens" - everyone's bitcoins. This "economic incentive" is more subtle than it may seem - which is why so many people accidentally forget about it (including supposedly smart devs like Greg Maxwell and Adam Back) Who are the two groups who forget about the "economic incentive" ("greed") component which guarantees the success of Bitcoin?
small-block supporters - who fail to understand (3) above;
people from private financial institutions - who also fail to understand (3) above, when they foolishly attempt to use "blockchain technology" without a "valuable token" (the bitcoins themselves) to provide the necessary "economic incentive" to guarantee the desirable properties of the network.
The current mess is happening because the interests of major financiers from the legacy ledger of fantasy fiat (eg, the owners of Core/Blockstream) are in alignment with the economic ignorance of the "clueless newbies" who want to "improve" Satoshi's meta-rules of "51% + greed". Together, these two groups of economically ignorant (or malicious) people are creating the "perfect storm" we're seeing now, where the network is becoming crippled. The only way for Bitcoin to prosper is for us to remember Satoshi's original meta-rules: "51% + greed" - regarding the next block to append, and the next software to install. This is the only way to protect our economic self-interest, and prevent a "tyranny of the minority" from hijacking the system.
el="" >Bitcoin actually has two areas of "consensus": consensus on the next block to append to the chain, *and* consensus on the rules defining a valid block. Both forms of consensus *must* use a simple majority of 51%. Changing this to 95% would be dangerous, because it would allow 6% to hij /r/btc
You may be in quarantine, but that doesn’t mean we aren’t! For those who don’t know, every month this subreddit makes a millionaire out of one comment, and donates. With danger out and about, take some time and comment to enter! [Drawing Thread #52]
I thought this year would be a lot more normal.
Introduction: Welcome to anyone and everyone coming from /popular. To be honest, I probably should've expected this, given that most of us are staying home. For those who aren't familiar: every month, we ask for comments for entry, and we pick one who represents our winner. This process is completely random and verifiable, using the Bitcoin blockchain as a sophisticated die. Following this, people then donate to the winner using a variety of mediums, and the winner would go on to be a "millionaire" (arguably, our definition of that term is pretty loose). So once again, thank you for your support. The post lasts for 24 hours before getting locked, so make sure you place your comment before 7 PM ET. In addition, I may make a [Part 2] if we reach the limit. If that happens, I will sticky a comment on this post temporarily. Let's make a millionaire! In Case You Missed It:
REQUIRED: Leave only one (1) top level comment in reply to this thread! (Replying to other comments will not qualify. You must be thirty days old or older to comment.)
A random user who commented will be chosen, and everyone donates a dollar to make a millionaire.
February 19 at 7:00 PM ET (epoch timestamp: 1582153200 (a bit tricky taking DST into consideration, it’s been updated)) is the cutoff for accounts. If you have created your account after this point, you are not eligible to enter and your submission will be disqualified automatically.
March 22 at 12:00 PM ET (epoch timestamp: 1584892800) will begin the process of selecting the winner. At this time, the [Draw] post will be online and start the process of waiting for the blockchain, in order to select the winner randomly and verifiably.
Mini Survey: NOTE: A Google account is required to respond to hinder tampering, but you are not obligated to answer. So I’ve been thinking about this for a while: people are not having pleasant experiences with PayPal. If the account isn’t blocked, then there are issues with fees, fear of the seizure of funds, and the risk of revealing personally identifiable information. However, it is the largest platform used by /MillionaireMakers, and is the provider of most donations on this subreddit. This survey is purely to see how people feel about this. Unless if the winner chooses to not accept PayPal, we will continue to offer this service for tonight’s thread. My questions are: 1) How would you feel about a ban on the PayPal service here on /MillionaireMakers? 2) Would removing PayPal as a service affect your ability to donate? 3) Should /MillionaireMakers remove PayPal? I will periodically post results here. If you are interested in responding, please answer here, answers will not be accepted at the time the [Draw] is posted: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSffkP3SKdTi9lLPbtO8taG4_-cdctYlAf8SvohvzoJvTOYdhw/viewform?usp=sf_link Drawing Process Mini-Update: This is as short as they come, leroy627 has made a commit to the repository that adds backwards-compatibility up to Python 3.5. Procedure will be run with the following conditions: the first comment of duplicates are kept for the month of March, and any ineligible comments will be removed. If you are interested in more information, see [Drawing Thread #51]: https://reddit.com/millionairemakers/comments/f7jdxz/alright_were_getting_back_into_the_flow_happy/
Sunday at 12 PM ET (16 UTC), we will be picking our winner, and you won’t want to miss it. The post will be labeled [Draw], and one comment will be selected out of the many made here to make a winner! Remember, this is about generosity, making an impact, and uniting to make someone's life better. It takes three minutes to donate a bit to the winner, whether you're well off and want to donate a couple bucks, or going through tough times and can only donate a few coins. Every cent makes cents, and counts! If a lone $1 can get you a mask for obvious reasons, then imagine the possibilities with $1,000,000. You can get a full-body suit, new doors, and someone to love you! Admittedly, for the wrong reasons, but the option is there. A million dollars can make someone’s suffering less sufferable. Spread the word: have your friends and family comment, post the link to your friendly-neighborhood social media network, and share it to anyone interested.
Let’s make a millionaire!
Why, kind Haiku? Why? Am I to atone in home? Perhaps. I’ll get by.
What is a full-node worth, if only miners can do a 51% attack. Where is the security?
I think I have a fairly good understanding about bitcoin, but this is something that confuses me. Running a full node „protects“ the network, because you actively validate transactions. But how is it possible, that 51% of hashing power (full-node runners have 0) can swap the whole chain? Where is the „added security to the network“, if I run a node without any hashing power (which only miners have), that an attacker would need to conquer? Any answer or link is greatly appreciated! If there is a good reason to do that, I will probably set up one of my raspberries to participate. :)
Ultimate glossary of crypto currency terms, acronyms and abbreviations
A common sentiment is brewing online; a shared desire for the internet that might have been. After decades of corporate encroachment, you don't need to be a power user to realize that something has gone very wrong. In the early days of the internet, the future was bright. In that future, when you sent an instant message, it traveled directly to the recipient. When you needed to pay a friend, you announced a transfer of value to their public key. When an app was missing a feature you wanted, you opened up the source code and implemented it. When you took a picture on your phone, it was immediately encrypted and backed up to storage that you controlled. In that future, people would laugh at the idea of having to authenticate themselves to some corporation before doing these things. What did we get instead? Rather than a network of human-sized communities, we have a handful of enormous commons, each controlled by a faceless corporate entity. Hey user, want to send a message? You can, but we'll store a copy of it indefinitely, unencrypted, for our preference-learning algorithms to pore over; how else could we slap targeted ads on every piece of content you see? Want to pay a friend? You can—in our Monopoly money. Want a new feature? Submit a request to our Support Center and we'll totally maybe think about it. Want to backup a photo? You can—inside our walled garden, which only we (and the NSA, of course) can access. Just be careful what you share, because merely locking you out of your account and deleting all your data is far from the worst thing we could do. You rationalize this: "MEGACORP would never do such a thing; it would be bad for business." But we all know, at some level, that this state of affairs, this inversion of power, is not merely "unfortunate" or "suboptimal" – No. It is degrading. Even if MEGACORP were purely benevolent, it is degrading that we must ask its permission to talk to our friends; that we must rely on it to safeguard our treasured memories; that our digital lives are completely beholden to those who seek only to extract value from us. At the root of this issue is the centralization of data. MEGACORP can surveil you—because your emails and video chats flow through their servers. And MEGACORP can control you—because they hold your data hostage. But centralization is a solution to a technical problem: How can we make the user's data accessible from anywhere in the world, on any device? For a long time, no alternative solution to this problem was forthcoming. Today, thanks to a confluence of established techniques and recent innovations, we have solved the accessibility problem without resorting to centralization. Hashing, encryption, and erasure encoding got us most of the way, but one barrier remained: incentives. How do you incentivize an anonymous stranger to store your data? Earlier protocols like BitTorrent worked around this limitation by relying on altruism, tit-for-tat requirements, or "points" – in other words, nothing you could pay your electric bill with. Finally, in 2009, a solution appeared: Bitcoin. Not long after, Sia was born. Cryptography has unleashed the latent power of the internet by enabling interactions between mutually-distrustful parties. Sia harnesses this power to turn the cloud storage market into a proper marketplace, where buyers and sellers can transact directly, with no intermediaries, anywhere in the world. No more silos or walled gardens: your data is encrypted, so it can't be spied on, and it's stored on many servers, so no single entity can hold it hostage. Thanks to projects like Sia, the internet is being re-decentralized. Sia began its life as a startup, which means it has always been subjected to two competing forces: the ideals of its founders, and the profit motive inherent to all businesses. Its founders have taken great pains to never compromise on the former, but this often threatened the company's financial viability. With the establishment of the Sia Foundation, this tension is resolved. The Foundation, freed of the obligation to generate profit, is a pure embodiment of the ideals from which Sia originally sprung. The goals and responsibilities of the Foundation are numerous: to maintain core Sia protocols and consensus code; to support developers building on top of Sia and its protocols; to promote Sia and facilitate partnerships in other spheres and communities; to ensure that users can easily acquire and safely store siacoins; to develop network scalability solutions; to implement hardforks and lead the community through them; and much more. In a broader sense, its mission is to commoditize data storage, making it cheap, ubiquitous, and accessible to all, without compromising privacy or performance. Sia is a perfect example of how we can achieve better living through cryptography. We now begin a new chapter in Sia's history. May our stewardship lead it into a bright future.
