Downstream Casino Resort

197 physicians in Saskatchewan have signed an open letter to our business community, requesting they help prevent the transmission of Covid-19

We are calling for businesses to voluntarily close if possible, or if not to make as many changes as they safely can to keep their workers home. We understand that this demonstration of community spirit will require significant sacrifice, but we are so moved by the threat facing us that we have made this urgent plea.
Thank you in advance for your cooperation, support and willing to join us in doing whatever you can to keep our community safe.
--Paul Masiowski
(Letter follows):
.....
An open letter to the Saskatchewan business community,
Re: A call to action for Saskatchewan businesses to prevent the transmission of COVID-19
Please, we beg you, join us in battling this disease. The recently declared State of Emergency in Saskatchewan has resulted in the obligatory closure of high-risk businesses (gyms, fitness centres, casinos, and bingo halls) and suggested strategies to mitigate spread at others. While we support these measures, we call on the Saskatchewan business community to go even further and proactively close or transform their businesses in a way that eliminates person-to- person interaction. This will be a painful but necessary way to prevent community transmission of COVID-19. The downstream impact of early action by our business community will save lives and give our healthcare system a fighting chance. We would not ask this of you if we thought there was any other way.
We are so grateful to those of you who have already taken initiatives to protect Saskatchewan from COVID-19. By closing your doors, becoming ‘take-out only’, allowing your employees to work from home, waiving the need for sick notes, and discouraging non-essential movement within our community, you have shown that you understand the threat that we are facing. We see the sacrifices you are making and thank you for this selfless act. We also understand that many of you have not made these changes for any number of reasons, including the very real threat to you and your employees' livelihood. We look to the Government of Saskatchewan and the Federal Government to develop programs to support you and your employees in what may be a long disruption.
Until recently, this virus seemed very far away. However, COVID-19 is here and we cannot wait any longer. The declaration of a state of emergency in Saskatchewan underscores this point. The countries that it has overwhelmed have given us the gifts of time and an approach to slow its spread. However, this disease is unique in that no matter what we do as healthcare providers, we will be overrun without your help. You are leaders in our community and your early and proactive response will help to convey the gravity of the situation while limiting its spread. Lives depend on this.
Regardless of our community's response, we will continue to do everything that we possibly can to keep you and your family safe if and when you fall ill.
Now, more than ever, we are in this together.
Sincerely,
(197 Saskatchewan physicians)
...
Facebook post with full text and images of the letter: https://www.facebook.com/paulmasiowski/posts/10157692432856321
submitted by pmasiowski to saskatoon [link] [comments]

Macau travel | ABOUT MACAU

Macau travel | ABOUT MACAU
Before traveling to Macau, knowing Macau, his history, and his heritage will make travel more interesting.

https://preview.redd.it/mm4vjzut7zp41.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=338b7f97cd124a1913ac2eb181d4284b20b4b48b
A Brief History Location & Time Population Language Currency Climate & Clothing Water & Electricity Healthcare & Hospitals Communication

1.A Brief History

Fishermen from Fujian and farmers from Guangdong were the first known settlers in Macao, when it was known as Ou Mun, or “trading gate”, because of its location at the mouth of the Pearl River downstream from Guangzhou (Canton). During ancient times port city was part of the Silk Road with ships loading here with silk for Rome.
Even after China ceased to be a world trade centre, Guangzhou prospered from seaborne business with the countries of Southeast Asia, so the local entrepreneurs welcomed the arrival of Portuguese merchant-explorers. They followed in the wake of Jorge Alvares, who landed in southern China in 1513, and set about finding suitable trading posts.
In the early 1550s the Portuguese reached Ou Mun, which the locals also called A Ma Gao, “place of A Ma”, in honour of the Goddess of Seafarers, whose temple stood at the entrance to the sheltered Inner Harbour. The Portuguese adopted the name, which gradually changes into the name Macao, and with the permission of Guangdong’s mandarins, established a city that within a short time had become a major entrepot for trade between China, Japan, India and Europe.
It also became the perfect crossroad for the meeting of East and West cultures. The Roman Catholic church sent some of its greatest missionaries to continue the work of St Francis Xavier, (who died nearby after making many converts in Japan). A Christian college was built, beside what is now today’s Ruins of St Paul’s, where students such as Matteo Ricci prepared for their work as Christian scholars at the Imperial Court in Beijing. Other churches were built, as well as fortresses, which gave the city an historical European appearance that distinguishes it to this day.
Portugal’s golden age in Asia faded as rivals like the Dutch and British took over their trade. However the Chinese chose to continue to do business through the Portuguese in Macao, so for over a century the British East India Company and others set up shop here in rented houses like the elegant Casa Garden. As Europe’s trade with China grew, the European merchants spent part of the year in Guangzhou, buying tea and Chinese luxuries at the bi-annual fairs, using Macao as a recreational retreat.
Following the Opium War in 1841, Hong Kong was established by Britain and most of the foreign merchants left Macao, which became a quaint, quiet backwater. Nevertheless it has continued to enjoy a leisurely multicultural existence and make daily, practical use of its historical buildings, in the process becoming a favourite stopover for international travellers, writers and artists.
Macao has developed in the past industries such as textiles, electronics and toys, while today has built up world class tourism industry with a wide choice of hotels, resorts, MICE facilities, restaurants and casinos. Macao’s economy is closely linked to that of Hong Kong and Guangdong Province, in particular the Pearl River Delta region, which qualifies as one of Asia’s ‘little tigers’. Macao provides financial and banking services, staff training, transport and communications support.
Today Macao is a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, and, like Hong Kong, benefits from the principle of “one country, two systems”. The tiny SAR is growing in size – with more buildings on reclaimed land – and in the number and diversity of its attractions. The greatest of these continues to be Macao’s unique society, with communities from the East and West complementing each other, and the many people who come to visit.

2.Location & Time

Macao is located in Guangdong province, on the western bank of the Pearl River Delta, at latitude 22º 14′ North, longitude 113º 35′ East and connected to Gongbei District by the Border Gate (Portas do Cerco) isthmus.
The Macao Special Administrative Region has an area of 32.9 km², comprised of the Macao Peninsula (9.3 km² and connected to Mainland China), Taipa (7.9 km²), Coloane (7.6 km²), the reclaimed area COTAI (6.0 km²), Zone A of the new district (1.4 km²) and Macao Administration Zone on the Artificial Frontier Island of Zhuhai-Macao of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (0.7km²). Three bridges connect Macao to Taipa (one of them is 2.5 km long, the other one is 4.4 km long and the third one is 2.1 km long).
Besides the Border Gate (Portas do Cerco) – the visitor can access Mainland China through the COTAI Frontier Post. Immigration and Customs is located in the reclaimed area between Taipa and Coloane.
Macao is eight hours ahead of Greenwich Mean Time.

3.Population

The total population is estimated at around 679,600 . Over 90% of Macao residents are ethnic Chinese. The remaining includes Portuguese, Filipino and other nationalities.

4.Language

Chinese and Portuguese are the official languages while Cantonese being most widely spoken. The official languages are used in government departments in all official documents and communications. English is generally used in trade, tourism and commerce.

5.Currency

The Pataca (MOP) is divided into 100 avos and it is Macao’s official currency. There are banknotes and coins in the following denominations: Coins: 10, 20 and 50 avos; 1, 2, 5 and 10 Patacas. Banknotes: 10, 20, 50, 100, 500 and 1000 Patacas.
By the decision of the Government the Pataca is linked to the Hong Kong dollar (HKD). The exchange rate is MOP103.20 = HKD100.00. There is an acceptable variation up to 10%. Roughly 8 Patacas is equivalent to 1 US Dollar.
Foreign currency can be changed in hotels, banks and authorised exchange dealers located all around the city. The Macau International Airport also provides currency exchange service. Banks open normally from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m.. Most credit cards are accepted in many hotels, shops and restaurants.
According to the provisions of the Law, passengers arriving at Macao carrying cash or CBNIs, such as traveller’s cheques, cheques, bills of exchange, money orders and promissory notes, with value of or exceeding MOP 120,000.00, should use the Red Channel with a completed declaration form and make a declaration to the Customs officer. Passengers leaving Macao need to disclose truthfully the amount of cash or CBNIs carried when asked by a Customs officer, or they shall be liable to a fine of MOP 1,000.00 to MOP 500,000.00. Travelers who have a layover in Macao SAR and transit to another destination have no obligation of declaration. For more details, please visit the Macao Customs Service’s websdite: www.customs.gov.mo/cn/customs6.html

6.Climate & Clothing

Located in the subtropical climate zone, Macao has moderate climate conditions throughout the year. Annual average temperature is about 23ºC (73ºF) and ranges from 20ºC (68ºF) to 26ºC (79ºF). Humidity levels are high in the city, where the average annual relative humidity tops 79%. The average annual rainfall measures about 2,058 mm in Macao, with the rainy season falling between May and September every year. The Macao Meteorological and Geophysical Bureau will issue a rainstorm warning when the amount of precipitation over Macao is expected to reach about 50 mm in the next two hours.
October to December is the most pleasant season to visit Macao, when visitors can enjoy warm autumn days with low humidity. January, February and March are the winter months with relatively cold but sunny weather, when it slowly gets warm again in April. From May to September, the weather becomes hot and humid with more rainy days and occasional tropical storms (known as typhoons). The level of typhoon warning signals depends on the intensity and proximity of a typhoon to Macao. When signal No. 8 or above is hoisted, the cross-sea bridges will be closed for safety reasons including Governador Nobre de Carvalho Bridge, Friendship Bridge, the upper deck of Sai Van Bridge and Lotus Bridge; as an immediate measure, the enclosed lower deck of Sai Van Bridge will be opened provisionally for light automobiles to commute between Macao and Taipa. Outbound ferries and flights from the city will also be delayed or cancelled.
In summer, visitors are advised to wear light cotton clothes for a pleasant journey in Macao; while woolens are recommended along with a thick jacket or an overcoat to keep warm during winter. It is great to bring along cardigans or sweaters in spring (March to May) or autumn (September to November) as nights are cooler during the two seasons.
For more infomation please visit website of the Macao Meteorological and Geophysical Bureau

7.Water & Electricity

Macao’s water is supplied directly from Mainland China and is purified. Chlorine is added for extra protection. Distilled drinking water is supplied in all hotel rooms and in restaurants.
Electricity in Macao is at 230V, 50Hz. The power plugs used in Macao are of the three-pin, square-shaped or round-shaped type. It is suggested to check before using an electrical appliance.

8.Healthcare & Hospitals

Visitors are not required to produce any health certificates in Macao except under special circumstances occurring in the territory or surrounding regions. Visitors may visit any hospital or health centre in Macao should they need medical treatment or consultation. You may seek assistance from the following hospitals and pharmacies in Macao:
Hospital Centre S. Januário (Government) Address: Estrada do Visconde de S. Januário Enquiries: +853 2831 3731 (Provides 24-hour emergency services)
Island Emergency Station of Hospital Centre S. Januário (Government) Address: Block H (next to University Hospital), Macau University of Science and Technology, Avenida Wai Long, Taipa Enquiries: +853 2899 2230 (Provides 24-hour emergency services)
Kiang Wu Hospital (Private) Address: Estrada Coelho do Amaral Enquiries: +853 2837 1333 (Provides 24-hour emergency services)
University Hospital (Private) Address: Block H, Macau University of Science and Technology, Avenida Wai Long, Taipa Enquiries: +853 2882 1838
For less urgent cases, visitors may go to any health centre on Macao Peninsula, Taipa or Coloane Island. The most central one is the Tap Seac Health Centre located on Av. Conselheiro Ferreira de Almeida.