Today, we are proposing the creation of the Sia Foundation: a new non-profit entity that builds and supports distributed cloud storage infrastructure, with a specific focus on the Sia storage platform. What follows is an informal overview of the Sia Foundation, covering two major topics: how the Foundation will be funded, and what its funds will be used for.
The Sia Foundation will be structured as a non-profit entity incorporated in the United States, likely a 501(c)(3) organization or similar. The actions of the Foundation will be constrained by its charter, which formalizes the specific obligations and overall mission outlined in this document. The charter will be updated on an annual basis to reflect the current goals of the Sia community. The organization will be operated by a board of directors, initially comprising Luke Champine as President and Eddie Wang as Chairman. Luke Champine will be leaving his position at Nebulous to work at the Foundation full-time, and will seek to divest his shares of Nebulous stock along with other potential conflicts of interest. Neither Luke nor Eddie personally own any siafunds or significant quantities of siacoin.
The primary source of funding for the Foundation will come from a new block subsidy. Following a hardfork, 30 KS per block will be allocated to the "Foundation Fund," continuing in perpetuity. The existing 30 KS per block miner reward is not affected. Additionally, one year's worth of block subsidies (approximately 1.57 GS) will be allocated to the Fund immediately upon activation of the hardfork. As detailed below, the Foundation will provably burn any coins that it cannot meaningfully spend. As such, the 30 KS subsidy should be viewed as a maximum. This allows the Foundation to grow alongside Sia without requiring additional hardforks. The Foundation will not be funded to any degree by the possession or sale of siafunds. Siafunds were originally introduced as a means of incentivizing growth, and we still believe in their effectiveness: a siafund holder wants to increase the amount of storage on Sia as much as possible. While the Foundation obviously wants Sia to succeed, its driving force should be its charter. Deriving significant revenue from siafunds would jeopardize the Foundation's impartiality and focus. Ultimately, we want the Foundation to act in the best interests of Sia, not in growing its own budget.
The Foundation inherits a great number of responsibilities from Nebulous. Each quarter, the Foundation will publish the progress it has made over the past quarter, and list the responsibilities it intends to prioritize over the coming quarter. This will be accompanied by a financial report, detailing each area of expenditure over the past quarter, and forecasting expenditures for the coming quarter. Below, we summarize some of the myriad responsibilities towards which the Foundation is expected to allocate its resources.
Maintain and enhance core Sia software
Arguably, this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation. At the heart of Sia is its consensus algorithm: regardless of other differences, all Sia software must agree upon the content and rules of the blockchain. It is therefore crucial that the algorithm be stewarded by an entity that is accountable to the community, transparent in its decision-making, and has no profit motive or other conflicts of interest. Accordingly, Sia’s consensus functionality will no longer be directly maintained by Nebulous. Instead, the Foundation will release and maintain an implementation of a "minimal Sia full node," comprising the Sia consensus algorithm and P2P networking code. The source code will be available in a public repository, and signed binaries will be published for each release. Other parties may use this code to provide alternative full node software. For example, Nebulous may extend the minimal full node with wallet, renter, and host functionality. The source code of any such implementation may be submitted to the Foundation for review. If the code passes review, the Foundation will provide "endorsement signatures" for the commit hash used and for binaries compiled internally by the Foundation. Specifically, these signatures assert that the Foundation believes the software contains no consensus-breaking changes or other modifications to imported Foundation code. Endorsement signatures and Foundation-compiled binaries may be displayed and distributed by the receiving party, along with an appropriate disclaimer. A minimal full node is not terribly useful on its own; the wallet, renter, host, and other extensions are what make Sia a proper developer platform. Currently, the only implementations of these extensions are maintained by Nebulous. The Foundation will contract Nebulous to ensure that these extensions continue to receive updates and enhancements. Later on, the Foundation intends to develop its own implementations of these extensions and others. As with the minimal node software, these extensions will be open source and available in public repositories for use by any Sia node software. With the consensus code now managed by the Foundation, the task of implementing and orchestrating hardforks becomes its responsibility as well. When the Foundation determines that a hardfork is necessary (whether through internal discussion or via community petition), a formal proposal will be drafted and submitted for public review, during which arguments for and against the proposal may be submitted to a public repository. During this time, the hardfork code will be implemented, either by Foundation employees or by external contributors working closely with the Foundation. Once the implementation is finished, final arguments will be heard. The Foundation board will then vote whether to accept or reject the proposal, and announce their decision along with appropriate justification. Assuming the proposal was accepted, the Foundation will announce the block height at which the hardfork will activate, and will subsequently release source code and signed binaries that incorporate the hardfork code. Regardless of the Foundation's decision, it is the community that ultimately determines whether a fork is accepted or rejected – nothing can change that. Foundation node software will never automatically update, so all forks must be explicitly adopted by users. Furthermore, the Foundation will provide replay and wipeout protection for its hard forks, protecting other chains from unintended or malicious reorgs. Similarly, the Foundation will ensure that any file contracts formed prior to a fork activation will continue to be honored on both chains until they expire. Finally, the Foundation also intends to pursue scalability solutions for the Sia blockchain. In particular, work has already begun on an implementation of Utreexo, which will greatly reduce the space requirements of fully-validating nodes (allowing a full node to be run on a smartphone) while increasing throughput and decreasing initial sync time. A hardfork implementing Utreexo will be submitted to the community as per the process detailed above. As this is the most important responsibility of the Foundation, it will receive a significant portion of the Foundation’s budget, primarily in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.
Support community services
We intend to allocate 25% of the Foundation Fund towards the community. This allocation will be held and disbursed in the form of siacoins, and will pay for grants, bounties, hackathons, and other community-driven endeavours. Any community-run service, such as a Skynet portal, explorer or web wallet, may apply to have its costs covered by the Foundation. Upon approval, the Foundation will reimburse expenses incurred by the service, subject to the exact terms agreed to. The intent of these grants is not to provide a source of income, but rather to make such services "break even" for their operators, so that members of the community can enrich the Sia ecosystem without worrying about the impact on their own finances.
Ensure easy acquisition and storage of siacoins
Most users will acquire their siacoins via an exchange. The Foundation will provide support to Sia-compatible exchanges, and pursue relevant integrations at its discretion, such as Coinbase's new Rosetta standard. The Foundation may also release DEX software that enables trading cryptocurrencies without the need for a third party. (The Foundation itself will never operate as a money transmitter.) Increasingly, users are storing their cryptocurrency on hardware wallets. The Foundation will maintain the existing Ledger Nano S integration, and pursue further integrations at its discretion. Of course, all hardware wallets must be paired with software running on a computer or smartphone, so the Foundation will also develop and/or maintain client-side wallet software, including both full-node wallets and "lite" wallets. Community-operated wallet services, i.e. web wallets, may be funded via grants. Like core software maintenance, this responsibility will be funded in the form of developer salaries and contracting agreements.
Protect the ecosystem
When it comes to cryptocurrency security, patching software vulnerabilities is table stakes; there are significant legal and social threats that we must be mindful of as well. As such, the Foundation will earmark a portion of its fund to defend the community from legal action. The Foundation will also safeguard the network from 51% attacks and other threats to network security by implementing softforks and/or hardforks where necessary. The Foundation also intends to assist in the development of a new FOSS software license, and to solicit legal memos on various Sia-related matters, such as hosting in the United States and the EU. In a broader sense, the establishment of the Foundation makes the ecosystem more robust by transferring core development to a more neutral entity. Thanks to its funding structure, the Foundation will be immune to various forms of pressure that for-profit companies are susceptible to.