List of Health Centre

Name : Centro de Saúde Macau Oriental (Tap Seac) Address : Av. Conselheiro Ferreira de Almeida, Macau Telephone: +853 2852 2232
Name : Centro de Saúde Macau Norte (Bairro Fai Chi Kei) Address : Estrada Marginal de Patane, Macau Telephone: +853 2856 2922
Name : Centro de Saúde Porto Interior (Hoi Pong Koi) Address : Rua Constantino Brito, n.º 11, 4º – 7º andar, Macau Telephone: +853 2892 0024, +853 2892 0025
Name : Centro de Saúde de S. Lourenço (Fong Son Tong) Address : Trav. Inácio Baptista, n.º 2, c, Macau Telephone: +853 2831 3418
Name : Centro de Saúde Areia Preta (Hac Sa Wan) Address : Rua Central da Areia Preta, Lote de Terra 18 Telephone: +853 2841 3178
Name : Centro de Saúde dos Jardins do Oceano Address : Largo da Ponte, s/n, Taipa Telephone: +853 2881 3089
Name : Centro de Saúde Nossa Senhora do Carmo-Lago Address : Área A,1.º andar do Edifício do Lago, Estrada Coronel Nicolau de Mesquita da Taipa Telephone: +853 2850 0400
Name : Centro de Saúde da Ilha Verde Address : Rua Nova da Ilha Verde, Edifício Cheng I, Bloco 1, c Telephone: +853 2831 0033
Name : Posto de Saúde Coloane (Lou Wan) Address : Largo Presidente António Ramalho Eanes, Coloane Telephone: +853 2888 2176
Name : Posto de Saúde para os Idosos Taipa (Tam Chai) Address : Rua Regedor, Bairro Social da Taipa Bloco 9, C No.357J Telephone: +853 2882 7667
Name : Posto de Saúde Provisório de Seac Pai Van de Coloane Address : Lote CN4 de Seac Pai Van de Coloane, Edifício Lok Kuan, Bloco 5, c Telephone: +853 2850 2001
Source: Website of Health Bureau – Contact us, Portuguese version
In addition to Western clinics, visitors can visit traditional Chinese doctors in Macao. For detailed information regarding traditional Chinese medicine medical services, please contact the Macao Health Bureau (Enquiries: +853 2871 3105) or Kiang Wu Hospital (Enquiries: +853 2837 1333).
The pharmacies listed below are open overnight from 9:00 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.:
Farmácia San Hau On Address: Rua de Xangai, No. 84, Centro Comercial Kuong Fat Enquiries: +853 2870 1697
Farmácia San Hau On II Address: Rua de Luís Gonzaga Gomes, No. 11 Enquiries: +853 2878 5705

9.Communication

Internet Services
Macao is one of the most ‘connected’ cities in the world. Macao Post and Telecommunications Bureau has been liaising with local organizations to offer free Wi-Fi services at different locations in Macao under a unified brand name “FreeWiFi.MO”. Now citizens and visitors can connect to a hotspot with Wi-Fi network name containing the word “FreeWiFi.MO” to enjoy free Wi-Fi service. For more service information or to find free Wi-Fi hotspots, please visit www.freewifi.mo.
In addition, visitors can enjoy free Internet facilities in public libraries. For opening hours and library addresses, please visit: www.library.gov.mo
Telephone Service
Country code for Macao is 853 and outgoing international code is 00.
Communication in Macao is convenient, with the telecommunications network covering the whole city. Public phones are located around the city, with local calls costing MOP1.00 per 5 minutes; the IDD direct-dial international telephone service connects to over 100 countries and territories around the world.
The Tourism Hotline on +853 2833 3000 provides comprehensive information about restaurants, hotels, sightseeing and tourist spots, museums, entertainment, shopping, transportation, etc.
If you would like to use your mobile phone while in Macao, please contact the information services below: 1000 – CTM 1118 – Hutchison Telecom 1628 – SmarTone Mobile Communications (Macau) Ltd. 1888 – China Telecom (Macau) Co., Ltd.
Postal Services
Postal services are comprehensive in Macao. The General Post Office is located in Senado Square, while postal branches can be found throughout the Macao Peninsula, Taipa and Coloane. Services include letter post, parcel and express mail service (EMS) to almost anywhere in the world.
Opening hours of General Post Office: 9:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m. (Mondays – Fridays) 9:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m. (Saturdays)
For more information, please contact +853 2832 3666 or visit: www.ctt.gov.mo
The above is an introduction to Macau from 9 aspects. After you have a clear understanding of the history of a place, you can better understand the significance of the place’s landscape, cuisine and so on.
submitted by macau-travel-guide to u/macau-travel-guide [link] [comments]

[Not my post] The Structure of Forex Brokers

Originally posted by Darkstar at Forex Factory.
Disclaimer: I did not write this. I found this post on ForexFactory written by a user called DarkStar, which I believe a lot of redditors will benefit from reading.
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
There has been much discussion of late regarding borker spreads and liquidity. Many assumptions are being made about why spreads are widened during news time that are built on an incomplete knowledge of the architecture of the forex market in general. The purpose of this article is to dissect the market and hopefully shed some light on the situation so that a more rational and productive discussion can be undertaken by the Forex Factory members.
We will begin with an explanation of the purpose of the Forex market and how it is utilized by its primary participants, expand into the structure and operation of the market, and conclude with the implications of this information for speculators. With that having been said, let us begin.
Unlike the various bond and equity markets, the Forex market is not generally utilized as an investment medium. While speculation has a critical role in its proper function, the lion’s share of Forex transactions are done as a function of international business.
The guy who buys a shiny new Eclipse more then likely will pay for it with US Dollars. Unfortunately Mitsubishi’s factory workers in Japan need to get their paychecks denominated in Yen, so at some point a conversion needs to be made. When one considers that companies like Exxon, Boeing, Sony, Dell, Honda, and thousands of other international businesses move nearly every dollar, real, yen, rubble, pound, and euro they make in a foreign country through the Forex market, it isn’t hard to understand how insignificant the speculative presence is; even in a $2tril per day market.
By and large, businesses don’t much care about the intricacies of exchange rates, they just want to make and sell their products. As a central repository of a company’s money, it was only natural that the banks would be the facilitators of these transactions. In the old days it was easy enough for a bank to call a foreign bank (or a foreign branch of ones own bank) and swap the stockpiles of currency each had accumulated from their many customers.
Just as any business would, the banks bought the foreign currency at one rate and marked it up before selling it to the customer. With that the foreign exchange spread was born. This was (and still is) a reasonable cost of doing business. Mitsubishi can pay its customers and the banks make a nice little profit for the hassle and risks associated with moving around the currency.
As a byproduct of transacting all this business, bank traders developed the ability to speculate on the future of currency rates. Utilizing a better understanding of the market, a bank could quote a business a spread on the current rate but hold off hedging until a better one came along. This process allowed the banks to expand their net income dramatically. The unfortunate consequence was that liquidity was redistributed in a way that made certain transactions impossible to complete.
It was for this reason and this reason alone that the market was eventually opened up to non-bank participants. The banks wanted more orders in the market so that a) they could profit from the less experienced participants, and b) the less experienced participants could provide a better liquidity distribution for execution of international business hedge orders. Initially only megacap hedge funds (such as Soros’s and others) were permitted, but it has since grown to include the retail brokerages and ECNs.

Market Structure:
Now that we have established why the market exists, let’s take a look at how the transactions are facilitated:
The top tier of the Forex market is transacted on what is collectively known as the Interbank. Contrary to popular belief the Interbank is not an exchange; it is a collection of communication agreements between the world’s largest money center banks.
To understand the structure of the Interbank market, it may be easier to grasp by way of analogy. Consider that in an office (or maybe even someone’s home) there are multiple computers connected via a network cable. Each computer operates independently of the others until it needs a resource that another computer possesses. At that point it will contact the other computer and request access to the necessary resource. If the computer is working properly and its owner has given the requestor authorization to do so, the resource can be accessed and the initiating computers request can be fulfilled. By substituting computers for banks and resources for currency, you can easily grasp the relationships that exist on the Interbank.
Anyone who has ever tried to find resources on a computer network without a server can appreciate how difficult it can be to keep track of who has what resources. The same issue exists on the Interbank market with regard to prices and currency inventory. A bank in Singapore may only rarely transact business with a company that needs to exchange some Brazilian Real and it can be very difficult to establish what a proper exchange rate should be. It is for this purpose that EBS and Reuters (hereafter EBS) established their services.
Layered on top (in a manner of speaking) of the Interbank communication links, the EBS service enables banks to see how much and at what prices all the Interbank members are willing to transact. Pains should be taken to express that EBS is not a market or a market maker; it is an application used to see bids and offers from the various banks.
The second tier of the market exists essential within each bank. By calling your local Bank of America branch you can exchange any foreign currency you would like. More then likely they will just move some excess currency from one branch to another. Since this is a micro-exchange with a single counterparty, you are basically at their mercy as to what exchange rate they will quote you. Your choice is to accept their offer or shop a different bank. Everyone who trades the forex market should visit their bank at least once to get a few quotes. It would be very enlightening to see how lucrative these transactions really are.
Branching off of this second tier is the third tier retail market. When brokers like Oanda, Forex.com, FXCM, etc. desire to establish a retail operation the first thing they need is a liquidity provider. Nine in ten of these brokers will sign an agreement with just one bank. This bank will agree to provide liquidity if and only if they can hedge it on EBS inclusive of their desired spread. Because the volume will be significantly higher a single bank patron will transact, the spreads will be much more competitive. By no means should it be expected these tier 3 providers will be quoted precisely what exists on the Interbank. Remember the bank is in the business of collecting spreads and no agreement is going to suspend that priority.
Retail forex is almost akin to running a casino. The majority of its participants have zero understanding how to trade effectively and as a result are consistent losers. The spread system combined with a standard probability distribution of returns gives the broker a built in house advantage of a few percentage points. As a result, they have all built internal order matching systems that play one loser off against a winner and collect the spread. On the occasions when disequilibrium exists within the internal order book, the broker hedges any exposure with their tier 2 liquidity provider.
As bad as this may sound, there are some significant advantages for speculators that deal with them. Because it is an internal order book, many features can be provided which are otherwise unavailable through other means. Non-standard contract sizes, high leverage on tiny account balances, and the ability to transact in a commission free environment are just a few of them…
An ECN operates similar to a Tier 2 bank, but still exists on the third tier. An ECN will generally establish agreements with several tier 2 banks for liquidity. However instead of matching orders internally, it will just pass through the quotes from the banks, as is, to be traded on. It’s sort of an EBS for little guys. There are many advantages to the model, but it is still not the Interbank. The banks are going to make their spread or their not go to waste their time. Depending on the bank this will take the form of price shading or widened spreads depending on market conditions. The ECN, for its trouble, collects a commission on each transaction.
Aside from the commission factor, there are some other disadvantages a speculator should consider before making the leap to an ECN. Most offer much lower leverage and only allow full lot transactions. During certain market conditions, the banks may also pull their liquidity leaving traders without an opportunity to enter or exit positions at their desired price.