Drive adoption of Sia
Although the overriding goal of the Foundation is to make Sia the best platform it can be, all that work will be in vain if no one uses the platform. There are a number of ways the Foundation can promote Sia and get it into the hands of potential users and developers. In-person conferences are understandably far less popular now, but the Foundation can sponsor and/or participate in virtual conferences. (In-person conferences may be held in the future, permitting circumstances.) Similarly, the Foundation will provide prizes for hackathons, which may be organized by community members, Nebulous, or the Foundation itself. Lastly, partnerships with other companies in the cryptocurrency space—or the cloud storage space—are a great way to increase awareness of Sia. To handle these responsibilities, one of the early priorities of the Foundation will be to hire a marketing director.
The Foundation Fund will be controlled by a multisig address. Each member of the Foundation's board will control one of the signing keys, with the signature threshold to be determined once the final composition of the board is known. (This threshold may also be increased or decreased if the number of board members changes.) Additionally, one timelocked signing key will be controlled by David Vorick. This key will act as a “dead man’s switch,” to be used in the event of an emergency that prevents Foundation board members from reaching the signature threshold. The timelock ensures that this key cannot be used unless the Foundation fails to sign a transaction for several months. On the 1st of each month, the Foundation will use its keys to transfer all siacoins in the Fund to two new addresses. The first address will be controlled by a high-security hot wallet, and will receive approximately one month's worth of Foundation expenditures. The second address, receiving the remaining siacoins, will be a modified version of the source address: specifically, it will increase the timelock on David Vorick's signing key by one month. Any other changes to the set of signing keys, such as the arrival or departure of board members, will be incorporated into this address as well. The Foundation Fund is allocated in SC, but many of the Foundation's expenditures must be paid in USD or other fiat currency. Accordingly, the Foundation will convert, at its discretion, a portion of its monthly withdrawals to fiat currency. We expect this conversion to be primarily facilitated by private "OTC" sales to accredited investors. The Foundation currently has no plans to speculate in cryptocurrency or other assets. Finally, it is important that the Foundation adds value to the Sia platform well in excess of the inflation introduced by the block subsidy. For this reason, the Foundation intends to provably burn, on a quarterly basis, any coins that it cannot allocate towards any justifiable expense. In other words, coins will be burned whenever doing so provides greater value to the platform than any other use. Furthermore, the Foundation will cap its SC treasury at 5% of the total supply, and will cap its USD treasury at 4 years’ worth of predicted expenses. Addendum: Hardfork Timeline We would like to see this proposal finalized and accepted by the community no later than September 30th. A new version of siad, implementing the hardfork, will be released no later than October 15th. The hardfork will activate at block 293220, which is expected to occur around 12pm EST on January 1st, 2021.
Addendum: Inflation specifics The total supply of siacoins as of January 1st, 2021 will be approximately 45.243 GS. The initial subsidy of 1.57 GS thus increases the supply by 3.47%, and the total annual inflation in 2021 will be at most 10.4% (if zero coins are burned). In 2022, total annual inflation will be at most 6.28%, and will steadily decrease in subsequent years.
We see the establishment of the Foundation as an important step in the maturation of the Sia project. It provides the ecosystem with a sustainable source of funding that can be exclusively directed towards achieving Sia's ambitious goals. Compared to other projects with far deeper pockets, Sia has always punched above its weight; once we're on equal footing, there's no telling what we'll be able to achieve. Nevertheless, we do not propose this change lightly, and have taken pains to ensure that the Foundation will act in accordance with the ideals that this community shares. It will operate transparently, keep inflation to a minimum, and respect the user's fundamental role in decentralized systems. We hope that everyone in the community will consider this proposal carefully, and look forward to a productive discussion.
Could someone explain why exactly I would need to run my own node? I need to justify for myself the $300 for a mynode kit. People usually state that running your own node enables you to not rely on 3rd parties but is there really a problem in relying on reputable companies likes Kraken, Ledger, Bitstamp and co.? I totally get the not your keys not your coin initiative but am having a hard time understand the need to run your own node.
Good morning once again! This listing is for items that did not sell during the October 11 Auction (most likely due to BP/fees, or maybe just because the "right" buyer didn't see the auction, who knows) - so you can buy anything you want right here and right now - no buyer's premiums, no additional fees - JUST DISCOUNTS ON EVERYTHING: *FREE shipping for any order over $100. *All the Graded/Slabbed Coins are available at 30% off the listed price guide (which should be accurate, was checked about a month ago.) *Any Sterling Silver non-coin item will be available at MELT (plus shipping.) *EVERYTHING ELSE is 10% off the listed start price. Each lot was individually imaged (front and back) for the auction - so the easiest way for you to see exactly what you're buying is to visit the auction link (the auction is over, so I'm not advertising anything different or advertising an upcoming auction) - so here that is: https://www.auctionzip.com/auction-catalog/HTF-Coins-Silver,-US,-Foreign-more_FYWN25UAV6?page=0&searchWithAll=&size=200&sort= Here is the required "prove you still have the stuff" photo with the username card and today's date: PHOTO Payment: PayPal. I do not have Venmo/Zello/Bitcoin or any other form of digital payment at this time. No notes if using PPFF, please. Thank you. Shipping: I will charge you what it costs me for the USPS label rounded up to the nearest dollar. For First Class that is usually $4, for USPS Priority Mail Flat Rate Small Box it will be $9. I will get you a tracking number right after payment is received and will get your package scanned into the USPS system within 24 hours of receipt of payment. I will offer "Risky Shipping" (via stamped greeting card)at my discretionfor $1 - for single, small coins ONLY.NOTE: These prices are for Continental US shipping only - if you live outside the continental US, shipping will be more expensive. I am still happy to do it under the same rules as above, but just keep in mind it's going to cost more. What do YOU need to do to buy coins from this group: send me a list of which lots you want (for example, I want to buy lots # 51, 52, 53, 54, 55) and I will send you a total. There are too many coins here (plus there are duplicates) so I cannot look up the coins you want by description - just give me lot numbers and it will be much simpler. I'd like to make a simple and polite request - if I have sent you my PayPal information (meaning we've agreed to a deal) please finish it up as soon as you can so I can check you off the list and move on to the next person. This helps make sure you get all the coins we discussed and no one else is in limbo. I will do my absolute best to update the ad as soon as lots sell.