Trade Mechanics:
It is convenient to believe that in a $2tril per day market there is always enough liquidity to do what needs to be done. Unfortunately belief does not negate the reality that for every buyer there MUST be a seller or no transaction can occur. When an order is too large to transact at the current price, the price moves to the point where open interest is abundant enough to cover it. Every time you see price move a single pip, it means that an order was executed that consumed (or otherwise removed) the open interest at the current price. There is no other way that prices can move.
As we covered earlier, each bank lists on EBS how much and at what price they are willing to transact a currency. It is important to note that no Interbank participant is under any obligation to make a transaction if they do not feel it is in their best interest. There are no “market makers” on the Interbank; only speculators and hedgers.
Looking at an ECN platform or Level II data on the stock market, one can get a feel for what the orders on EBS look like. The following is a sample representation:
You’ll notice that there is open interest (Level II Vol figures) of various sizes at different price points. Each one of those units represents existing limit orders and in this example, each unit is $1mil in currency.
Using this information, if a market sell order was placed for 38.4mil, the spread would instantly widen from 2.5 pips to 4.5 pips because there would no longer be any orders between 1.56300 and 1.56345. No broker, market maker, bank, or thief in the night widened the spread; it was the natural byproduct of the order that was placed. If no additional orders entered the market, the spread would remain this large forever. Fortunately, someone somewhere will deem a price point between those 2 figures an appropriate opportunity to do something and place an order. That order will either consume more interest or add to it, depending whether it is a market or limit order respectively.
What would have happened if someone placed a market sell order for 2mil just 1 millisecond after that 38.4 mil order hit? They would have been filled at 1.5630 Why were they “slipped”? Because there was no one to take the other side of the transaction at 1.56320 any longer. Again, nobody was out screwing the trader; it was the natural byproduct of the order flow.
A more interesting question is, what would happen if all the listed orders where suddenly canceled? The spread would widen to a point at which there were existing bids and offers. That may be 5,7,9, or even 100 pips; it is going to widen to whatever the difference between a bid and an offer are. Notice that nobody came in and “set” the spread, they just refused to transact at anything between it.
Nothing can be done to force orders into existence that don’t exist. Regardless what market is being examined or what broker is facilitating transactions, it is impossible to avoid spreads and slippage. They are a fact of life in the realm of trading.

Implications for speculators:
Trading has been characterized as a zero sum game, and rightly so. If trader A sells a security to trader B and the price goes up, trader A lost money that they otherwise could have made. If it goes down, Trader A made money from trader B’s mistake. Even in a huge market like the Forex, each transaction must have a buyer and a seller to make a trade and one of them is going to lose. In the general realm of trading, this is materially irrelevant to each participant. But there are certain situations where it becomes of significant importance. One of those situations is a news event.
Much has been made of late about how it is immoral, illegal, or downright evil for a broker, bank, or other liquidity provider to withdraw their order (increasing the spread) and slip orders (as though it was a conscious decision on their part to do so) more then normal during these events. These things occur for very specific reasons which have nothing to do with screwing anyone. Let us examine why:
Leading up to an economic report for example, certain traders will enter into positions expecting the news to go a certain way. As the event becomes immanent, the banks on the Interbank will remove their speculative orders for fear of taking unnecessary losses. Technical traders will pull their orders as well since it is common practice for them to avoid the news. Hedge funds and other macro traders are either already positioned or waiting until after the news hits to make decisions dependent on the result.
Knowing what we now know, where is the liquidity necessary to maintain a tight spread coming from?
Moving down the food chain to Tier 2; a bank will only provide liquidity to an ECN or retail broker if they can instantly hedge (plus their requisite spread) the positions on Interbank. If the Interbank spreads are widening due to lower liquidity, the bank is going to have to widen the spreads on the downstream players as well.
At tier 3 the ECN’s are simply passing the banks offers on, so spreads widen up to their customers. The retailers that guarantee spreads of 2 to 5 pips have just opened a gaping hole in their risk profile since they can no longer hedge their net exposure (ever wonder why they always seem to shut down or requote until its over?). The variable spread retailers in turn open up their spreads to match what is happening at the bank or they run into the same problems fixed spreads broker are dealing with.
Now think about this situation for a second. What is going to happen when a number misses expectations? How many traders going into the event with positions chose wrong and need to get out ASAP? How many hedge funds are going to instantly drop their macro orders? How many retail traders’ straddle orders just executed? How many of them were waiting to hear a miss and executed market orders?
With the technical traders on the sidelines, who is going to be stupid enough to take the other side of all these orders?
The answer is no one. Between 1 and 5 seconds after the news hits it is a purely a 1 way market. That big long pin bar that occurs is a grand total of 2 prices; the one before the news hit and the one after. The 10, 20, or 30 pips between them is called a gap.
Is it any wonder that slippage is in evidence at this time?

Conclusions:
Each tier of the Forex market has its own inherent advantages and disadvantages. Depending on your priorities you have to make a choice between what restrictions you can live with and those you cant. Unfortunately, you can’t always get what you want.
By focusing on slippage and spreads, which are the natural byproduct of order flow, one is not only pursuing a futile ideal, they are passing up an enormous opportunity to capitalize on true inefficiencies. News events are one of the few times where a large number of players are positioned inappropriately and it is fairly easy to profit from their foolishness. If a trader truly wants to make the leap to the next level of profitability they should be spending their time figuring out how identify these positions and trading with the goal of capturing the price movement they inevitably will cause.
Nobody is going to make the argument that a broker is a trader’s best friend, but they still provide a valuable service and should be compensated for their efforts. By accepting a broker for what it is and learning how to work within the limitations of the relationship, traders have access to a world of opportunity that they otherwise could never dream of capturing. Let us all remember that simple truth.
submitted by Cross_Game to Forex [link] [comments]

An attempt at a fully comprehensive look at how to scale bitcoin. Lets bring Bitcoin out of Beta!

 
WARNING THIS IS GOING TO BE A REALLY REALLY LONG POST BUT PLEASE READ IT ALL. SCALING BITCOIN IS A COMPLEX ISSUE! HOPEFULLY HAVING ALL THE INFO IN ONE PLACE SHOULD BE USEFUL
 
Like many people in the community I've spent the past month or so looking deeply into the bitcoin scaling debate. I feel there has never been a fully comprehensive thread on how bitcoin could scale. The closest I have seen is gavinandresen's medium posts back in the summer describing the problem and a solution, and pre-emptively answering supposed problems with the solution. While these posts got to the core of the issue and spawned the debate we have been having, they were quite general and could have used more data in support. This is my research and proposal to scale bitcoin and bring the community back together.
 
 
The Problem
 
There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution;
  • 'node distribution',
  • 'mining decentralisation',
  • 'network utility',
  • 'time',
  • 'adoption'.
 