11 1973 Proof Set $9.00 12 1973 Proof Set $9.00 13 1974 Proof Set $9.00 15 1975 Proof Set $9.00 17 1975 Proof Set $9.00 18 1975 Proof Set $9.00 19 1975 Proof Set $9.00 20 1975 Proof Set $9.00 21 1975 Proof Set $9.00 22 1975 Proof Set $9.00 23 1975 Proof Set $9.00 24 1975 Proof Set $9.00 25 1975 Proof Set $9.00 26 1975 Proof Set $9.00 27 1976 Proof Set $9.00 28 1976 Proof Set $9.00 29 1977 Proof Set $6.00 30 1977 Proof Set $6.00 31 1977 Proof Set $6.00 32 1977 Proof Set $6.00 33 1978 Proof Set $6.00 34 1978 Proof Set $6.00 35 1978 Proof Set $6.00 36 1978 Proof Set $6.00 37 1978 Proof Set $6.00 38 1975 Proof Set $9.00 51 Toner US Type Set 1 $55.00 52 Toner US Type Set 2 $30.00 53 Toner US Type Set 3 $30.00 54 1949 S Franklin Half UNC KEY DATE $40.00 55 1949 S Franklin Half UNC KEY DATE $40.00 59 1949 S Franklin Half UNC KEY DATE $40.00 60 1976 D Eisenhower Dollar UNC MINT CELLO $4.00 64 1977 D Eisenhower Dollar UNC MINT CELLO $4.00 65 Toner US Type Set 4 $25.00 66 Toner US Type Set 5 $30.00 67 1953 D Franklin Half UNC FULL BELL LINES $25.00 68 Toner US Type Set 6 $65.00 70 1936 Mercury Dime Doubled Die Obverse HIGH GRADE $30.00 73 1955 Roosevelt Dime UNC TONED $8.00 75 1955 S Roosevelt Dime UNC TONED $5.00 76 1955 S Roosevelt Dime UNC TONED $5.00 78 World Silver - Canada 1913 25 Cents $5.00 80 1956 Roosevelt Dime UNC TONED $8.00 81 1958 D Roosevelt Dime UNC TONED $5.00 83 1964 Roosevelt Dime UNC TONED $3.00 84 1964 Roosevelt Dime UNC TONED $3.00 85 World Silver - Canada 1906 10 Cents $3.00 89 1928 S/S Standing Liberty Quarter Rainbow Toned $20.00 90 1974 D Eisenhower Dollar UNC MINT CELLO $4.00 94 France - 1865 BB 5 Centimes $1.00 95 Illinois Governer Otto Kerner Inauguration Medal $4.00 96 1928 S "Inverted MM" Standing Liberty Quarter $35.00 113 Type Coin Lot $50.00 114 50 Indian Head Cents, Mixed Dates & Conditions $40.00 115 50 Indian Head Cents, Mixed Dates & Conditions $40.00 116 50 Indian Head Cents, Mixed Dates & Conditions $40.00 117 75 Indian Head Cents, Mixed Dates & Conditions $60.00 154 1958 Type B Washington Quarter UNC $12.00 156 1956 Washington Quarter UNC RAINBOW TONED $15.00 158 Denmark - 1921 5 Ore $2.00 159 1968 D Kennedy Half UNC TONED $10.00 160 1958 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC $15.00 162 1959 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC $12.00 163 1959 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC TONED $15.00 166 1960 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC $12.00 167 1960 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC $12.00 170 1875 Indian Head Cent $3.00 171 1963 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC TONED $15.00 172 1963 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC TONED $15.00 173 1964 Kennedy Half Mint Clip Error $15.00 175 1964 D Washington Quarter UNC TONED $12.00 179 Stag Beer Wooden Nickel "Fair on the Square" $1.00 180 The TV Shop Slidell, LA One Wooden Buck $1.00 185 St Helena - 1981 25 Pence (Crown Sized) $3.00 190 1996 D Kennedy Half UNC MINT CELLO $2.00 191 State of Missouri Sesquicentennial Medal $2.00 193 State of Missouri Sesquicentennial Medal $2.00 194 State of Missouri Sesquicentennial Medal $2.00 199 1974 D Kennedy Half Dollar DDO UNC $35.00 200 Star Wars Episode III Limited Edition Token/Medal $3.00 253 1978 D Kennedy Half Dollar UNC from Mint Set GEM BU TONED $40.00 255 World Silver - Switzerland 1953 1/2 Franc $3.00 256 1979 Kennedy Half Dollar UNC from Mint Set GEM BU TONED $15.00 257 1986 D Kennedy Half Dollar UNC from Mint Set GEM BU TONED $30.00 258 1986 D Kennedy Half Dollar UNC from Mint Set GEM BU TONED $15.00 259 1954 S Washington Quarter UNC $15.00 260 1957 Washington Quarter UNC TONED $15.00 261 1963 Type B Reverse Washington Quarter UNC TONED $30.00 262 1999 D Kennedy Half Dollar UNC from Mint Set GEM BU PROOFLIKE $10.00 265 Panama - 1975 Proof 5 Centesimos in OGP cello $1.00 266 1971 D Eisenhower Dollar "Talon Head" Obverse Die Clash / "Moon Line" Reverse Die Clash UNC TONED $20.00 269 Maybrook NY Golden Jubilee Good For 10 Cent Wooden Nickel $1.00 270 Maybrook NY 1975 Golden Jubilee 25 Cent Wooden Nickel $1.00 271 World Silver - Australia 1939 Sixpence $4.00 272 1974 Eisenhower Dollar UNC RAINBOW TONED $20.00 274 1957 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 275 1974 D Eisenhower Dollar UNC RAINBOW TONED $15.00 276 World Silver - Australia 1920 Shilling $8.00 277 1959 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 278 2010 S Buchanan Presidential Golden Dollar from Proof Set with Doubled Edge Lettering $10.00 279 1960 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 280 World Silver - Australia 1943 Shilling $8.00 281 1961 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 282 2011 S Johnson Presidential Golden Dollar from Proof Set with Doubled Edge Lettering $10.00 286 1963 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 287 1983 Lincoln Cent DDO FS-101 $40.00 288 1964 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 289 1983 Lincoln Cent DDO UNC $40.00 290 1983 Lincoln Cent DDO UNC GEM BU $75.00 291 1964 D Washington Silver Quarter UNC TONED $10.00 292 2000 "Wide AM" Lincoln Cent UNC $20.00 293 1960's Terre Haute, IN Sesquicentennial Wooden Nickel $1.00 294 .999 Silver 1 oz MLB Mike Piazza Limited Edition Silver Proof Round $30.00 295 1964 "The American Indian - America's First Pioneer" 1 oz .999 Silver Round $30.00 296 "Winter Scenes" Sterling Silver Art Round $25.00 297 Illinois "Illiniwek" Mascot Sterling Silver Art Round TONED $25.00 298 1982 Buffalo NY Sesquicentennial Wooden Nickel $1.00 299 1958 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 300 1959 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 351 1960 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 352 Denmark - 1950 5 Ore KEY DATE $25.00 353 1961 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 357 1990 Rappahannock Area Coin Club Wooden Nickel $1.00 359 1962 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 360 Old Time Wooden Nickel Co Support Our Troops Wooden Nickel $1.00 361 1963 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 362 Switzerland - 1874 B 5 Rappen $40.00 363 1964 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 366 1957 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 368 1958 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 370 1959 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 371 Great Britain - 1920 1/2 Crown NICE $60.00 372 New Zealand - 1942 1/2 Crown $35.00 373 1960 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 374 Sudan - 1972 50 Ghirsh UNC $4.00 375 1961 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 377 Clear Lake, IA Perkins Wooden Nickel $1.00 378 Lake of the Woods 40th Anniversary Bimetallic Token $1.00 379 1962 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 380 Great Britain - 1981 25 New Pence UNC $3.00 383 Guyana - 1970 1 Dollar UNC $3.00 384 New Zealand - 1953 1 Crown $5.00 385 Illawarrra Numismatic Association Membership Discount Wooden Nickel Token $1.00 386 San Juan Quality Royale Casino Token $1 Face Value $2.00 388 Artisan Silverworks Temecula, CA Wooden Nickel $1.00 390 1963 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 393 Netherlands East Indies - 1945 S 1 Cent UNC $2.00 394 1964 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 395 1957 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 396 Netherlands Antilles - 1965 2.5 Cents UNC TONED $10.00 397 Virginia Numismatic Association Encased Cent $3.00 398 Netherlands - 1921 1/2 Cent BETTER DATE $3.00 399 Netherlands - 1922 1/2 Cent BETTER DATE $5.00 400 1958 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 451 1959 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 452 Belgium - 1902 1 Centime $1.00 453 Netherlands Antilles - 1959 1 Cent UNC $4.00 454 Belgium - 1901 1 Centime $2.00 455 Canada - 1930 5 Cents NICE $8.00 456 Canada - 1930 5 Cents NICER $10.00 458 Canada - 1948 5 Cents $1.00 461 Barbados - 1973 Proof 5 Cents in OGP $1.00 462 Barbados - 1973 Proof 1 Dollar in OGP $1.00 463 Barbados - 1973 Proof 25 Cents in OGP $1.00 464 Barbados - 1973 Proof 10 Cents in OGP $1.00 465 World Silver - Canada 1882 H Ten Cents $10.00 466 World Silver - Canada 1886 Ten Cents $15.00 467 