 
Node Distribution
Bandwidth has a relationship to node count and therefore 'node distribution'. This is because if bandwidth becomes too high then fewer people will be able to run a node. To a lesser extent bandwidth also effects 'mining decentralisation' as miners/pool owners also need to be able to run a node. I would argue that the centralisation pressures in relation to bandwidth are negligible though in comparison to the centralisation pressure caused by the usefulness of larger pools in reducing variance. The cost of a faster internet connection is negligible in comparison to the turnover of the pools. It is important to note the distinction between bandwidth required to propagate blocks quickly and the bandwidth required to propagate transactions. The bandwidth required to simply propagate transactions is still low today.
New node time (i.e. the time it takes to start up a new node) also has a relationship with node distribution. i.e. If it takes too long to start a new node then fewer people will be willing to take the time and resources to start a new node.
Storage Space also has a relationship with node distribution. If the blockchain takes up too much space on a computer then less people will be willing to store the whole blockchain.
Any suitable solution should look to not decrease node distribution significantly.
 
Mining Decentralisation
Broadcast time (the time it takes to upload a block to a peer) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing broadcast time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Validation time (the time it to validate a block) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing validation time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Any suitable solution should look to not increase mining centralisation significantly.
 
Network Utility
Network Utility is one that I find is often overlooked, is not well understood but is equally as important. The network utility force acts as a kind of disclaimer to the other two forces. It has a balancing effect. Increasing the network utility will likely increase user adoption (The more useful something is, the more people will want to use it) and therefore decreasing network utility will likely decrease user adoption. User adoption has a relationship with node count. i.e. the more people, companies and organisations know about and use bitcoin, the more people, companies and organisations that will run nodes. For example we could reduce block size down to 10KB, which would reduce broadcast time and validation time significantly. This would also therefore reduce mining centralisation pressures significantly. What is very important to realise though is that network utility would also be significantly be reduced (fewer people able to use bitcoin) and therefore so would node distribution. Conversely, if we increased the block size (not the limit) right now to 10GB, the network utility would be very high as bitcoin would be able to process a large number of transactions but node distribution would be low and mining centralisation pressures would be high due to the larger resource requirements.
Any suitable solution should look to increase network utility as time increases.
 
Time
Time is an important force because of how technology improves over time. Technology improves over time in a semi-predicable fashion (often exponential). As we move through time, the cost of resources required to run the bitcoin network (if the resource requirements remained static) will decrease. This means that we are able to increase resource requirements proportional to technological improvements/cost reductions without any increase in costs to the network. Technological improvements are not perfectly predictable though so it could be advantageous to allow some buffer room for when technological improvements do not keep up with predictions. This buffer should not be applied at the expense of the balance between the other forces though (i.e. make the buffer too big and network utility will be significantly decreased).
 
 
Adoption
Increasing adoption means more people using the bitcoin/blockchain network. The more people use bitcoin the more utility it has, and the more utility Bitcoin has the more people will want to use it (network effect). The more people use bitcoin, the more people there that have an incentive to protect bitcoin.
Any suitable solution should look to increase adoption as time increases.
 
 
The Solution Proposed by some of the bitcoin developers - The Lightning Network
 
The Lightning Network (LN) is an attempt at scaling the number of transactions that can happen between parties by not publishing any transaction onto the blockchain unless it is absolutely necessary. This is achieved by having people pool bitcoin together in a "Channel" and then these people can transact instantly within that channel. If any shenanigans happen between any of the parties, the channel can be closed and the transactions will be settled on the blockchain. The second part of their plan is limit the block size to turn bitcoin into a settlement network. The original block size limit of 1MB was originally put in place by Satoshi as an anti-DOS measure. It was to make sure a bad actor could not propagate a very large block that would crash nodes and increase the size of the blockchain unnecessarily. Certain developers now want to use this 1MB limit in a different way to make sure that resource requirements will stay low, block space always remains full, fees increase significantly and people use the lightning network as their main way of transacting rather than the blockchain. They also say that keeping the resource requirements very low will make sure that bitcoin remains decentralised.
 
Problems with The Lightning Network
The LN works relatively well (in theory) when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions to the network are kept low. Unfortunately, when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions on the blockchain become high, the LN's utility is diminished. The trust you get from a transaction on the LN comes only from the trustless nature of having transactions published to the bitcoin network. What this means is that if a transaction cannot be published on the bitcoin network then the LN transaction is not secured at all. As transactions fees rise on the bitcoin blockchain the LN utility is diminished. Lets take an example:
  • Cost of publishing a transaction to the bitcoin network = $20
  • LN transaction between Bob and Alice = $20.
  • Transaction between Bob and Alice has problem therefore we want to publish it to the blockchain.
  • Amount of funds left after transaction is published to the blockchain = $20 - $20 = $0.
This is also not a binary situation. If for example in this scenario, the cost to publish the transaction to blockchain was $10 then still only 50% of the transaction would be secure. It is unlikely anyone really call this a secure transaction.
Will a user make a non-secured/poorly secured transaction on the LN when they could make the same transaction via an altcoin or non-cryptocurrency transaction and have it well secured? It's unlikely. What is much more likely to happen is that transaction that are not secured by bitcoin because of the cost to publish to the blockchain will simply overflow into altcoins or will simply not happen on any cryptocurrency network. The reality is though, that we don't know exactly what will happen because there is no precedent for it.
Another problem outside of security is convenience. With a highly oversaturated block space (very large backlog of transactions) it could take months to have a transaction published to the blockchain. During this time your funds will simply be stuck. If you want to buy a coffee with a shop you don't have a channel open with, instead of simply paying with bitcoin directly, you would have to wait months to open a channel by publishing a transaction to the bitcoin blockchain. I think your coffee might be a little cold by then (and mouldy).
I suggest reading this excellent post HERE for other rather significant problems with the LN when people are forced to use it.
The LN is currently not complete and due to its high complexity it will take some time to have industry wide implementation. If it is implemented on top of a bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network economy it will likely have very little utility.
 
Uses of The LN
The LN is actually an extremely useful layer-2 technology when it is used with it's strengths. When the bitcoin blockchain is fast and cheap to transact on, the LN is also extremely useful. One of the major uses for the LN is for trust-based transactions. If you are transacting often between a set of parties you can truly trust then using LN makes absolute sense since the trustless model of bitcoin is not necessary. Then once you require your funds to be unlocked again it will only take a short time and small cost to open them up to the full bitcoin network again. Another excellent use of LN would be for layer-3 apps. For example a casino app: Anyone can by into the casino channel and play using real bitcoins instantly in the knowledge that is anything nefarious happens you can instantly settle and unlock your funds. Another example would be a computer game where you can use real bitcoin in game, the only difference is that you connect to the game's LN channel and can transact instantly and cheaply. Then whenever you want to unlock your funds you can settle on the blockchain and use your bitcoins normally again.
LN is hugely more powerful, the more powerful bitcoin is. The people making the LN need to stick with its strengths rather than sell it as an all-in-one solution to bitcoin's scaling problem. It is just one piece of the puzzle.
 
 
Improving Network Efficiency
 
The more efficient the network, the more we can do with what we already have. There are a number of possible efficiency improvements to the network and each of them has a slightly different effect.
 
Pruning
Pruning allows the stored blockchain size to be reduced significantly by not storing old data. This has the effect of lowering the resource requirements of running a node. a 40GB unpruned blockchain would be reduced in size to 550MB. (It is important to note that a pruned node has lower utility to the network)
 
Thin Blocks
Thin blocks uses the fact that most of the nodes in the network already have a list of almost all the same transactions ready to be put into the blockchain before a block is found. If all nodes use the same/similar policy for which transactions to include in a block then you only need to broadcast a small amount of information across the network for all nodes to know which transactions have been included (as opposed to broadcasting a list of all transactions included in the block). Thin Blocks have the advantage of reducing propagation which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks.
 
libsecp256k1 libsecp256k1 allows a more efficient way of validating transactions. This means that propagation time is reduced which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. It also means reduced time to bootstrap the blockchain for a new node.
 
Serialised Broadcast
Currently block transmission to peers happens in parallel to all connected peers. Obviously for block propagation this is a poor choice in comparison to serial transmission to each peer one by one. Using parallel transmission means that the more peers you have, the slower the propagation, whereas serial transmission does not suffer this problem. The problem that serial transmission does suffer from though is variance. If the order that you send blocks to peers in is random, then it means sometimes you will send blocks to a peer who has a slow/fast connection and/or is able to validate slowly/quickly. This would mean the average propagation time would increase with serialised transmission but depending on your luck you would sometimes have faster propagation and sometimes have slower propagation. As this will lower propagation time it will also lower the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Serialised Broadcast Sorting
This is a fix for the variance that would occur due to serialised broadcast. This sorts the order that you broadcast a block to each peer into; fastest upload + validation speed first and slowest upload speed and validation speed last. This not only decreases the variance to zero but also allows blocks to propagation to happen much faster. This also has the effect of lowering the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Here is a table below that shows roughly what the effects these solutions should have.
Name Bandwidth Broadcast Time Validation Time New Node Time Storage Space
Pruning 1 1 1 1 0.014
Thin Blocks 0.42 0.1 0.1 1 1
libsecp256k1 1 1 0.2 0.6 1
Serialised Broadcast 1 0.5 1 1 1
KYN 1 0.75 1 1 1
Segregated Witness 1 1 1 0.4 1
TOTAL 0.42 0.0375 0.02 0.24 0.014
Multiplier 2.38 26.7 50 - 70
(The "multiplier" shows how many times higher the block size could be relative to the specific function.)
 
 
The Factors in Finding a Balanced Solution
 
At the beginning of this post I detailed a relatively simple framework for finding a solution by describing what the problem is. There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution; 'node distribution', 'mining decentralisation', 'network utility', 'time' and 'adoption'. The optimal solution needs to find a balance between all of these forces taking into account a buffer to offset our inability to predict the future with absolute accuracy.
To find a suitable buffer we need to assign a set of red line values which certain values should not pass if we want to make sure bitcoin continues to function as well as today (at a minimum). For example, percentage of orphans should stay below a certain value. These values can only be a best estimate due to the complexity of bitcoin economics, although I have tried to provide as sound reasoning as possible.
 
Propagation time
It seems a fair limit for this would be roughly what we have now. Bitcoin is still functioning now. Could mining be more decentralised? Yes, of course, but it seems bitcoin is working fine right now and therefore our currently propagation time for blocks is a fairly conservative limit to set. Currently 1MB blocks take around 15 seconds to propagate more than 50% of the network. 15 second propagation time is what I will be using as a limit in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Orphan Rate
This is obviously a value that is a function of propagation time so the same reasoning should be used. I will use a 3% limit on orphan rate in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $200 in the near-term and $600 in the long-term. I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for a business or enthusiast to pay to run a full node. As the number of transactions increases as more people use bitcoin the number of people willing to pay a higher price to run a node will also increase although the percentage of people will decrease. These are of course best guess values as there is no way of knowing exactly what percentage of users are willing to pay what.
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $3 in the near-term (next 5 years) and $9 in the long-term (Next 25 years). I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for normal bitcoin user to pay. In fact this cost will more likely be zero as almost all users have an amount of storage free on their computers.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 10% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Downstream is generally a much more valuable resource to a user than upstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 25% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Upstream is generally a much less valuable resource to a user than downstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
My limit for this value is at 5 days using 50% of downstream bandwidth in the near-term and 30 days in the long-term. This seems like a reasonable number to me for someone who wants to start running a full node. Currently opening a new bank account takes at least week until everything is set up and you have received your cards, so it seems to me people would be willing to wait this long to become connected. Again, this is a best guess on what people would be willing to do to access the blockchain in the future. Most users requiring less security will be able to use an SPV wallet.
It is important to note that we only need enough nodes to make sure the blockchain is distributed across many places with many backups of the full blockchain. It is likely that a few thousand is a minimum for this. Increasing this amount to hundreds of thousands or millions of full nodes is not necessarily that much of an advantage to node distribution but could be a significant disadvantage to mining centralisation. This is because the more nodes you have in the network, the longer it takes to propagate >50% of it.
 