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse Book High UNC $2.00 469 Trinidad & Tobago - 1973 Proof 10 Cents in OGP $1.00 470 World Silver - Canada 1899 Ten Cents $8.00 471 Trinidad & Tobago - 1973 Proof 1 Cent in OGP $1.00 472 British Virgin Islands - 1974 Proof 10 Cents in OGP cello $1.00 473 Trinidad & Tobago - 1973 Proof 50 Cents in OGP $1.00 474 World Silver - Canada 1908 Ten Cents $4.00 476 British Virgin Islands - 1973 Proof 1 Cent in OGP $1.00 477 Netherlands - 1906 1 Cent NICE $1.00 478 British Virgin Islands - 1973 Proof 25 Cents in OGP $1.00 479 1961 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 480 Barbados - 1980 Proof 25 Cents in OGP cello $1.00 481 1962 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 482 Panama - 1976 Proof 5 Centesimos in OGP cello $1.00 483 Panama - 1976 Proof 10 Centesimos in OGP cello $1.00 484 Netherlands - 1912 1/2 Cent NICE $3.00 485 1963 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 486 1964 Type B Reverse Washington Silver Quarter (starts at melt) $5.00 488 Netherlands East Indies - 1921 1/2 Cent NICE KEY DATE $12.00 490 British Virgin Islands - 1974 Proof 1 Cent in OGP $1.00 491 Denmark - 1920 10 Ore Doubled Die Obverse (date) $5.00 492 India - 2010 10 Rupees UNC $1.00 494 British Virgin Islands - 1974 Proof 5 Cents in OGP cello $1.00 495 France - 1946 C 5 Francs $3.00 497 World Silver - Canada 1874 H 25 Cents $8.00 498 British Virgin Islands - 1974 Proof 10 Cents in OGP $1.00 499 France - 1952 5 Francs KEY DATE $10.00 500 France - 1946 5 Francs $1.00 551 Switzerland - 1906 1 Rappen BETTER DATE $10.00 552 World Silver - Switzerland 1963 1 Franc NICE $5.00 553 Switzerland - 1902 2 Rappen KEY DATE FIRST YEAR $15.00 554 Panama - 1975 Proof 1 Centesimo in OGP $2.00 555 Panama - 1975 Proof 10 Centesimos in OGP $3.00 556 Panama - 1976 Proof 10 Centesimos in OGP $2.00 557 Switzerland - 1910 2 Rappen BETTER DATE $10.00 558 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse Book Low UNC $2.00 559 Panama - 1975 Proof 25 Centesimos in OGP $2.00 561 Panama - 1975 Proof 5 Centesimos in OGP $2.00 562 Panama - 1976 Proof 5 Centesimos in OGP $4.00 568 Panama - 1974 Proof 5 Centesimos in OGP cello $1.00 570 France - 1889 A 5 Centimes $1.00 572 Panama - 1973 Proof 1/10 Balboa in OGP $1.00 573 France - 1854 D 5 Centimes $1.00 574 Barbados - 1973 Proof 1 Cent $1.00 575 Panama - 1973 Proof 1/4 Balboa in OGP $1.00 576 France - 1862 K 5 Centimes $1.00 577 1934 Washington Quarter Medium Motto NICE $15.00 579 Liberia 1941 2 Cents NICE $6.00 580 World Silver - Denmark 1874 25 Ore $6.00 581 Liberia - 1974 Proof 5 Cents in OGP $1.00 583 France - 1856 BB 5 Centimes $1.00 584 Liberia - 1974 Proof 10 Cents in OGP $1.00 585 Mexico Mint Set 1965 (includes silver) $5.00 587 Mexico Mint Set Mixed Dates (includes silver) $5.00 588 France - 1863 K 5 Centimes $2.00 590 France - 1855 D 5 Centimes $1.00 593 France - 1854 K 5 Centimes $1.00 594 Bahamas - 1970 Proof 1 Cent in OGP $1.00 595 France - 1853 D 10 Centimes $1.00 596 France - 1856 K 10 Centimes $1.00 599 France - 1854 W 10 Centimes $1.00 600 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse Book Low UNC $2.00 651 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse Book Low UNC $2.00 652 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse Book Low UNC $2.00 653 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse 012 UNC $2.00 654 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse 012 UNC $2.00 655 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse 012 UNC $2.00 658 World Silver - Austria - 1868 10 Kreuzer $2.00 660 World Silver - Canada 1916 25 Cents $6.00 661 Greece - 1959 10 Drachmai UNC $10.00 663 World Silver - Canada 1921 25 Cents $8.00 664 World Silver - Canada 1921 25 Cents $8.00 666 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse 001 UNC $2.00 667 2009 P Lincoln Cent "Formative Years" Doubled Die Reverse 002 UNC $2.00 670 Barbados - 1973 Proof 1 Cent and 5 Cents in OGP (two coins) $1.00 671 Barbados - 1973 Proof 10 Cents and 25 Cents in OGP (two coins) $1.00 672 Cayman Islands - 1974 Proof 5 Cents and 10 Cents in OGP (two coins) $1.00 673 Bahamas - 1973 and 1974 Proof 1 Cents in OGP (two coins) $1.00 674 Bahamas - 1973 and 1974 Proof 5 Cents in OGP (two coins) $1.00 675 Switzerland - 1921 10 Rappen NICE $8.00 676 Switzerland - 1936 2 Rappen KEY DATE $5.00 677 World Silver - Switzerland 1955 1/2 Franc BETTER DATE $4.00 679 1982 Silver Proof George Washington Commemorative Half Dollar in OGP $11.00 680 1982 Silver Proof George Washington Commemorative Half Dollar in OGP $11.00 681 1982 Silver Proof George Washington Commemorative Half Dollar in OGP $11.00 682 1982 Silver Proof George Washington Commemorative Half Dollar in OGP $11.00 684 World Silver - Saint Thomas & Prince Island (Sao Tome et Principe) 1951 2 1/2 Escudos LOW MINTAGE $25.00 685 1986 Proof 2 CoinStatue of Liberty Set (Silver Dollar and Clad Half) in OGP $22.00 686 1986 Proof 2 CoinStatue of Liberty Set (Silver Dollar and Clad Half) in OGP $22.00 687 Bahamas - 1976 Proof 25 Cents in OGP $1.00 689 Two French Notgeld Tokens $2.00 690 1986 Proof 2 CoinStatue of Liberty Set (Silver Dollar and Clad Half) in OGP $22.00 691 Two French Notgeld Tokens $2.00 692 1986 Proof 2 CoinStatue of Liberty Set (Silver Dollar and Clad Half) in OGP $22.00 693 Mexico - 1954 5 Centavos UNC $3.00 694 World Silver - Japan 1932 50 Sen $6.00 695 Mexico - 1966 20 Centavos UNC $5.00 696 1986 Silver Proof Statue of Liberty Dollar in OGP $20.00 697 World Silver - Canada 1929 10 Cents $3.00 698 1986 Silver Proof Statue of Liberty Dollar in OGP $20.00 699 Mexico - 1973 20 Centavos UNC $6.00 700 World Silver - Canada 1948 10 Cents $3.00 751 1986 Silver Proof Statue of Liberty Dollar in OGP $20.00 752 Mexico - 1955 5 Centavos $1.00 753 Mexico - 1955 5 Centavos $1.00 755 Canada - "Heads and Tails" RCM Mint Booklet with 1968 Mint Set $5.00 756 Four Canada 1991 UNC Cents (4 coins) in OGP CELLO $1.00 757 Four Canada 1991 UNC 5 Cents (4 coins) in OGP CELLO $1.00 759 Four Canada 1991 UNC 10 Cents (4 coins) in OGP CELLO $2.00 760 Philippines - 1975 Proof 10 Cents in OGP $1.00 761 Nepal 1974 Proof Set LOW MINTAGE $3.00 762 Philippines - 1975 Proof 5 Cents in OGP $1.00 766 Four Canada 1991 UNC 50 Cents (4 coins) in OGP CELLO $4.00 767 Four Canada 1991 UNC 1 Dollar (4 coins) in OGP CELLO $7.00 768 Belize 1974 Uncirculated Specimen Set in OGP $25.00 771 Jamaica - 1976 Proof 1 Cent in OGP $1.00 773 1961 Silver Proof Washington Quarter DEEP CAMEO $10.00 774 1964 D Washington Quarter UNC TONED $8.00 775 1961 Silver Proof Washington Quarter DEEP CAMEO $10.00 776 1974 P Kennedy Half Dollar UNC MINT CELLO $2.00 777 Poland - 2014 2 Zlotych UNC $2.00 778 Two Mixed World Coins $1.00 779 1959 Silver Proof Washington Quarter DEEP CAMEO $10.00 780 1956 Silver Proof Washington Quarter $6.00 781 1956 Silver Proof Washington Quarter $6.00 782 Two Mixed Tokens $1.00 783 1976 P Kennedy Half Dollar UNC MINT CELLO $2.00 785 1956 Silver Proof Washington Quarter $6.00 787 1941 S "Large S" Lincoln Wheat Cent $1.00 789 1953 Silver Proof Washington Quarter NICE $20.00 794 2011 S Silver Proof Glacier Quarter $6.00 795 St Pierre & Miquelon - 1948 1 Franc UNC $8.00 796 2013 S Silver Proof Great Basin Quarter $6.00 800 1995 Lincoln Cent Doubled Die Obverse $20.00 851 1971 Lincoln Memorial Cent NGC MS67RD (Price Guide $195) 852 1971 Jefferson Nickel NGC MS66 6FS (Price Guide $125) 853 1946 S Roosevelt Dime NGC MS67FT (Price Guide $95) 854 World Silver - Egypt AH1293 (Year 10; 1884) 10 Qirsh $12.00 856 1965 Roosevelt Dime NGC MS67 FULL TORCH (Price Guide $750) 857 1965 Washington Quarter NGC MS66 (Price Guide $30) 858 1971 Washington Quarter NGC MS66 (Price Guide $50) 859 1971 D Washington Quarter NGC MS67 (Price Guide $65) 860 1963 D Franklin Half Dollar NGC MS65 FULL BELL LINES (Price Guide $190) 861 1971 D Kennedy Half Dollar NGC MS67 (Price Guide $120) 862 1971 P Eisenhower Dollar NGC MS65 (Price Guide $80) 863 1825 Half Cent NGC VG10BN (Price Guide $85) 864 1939 S Jefferson Nickel PCGS MS65 Rev 1940 (Price Guide $90) 865 1943 P Silver Jefferson Nickel DDO (Doubled Eye) NGC XF45 (Price Guide $75) 866 1941 D Jefferson Nickel NGC MS66 5 Full Steps (Price Guide $40) 867 1941 D Jefferson Nickel NGC MS67 5 Full Steps (Price Guide $175) 868 2011 S Silver Proof Chickasaw Quarter $6.00 869 2013 S Silver Proof White Mountain Quarter $6.00 870 1943 D Jefferson Nickel Old NGC MS67 (Price Guide $90) 871 1956 D Jefferson Nickel NGC MS65 TONED (Price Guide $20) 872 1956 D Jefferson Nickel NGC MS65 TONED (Price Guide $20) 873 1958 Proof Jefferson Nickel NGC PF69 (Price Guide $110) 874 1978 D Jefferson Nickel NGC MS66 5 Full Steps (Price Guide $60) 875 1945 S Micro S Mercury Dime NGC MS66 (Price Guide $140) 876 1946 S/S Washington Quarter RPM-002 NGC MS65 (Price Guide $75) 877 1946 S/S Washington Quarter RPM-002 NGC MS65 (Price Guide $75) 878 1947 S/S Washington Quarter RPM-001 NGC MS66 (Price Guide $285) 879 1950 Washington Quarter DDR NGC MS66 (Price Guide $150) 880 1957 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse PCGS MS66 (Price Guide $110) 881 1958 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $100) 882 2013 S Silver Proof Fort McHenry Quarter $6.00 883 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS64 (Price Guide $40) 884 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS64 (Price Guide $40) 885 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS64 (Price Guide $40) 886 Canada - 1962 "Hanging 2" 1 Cent UNC $8.00 887 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $55) 888 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $55) 889 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $55) 890 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $55) 891 1959 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $55) 892 1960 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $65) 893 1960 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS64 (Price Guide $50) 894 1960 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS64 (Price Guide $50) 896 1960 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $65) 897 1960 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $65) 898 1960 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $65) 899 1962 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse PCGS MS65 (Price Guide $110) 951 1963 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse PCGS MS65 (Price Guide $130) 952 1963 Washington Quarter Type B Reverse NGC MS65 (Price Guide $130) 953 Philippines - 1944 D/D 20 Centavos NGC AU58 RARE Variety (Priced at $55) 954 1942 Walking Liberty Half DDR NGC AU58 (Price Guide $100) 955 1942 Walking Liberty Half DDR PCGS MS67 GEM (Price Guide $6,000) 956 1953 D Franklin Half Bugs Bunny PCGS MS64FBL (Price Guide $170 957 1954 D Franklin Half Bugs Bunny PCGS MS64FBL (Price Guide $100) 958 1954 D Franklin Half Bugs Bunny PCGS MS64FBL (Price Guide $100) 960 1974 D Kennedy Half DDO PCGS AU58 (Price Guide $35) 961 1977 D Kennedy Half DDO NGC AU58 (Price Guide $175) 962 1977 D Kennedy Half DDO NGC AU58 (Price Guide $175) 963 1977 D Kennedy Half DDO NGC MS61 (Price Guide $250) 964 1977 D Kennedy Half DDO NGC MS62 (Price Guide $350) 965 1977 D Kennedy Half DDO ANACS MS63 (Price Guide $100) 966 1977 D Kennedy Half DDO NGC MS65 (Price Guide $250) 967 1977 D Kennedy Half DDO NGC MS65 (Price Guide $250) 968 1885 O Morgan Dollar NGC MS63 TONED (Priced at $100 due to toning) 969 Sterling Silver Cup Engraved "Johnny" 53.3 grams 971 Sterling Silver Cigarette Case Engraved "CML" 67.5 grams 972 2010 S Silver Proof Mount Hood Quarter $6.00 974 2011 S Silver Proof Olympic Quarter $6.00 976 2010 S Silver Proof Yosemite Quarter $6.00 977 1964 D Washington Quarter BU NICE $5.00 978 1959 D Washington Quarter BU NICE $5.00 979 Sterling Silver Tongs 19.1 grams 980 Sterling Silver Tongs 19.0 grams 981 1984 P Kennedy Half Dollar UNC MINT CELLO $2.00 982 1979 P Kennedy Half Dollar UNC MINT CELLO $2.00 983 1959 D Washington Quarter BU NICE $5.00 984 1959 D Washington Quarter BU NICE $5.00 985 France - 1919 10 Centimes NICE $2.00 986 1953 S Silver Washington Quarter NICE $8.00 987 France - 1945 C 5 Francs $2.00 988 France - 1945 C 5 Francs $2.00 989 Sterling Silver Spoon Engraved "Eugene 1892" 10.0 grams 990 France - 1946 C 5 Francs $3.00 991 France - 1946 C 5 Francs $3.00 992 France - 1946 C 5 Francs $3.00 993 France - 1946 C 5 Francs $3.00 994 1964 D Washington Quarter BU NICE $5.00 995 Sterling Silver Spoon Engraved "1893" 10.0 grams 998 1964 Washington Quarter BU NICE $5.00 999 1962 Washington Quarter BU NICE $5.00
purchased $100 of each of Top Ten Cryptos in Jan. 2018, haven't sold or traded, repeated in 2019 and 2020, update y'all monthly. Learn more about the history and rules of the Experimentshere.
August - solid month for the 2018 Top Ten, led by, ladies and gentlemen (or lady singular, there in the back row, I see you) NEM!!!!! Up over +200% in August.
Overall - BTC still way ahead and approaching break-even point, ETH gaining ground, alone in the middle. NEM(!!!) finally escapes last place replaced by DASH.
Over three years, cryptos outperforming S&P if I'd taken a similar approach.
Month Thirty Two – Down 71%
2018 Top Ten Summary August was not quite as strong as all-green July, but still a solid month for the 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment. The gains were led by (I hope you’re sitting down for this one) (drum roll please) (you’re not going to believe this): NEM(!) which finished the month up over +200%. Really!
Question of the month:
The US Justice Department announced in August that it had seized cryptocurrency from terror groups in the Middle East. How much did they confiscate?
A) $2 million B) $4 million C) $8 million D) $32 million Scroll down for the answer.
Ranking and August Winners and Losers
Rank since January 2018 Lots of movement this month: all but three cryptos moved positions in August and all but one (NEM!) in the wrong direction. Despite gaining in value, Dash had the biggest slide, down four in the rankings from #24 to #28. ADA fell three and has dropped back out of the Top Ten. XRP, Bitcoin Cash, IOTA, and Stellar each lost one place in the rankings. The lone exception is a big one: XEM(!) climbed an unprecedented 9 spots in August. The last time NEM was in the Top Twenty was May 2019. After thirty-two months, 50% of the cryptos that started 2018 in the Top Ten have dropped out. NEM, ADA, Dash, IOTA, and Stellar have been replaced by Binance Coin, Tether,BSV, CRO, and most recently, LINK. August Winners – Don’t call it a comeback, NEM‘s been here for years. Up over +200% in August, NEM crushed the rest of the field. A distant second place was ETH, up +32% on the month. August Losers – Down -13%, ADA was the worst performing crypto of the month, followed by Bitcoin Cash, down -9%. For the overly competitive, below is a tally of the winners of the first 32 months of the 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment. Bitcoin still has the most monthly wins (7). Cardano is a close second with 6 monthly wins. Despite its blockbuster August, NEM has the most monthly losses with 6. Every crypto has at least one monthly win and Bitcoin is unique as the only cryptocurrency that hasn’t lost a month in the 2.5+ years of the Experiment. Ws and Ls
Overall update – BTC in the lead and inching towards break-even point, followed by second place ETH. NEM escapes last place, replaced by Dash.
Although BTC didn’t make any major moves this month, it continued to slowly but surely approach its break-even point. It is down about -10% since my purchase in January 2018. The initial investment of $100 thirty-two months ago is now worth about $90. Ethereum is all alone in second place. It had a strong August, it picked up a lot of ground, but is still down -35% since January 2018. The big story this month is at the bottom: NEM(!) gained +200% in August, crushing its counterparts and leaping out of last place, where it was so comfortable for so, so long. Although still down -83% over the life of the experiment, it moved from 10th place to 6th place in just one month. The new king of the basement is Dash, down -91%. The initial $100 invested in Dash 32 months ago is now worth $8.50.
Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:
The crypto market added nearly $43B in August. The last time we saw a similar level in terms of overall crypto market cap was way back in the fifth month of the 2018 Top Ten Experiment: May 2018.
After being stuck in the mid-60s for most of 2020, BitDom dropped significantly this month, down to 57%. For context, the last time BitDom was this low was back in June 2019. For some more context: since the beginning of the experiment, the range of Bitcoin dominance has been quite wide: we saw a high of 70% BitDom in September 2019 and a low of 33% BitDom in February 2018.
Overall return on $1,000 investment since January 1st, 2018:
The 2018 Top Ten Portfolio gained about $17 this month. If I cashed out today, the $1000 initial investment would return about $287, down -71% from January 2018. While -71% isn’t something to brag about, the monthly trend is encouraging. Here, take a look at the ROI over the life of the experiment, month by month, for some context: 2018 Top Ten Monthly ROI Summary So, -71% from a bottom of -88% is moving in the right direction. Or that’s what I tell myself as I cry myself to sleep nightly. Hopefully the next stop will be in the -60% range, a level this experiment hasn’t seen in years. So the Top Ten Cryptos of 2018 are down -71%. What about the 2019 and 2020 Top Tens? Let’s take a look:
So overall? Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line: After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my combined portfolios are worth $3,937 ($287+ $1,825 +$1,825). That’s up about +31% for the three combined portfolios, compared to +23% last month. This marks the highest ROI of the three combined portfolios since I added the metric this year. Here’s a table to help visualize: Combined ROI on $3k over three years A +31% gain by investing $1k on whichever cryptos happened to be in the Top Ten on January 1st for three straight years, not bad. But surely you’d do better if you invested only in one crypto, right? Depends on your choice. Let’s take a look: Three year club: shoulda gone with ETH Only five cryptos have remained in the Top Ten for all three years: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, and LTC. Knowing what we know now, which one would have been best to go all in on, at least at this point in the Experiment? Ethereum, easily: the initial $3k would be up +160%, worth over $7800 today. The worst performing at this point is XRP, down -17%.
Comparison to S&P 500:
I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of the experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. Defying global gloom, the S&P 500 reached an all time high in August and is up +31% since the beginning of the Experiment. The initial $1k investment into crypto on January 1st, 2018 would have been worth about $1310 had it been redirected to the S&P. But what if I took the same invest-$1,000-on-January-1st-of-each-year approach with the S&P 500 that I’ve been documenting through the Top Ten Crypto Experiments? Here are the numbers:
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$310
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$400
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: +$90
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P: After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,800. That is up over+27%since January 2018, compared to a +31% gain of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios. That’s a 4% swing in favor of theTop Ten Crypto Portfolios! As you’ll see in the table below, this is only the second time since I started recording this metric that crypto has outperformed the S&P had I taken a similar investment approach: 3 x $1k crypto vs. S&P This is a big turnaround from the 22% difference in favor of the S&P just two months ago. Although it’s fun to see crypto is in the lead, I’ll leave it to you to decide whether the heart condition you may develop by being in the cryptosphere is worth that +4% edge…
August was a bit mixed compared to July, but still a very solid month for the 2018 Top Ten. Some interesting developments this month: Bitcoin is now within 10% of the price I paid on January 1st, 2018. ETH had solid gains and NEM(!) had a crazy month, tripling in value and finally climbing out of the basement. At the same time, traditional markets are doing well too: the S&P reached an all time high in August. It will be interesting to see how both markets perform during the final third of a very crazy year. Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for my parallel projects where I repeat the experiment twice, purchasing another $1000 ($100 each) of two new sets of Top Ten cryptos as of January 1st, 2019 then again on January 1st, 2020.
In August, which socialite sold a drawing of her cat for $17,000 worth of Ethereum?
A) Ivanka Trump B) Paris Hilton C) Kim Kardashian D) That other one Scroll down for the answer.
Ranking and August Winners and Losers
2020 Top Ten Rank Despite another strong month overall, most of our 2020 Top Ten Cryptos either held steady or lost ground. XRP, BCH, and EOS each fell one position to #4, #6, and #12. BSV dropped two spots from #6 to #8. Heading the other direction, stablecoin Tether ended August climbing back up to #3. August Winners – ETH backed up July‘s massive +55% gain with another very solid month, finishing August up +32%. Tezos finished in second place, +15% on the month. August Losers – BSV and BCH were the worst performing of the 2020 Top Ten Portfolio, down -17% and -9% respectively Since COVID-19 has hammered the sporting world, let’s be overly competitive and pit these cryptos against themselves, shall we? Here’s a table showing which cryptos have the most monthly wins and losses at this point in the experiment. With its second straight win ETH is now in the lead with three monthly Ws. On the other hand, BSV, even though it is up +100% since January 1st, 2020, has been the worst performing crypto of the bunch four out of the first eight months so far this year. 2020 Top Ten Ws and Ls
Overall update – ETH far out in front, followed Tezos. 100% of Top Ten are in positive territory.
Ethereum pulled farther ahead this month and now is up +266% on the year. Thanks to a strong month for Tezos and a week month for BSV, Tezos has now overtaken BSV for second place, up +158% in 2020. Discounting Tether (no offense Big-T), BCH (+32%) is now the worst performing cryptocurrency of the 2020 Top Ten portfolio. 100% of the cryptos in this group are in positive territory.
Total Market Cap for the cryptocurrency sector:
The overall crypto market gained almost $43B in August, ending the month up +104% since the beginning of this year’s experiment in January 2020.
2020 monthly BitDom BitDom finally saw significant movement in August: it fell to 56.8%, the lowest level of the year. This of course signals a greater appetite for altcoins. The range up to this point in the year has been roughly 57% to 68%.
Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2020:
After an initial $1000 investment, the 2020 Top Ten Portfolio is now worth $1,825, up +82.52%. It is back to being the best performing of the three Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Portfolios, but by the smallest of margins: the 2019 group came in at +82.51% in August. Here’s the month by month ROI of the 2020 Top Ten Experiment, hopefully helpful to maintain perspective and provide an overview as we go along: Monthly ROI to 2020 Top Ten Even during the zombie apocalypse blip in March, the 2020 Top Ten managed to end every month so far in the green (for a mirror image, check out the all red table you’ll in the 2018 experiment). The range of monthly ROI for the 2020 Top Ten has been between a low of +7% in March and high of +83% in August. So, how does the 2020 Top Ten Experiment compare to the parallel projects?
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line: After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my combined portfolios are worth $3,937 ($287+ $1,825 +$1,825). That’s up about +31% for the three combined portfolios. It also marks the highest ROI of the three combined portfolios since I started keeping track in January 2020. The previous high was last month‘s +23%. Lost in the numbers? Here’s a table to help visualize the progress of the combined portfolios: ROI on $1k + $1k +$1k over three years That’s a +31% gain by buying $1k of the cryptos that happened to be in the Top Ten on January 1st, 2018, 2019, and 2020. But what if I’d gone all in on only one Top Ten crypto for the past three years? While most have come and gone over the life of the experiment, five cryptos have remained in Top Ten for all three years: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, and LTC. Let’s take a look at those five: Three year club. ETH would have been your best bet. At this point in the Experiments, Ethereum (+160%) would have easily returned the most, followed by BTC (+93%). On the other hand, following this approach with XRP, I would have been down -17%. So that’s the Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiments snapshot. Let’s take a look at how traditional markets are doing.
Comparison to S&P 500
I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point to traditional markets. The S&P continued its recovery and set an all time high in August. It is now up +9% in 2020. S&P throughout 2020 Over the same time period, the 2020 Top Ten Crypto Portfolio is returning about +83%. The initial $1k investment in crypto is now worth about $1,825. That sane $1k I put into crypto in January 2020 would be worth $1090 had it been redirected to the S&P 500 instead. That’s a $735 difference on a $1k investment, the largest gap in favor of crypto all year. But that’s just 2020. What if I invested in the S&P 500 the same way I did during the first three years of the Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiments? What I like to call the world’s slowest dollar cost averaging method? Here are the figures:
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$310
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$400
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: +$90
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P: After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,800. That $3,800 is up over +27%since January 2018, compared to a +31% gain of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios over the same period of time. For the second month in a row, the better overall investment would be (drum roll please): the Top Ten Crypto Portfolios! As you’ll see in the table below, this is only the second time since I started recording this metric that crypto has outperformed a hypothetical identical investment in the S&P. Combined crypto vs. S&P over three years
August was the second straight strong month in crypto and the 2020 Top Ten continue to do very well compared to traditional markets. As I’m putting together these reports, both crypto and traditional markets are diving, but these Experiments are great for a bit of perspective: there is no question that crypto has been a better investment than traditional markets so far this year. It’s not even close. How the rest of the year will develop is another question entirely, stay tuned and buckle up. Stay healthy and take care of yourselves out there. Or better yet, just pop some popcorn and enjoy staying in. Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for the original 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment and the 2019 Top Ten Experiment follow up experiment.
And the Answer is…
B) Paris Hilton At an auction in August, Paris Hilton sold a portrait of her cat that fetched 40 ETH, about $17,000 at the time. She donated the proceeds of the sale to charity. That's hot.
purchased $100 of each of Top Ten Cryptos in Jan. 2019, haven't sold or traded. Did the same in 2018 and 2020. Learn more about the history and rules of the Experimentshere.
August - solid month for the 2019 Top Ten, led by Tron and ETH.
Since Jan. 2019 - ETH takes lead from BTC. XRP worst performing since Jan. 1st, 2019
Over three years, cryptos outperforming S&P if I'd taken a similar approach.
Month Twenty – UP 83%
2019 Top Ten Overview Although not quite a strong as red-hot July, the 2019 Top Ten Cryptos had a solid month. Overall, modest losses were offset by strong performances by Tron (+53%) and ETH (+32%).
Question of the month:
In August, this financial services giant filed for a new Bitcoin fund with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
A) Goldman Sachs B) Vanguard C) Charles Schwab D) Fidelity Scroll down for the answer.
Ranking and August Winners and Losers
A whole lot of shaking going on this month as the 2019 Top Ten cryptos jostled for position. XRP, BCH, EOS, and XLM each fell one spot while BSV dropped two. Moving the other direction: Tether climbed up one, and is now back in the #3 position. Thanks to a very strong August, Tron made the most upward progress, advancing two slots to #14. Only three cryptos have dropped out of the 2019 Top Ten since January 1st, 2019: Tron, Stellar, and EOS. Not bad after 20 months considering crypto’s volatility. As of August, they have been replaced by BNB, CRO, and LINK. August Winners – Tron, with a +53% gain, easily outperformed its peers. Tron was followed by ETH (+32%), a solid follow up to its +55% gain in July. August Losers – The Forks.BCH and BSV under performed the pack, finishing the month down -17% and -9% respectively. For overly competitive nerds, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and loses during the first 20 months of the 2019 Top Ten Experiment: Tether is still in the lead with six monthly victories, twice as much as second place BSV and ETH. And although BSV is up over +100% since January 2019, it is running away with the monthly loss count: it has now finished last in eight out of twenty months. Swing trade anyone? XRP still hasn’t been able to take home a single W. Ws and Ls
Overall update – ETH takes lead from BTC. XRP still worst performing since Jan. 1st, 2019
After three straight months ahead, BTC (+215%) lost its front-runner status to ETH (up +244% since January 2019). A distant third is BSV up +109%. The initial $100 investment in ETH is currently worth $353. Twenty months in to the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund Experiment, 80% of the 2019 Top Ten cryptos are either flat or in the green. The other two cryptos are in negative territory, including last place XRP (down -19% since January 2019). At +82.5%, the 2019 Top Ten is essentially tied with the 2020 Top Ten, both far ahead of the 2018 group, which is down -71% (but trending upward).
Total Market Cap for the cryptocurrency sector:
Monthly market cap since Jan. 1, 2019 Since January 2019, the total market cap for crypto is up +204%. The overall market picked up nearly $43B in August and is approaching $400B. For the second month in a row, the market is at its highest month-end level since the 2019 Top Ten Experiment started 20 months ago.
The last 20 months of BitDom BitDom‘s wobble in July is nothing compared to the more than 5% dip we saw in August. It had been locked in the mid-60s% range for months, but started dipping in July, signaling a greater appetite for altcoins. Zooming out, the BitDom range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2019 has been between 50%-70%.
Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2019:
The 2019 Top Ten Portfolio gained over $100 in August, nothing like July‘s +$450 but still solid. After the initial $1000 investment, the 2019 group of Top Ten cryptos is worth $1,825. With some generous rounding, that’s up about +83%. Here’s a look at the ROI over the life of the first 20 months of the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund experiment, month by month: Month by month ROI of 2019 Top Ten Unlike the completely red table you’ll see in the 2018 Top Ten Experiment, the 2019 crypto table is almost all green. The first month was the lowest point (-9%), and the highest point (+114%) was May 2019. At +82.51%, the 2019 Top Ten Portfolio has lost its hard-fought position as the best performing of the three Top Ten Experiments, but just barely (the 2020 Top Ten is up +82.52%) Speaking of the other Experiments, let’s take a look at how the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund Portfolio compare to the parallel projects:
Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line: After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, my combined portfolios are worth $3,937 ($287+ $1,825 +$1,825). That’s up about +31% for the three combined portfolios. It also marks the highest ROI of the three combined portfolios since I started keeping track in January 2020. The previous high was last month‘s +23%. Here’s a table to help visualize the progress of the combined portfolios: Combined ROI on $3k That’s a +31% gain by dropping $1k once a year on whichever cryptos happened to be in the Top Ten on January 1st, 2018, 2019, and 2020. But what if I’d gone all in on only one Top Ten crypto for the past three years? While many have come and gone over the life of the experiment, five cryptos have remained in Top Ten for all three years: BTC, ETH, XRP, BCH, and LTC. Let’s take a look at those five: Three year club - ETH out in front Ethereum (+160%) would have returned the most at this point, followed by BTC (+93%). On the other hand, following this approach with XRP, I would have been down -17%. Alright, that’s crypto. How does crypto compare to the stock market?
Comparison to S&P 500:
I’m also tracking the S&P 500 as part of the experiments to have a comparison point with more traditional markets. Even with everything that’s going on in the world, the S&P continues adding value and reached an all time high in August. It is now up +40% since January 2019. Monthly S&P levels since Jan. 2019 The initial $1k investment I put into crypto 20 months ago would be worth $1,400 had it been redirected to the S&P 500 in January 2019. The 2019 Top Ten portfolio is returning +83% over last 20 months, over double the ROI of the S&P 500 over the same time period. But what if I took the same world’s-slowest-dollar-cost-averaging/$1,000-per-year-on-January-1st approach with the S&P 500? It would yield the following:
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$310
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$400
$1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: +$90
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P: After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,800. That is up over+27%since January 2018, compared to a +31% gain of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios. As you can see in the table below, August’s 4% difference in favor of crypto marks the second month in a row the Top Ten Crypto Portfolios have outperformed the S&P had I taken a similar investment approach. Combined crypto vs. S&P
Thanks to a strong couple of months, the 2019 Top Ten Portfolio is doing just as well as the 2020 Top Ten group, both of which are far, far ahead of the 2018 Top Ten. Meanwhile, despite the presence of a global pandemic and all the uncertainty associated with an election year, the US stock markets reached all time highs in August. As we approach the fall, I’m buckling up for an unpredictable final stretch of an unpredictable year. Be safe and take care of each other out there. Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for the original 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment and the 2020 Top Ten Experiment.
And the Answer is…
D) Fidelity In August, the SEC published a new filing for a Bitcoin fund, submitted by financial services giant Fidelity.
The Bitcoin Gold (BTG) network suffered from 51% attacks on January 23-24, as roughly 29 blocks were removed in two deep blockchain reorganizations (reorg). In May of 2018, Bitcoin Gold, at the time the 26th-largest cryptocurrency, suffered a 51% attack. The malicious actor or actors controlled a vast amount of Bitcoin Gold's hash power, such that ... During Bitcoin’s first two years, Satoshi Nakamoto performed several soft forks by just releasing the backwards-compatible change in a client that began immediately enforcing the new rule. Multiple soft forks such as BIP30 have been activated via a flag day where the new rule began to be enforced at a preset time or block height. Gavin Andresen. Gavin Andresen – Former chief scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation and lead developer of the core Bitcoin code wrote back in 2012 that miners on the network would “quickly figure out a rule or rules to reject” a 51% attack.. According to Andresen, a simple line of code could be added to Bitcoin that would stop a 51% attack in its tracks: “Reaching 51% of all hashing power,” the company said in a release, “is a serious threat to the bitcoin community.” I contacted the firm, asking why they went over their prior promise. I ...
How does Bitcoin work? This is a question that often causes confusion. Here's a quick explanation! The basics for a new user As a new user, you can get started with Bitcoin without understanding ... ¡Bienvenidos al d/t Podcast! Un espacio de conversaciones alrededor de Blockchain, Activos Digitales, crecimiento personal y profesional y otras curiosidades... Follow Altcoin Daily: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbLhGKVY-bJPcawebgtNfbw/videos Protect your crypto with a Ledger - the world’s best hardware wallet: h... Nicolas Courtois On Hash Rate 51 and Protection Against Double Spending In Bitcoin and Other Crypto Mine Bitcoin On Your Computer For Free: https://honeyminer.com/referred/58xpg -----...