Storage Cost Price Reduction Over Time
Storage cost follows a linear logarithmic trend. Costs of HDD reducing by 10 times every 5 years, although this has slowed over the past few years. This can be attributed to the flooding in South East Asia and the transition to SSD technology. SSD technology also follows the linear logarithmic trend of costs reducing 10 times every 5 years, or roughly decreasing 37% per year.
 
Average Upload and Download Bandwidth Increases Over Time
Average upload and download bandwidth increases in a linear logarithmic trend. Both upload and download bandwidth follow the same trend of doubling roughly every two years, or increasing 40% per year.
 
Price
I was hesitant to include this one here but I feel it is unavoidable. Contrary to what people say (often when the price is trending downwards) bitcoin price is an extremely important metric in the long-term. Depending on bitcoin's price, bitcoin's is useful to; enthusiasts->some users->small companies->large companies->nations->the world, in roughly that order. The higher bitcoin's price is the more liquid the market will be and the more difficult it will be to move the price, therefore increasing bitcoin's utility. Bitcoin's price in the long-term is linked to adoption, which seems to happen in waves, as can be seen in the price bubbles over the years. If we are planning/aiming for bitcoin to at least become a currency with equal value to one of the worlds major currencies then we need to plan for a market cap and price that reflect that. I personally think there are two useful targets we should use to reflect our aims. The first, lower target is for bitcoin to have a market cap the size of a major national currency. This would put the market cap at around 2.1 trillion dollars or $100,000 per bitcoin. The second higher target is for bitcoin to become the world's major reserve currency. This would give bitcoin a market cap of around 21 trillion dollars and a value of $1,000,000 per bitcoin. A final, and much more difficult target is likely to be bitcoin as the only currency across the world, but I am not sure exactly how this could work so for now I don't think this is worth considering.
 
As price increases, so does the subsidy reward given out to miners who find blocks. This reward is semi-dynamic in that it remains static (in btc terms) until 210,000 blocks are found and then the subsidy is then cut in half. This continues to happen until all 21,000,000 bitcoins have been mined. If the value of each bitcoin increases faster than the btc denominated subsidy decreases then the USD denominated reward will be averagely increasing. Historically the bitcoin price has increased significantly faster than subsidy decreases. The btc denominated subsidy halves roughly every 4 years but the price of bitcoin has historically increased roughly 50 fold in the same time.
 
Bitcoin adoption should happen in a roughly s-curve dynamic like every other technology adoption. This means exponential adoption until the market saturation starts and adoption slows, then the finally is the market becomes fully saturated and adoption slowly stops (i.e. bitcoin is fully adopted). If we assume the top of this adoption s-curve has one of the market caps above (i.e. bitcoin is successful) then we can use this assumption to see how we can transition from a subsidy paid network to a transaction fee paid network.
 
Adoption
Adoption is the most difficult metric to determine. In fact it is impossible to determine accurately now, let alone in the future. It is also the one of the most important factors. There is no point in building software that no one is going to use after all. Equally, there is no point in achieving a large amount of adoption if bitcoin offers none of the original value propositions. Clearly there is a balance to be had. Some amount of bitcoin's original value proposition is worth losing in favour of adoption, and some amount of adoption is worth losing to keep bitcoin's original value proposition. A suitable solution should find a good balance between the two. It is clear though that any solution must have increased adoption as a basic requirement, otherwise it is not a solution at all.
 
One major factor related to adoption that I rarely see mentioned, is stability and predictability. This is relevant to both end users and businesses. End users rely on stability and predictability so that they do not have to constantly check if something has changed. When a person goes to get money from a cash machine or spend money in a shop, their experience is almost identical every single time. It is highly dependable. They don't need to keep up-to-date on how cash machines or shops work to make sure they are not defrauded. They know exactly what is going to happen without having to expend any effort. The more deviation from the standard experience a user experiences and the more often a user experiences a deviation, the less likely a user is going to want to continue to use that service. Users require predictability extending into the past. Businesses who's bottom line is often dependent on reliable services also require stability and predictability. Businesses require predictability that extends into the future so that they can plan. A business is less likely to use a service for which they do not know they can depend on in the future (or they know they cannot depend on).
For bitcoin to achieve mass adoption it needs a long-term predictable and stable plan for people to rely on.
 
 
The Proposal
 
This proposal is one based on determining a best fit balance of every factor and a large enough buffer to allows for our inability to perfectly predict the future. No one can predict the future with absolutely certainty but it does not mean we cannot make educated guesses and plan for it.
 
The first part of the proposal is to spend 2016 implementing all available efficiency improvements (i.e the ones detailed above) and making sure the move to a scaled bitcoin happens as smoothly as possible. It seems we should set a target of implementing all of the above improvements within the first 6 months of 2016. These improvements should be implemented in the first hardfork of its kind, with full community wide consensus. A hardfork with this much consensus is the perfect time to test and learn from the hardforking mechanism. Thanks to Seg Wit, this would give us an effective 2 fold capacity increase and set us on our path to scalability.
 
The second part of the proposal is to target the release of a second hardfork to happen at the end of 2016. Inline with all the above factors this would start with a real block size limit increase to 2MB (effectively increasing the throughput to 4x compared to today thanks to Seg Wit) and a doubling of the block size limit every two years thereafter (with linear scaling in between). The scaling would end with an 8GB block size limit in the year 2039.
 
 
How does the Proposal fit inside the Limits
 
 
Propagation time
If trends for average upload and bandwidth continue then propagation time for a block to reach >50% of the nodes in the network should never go above 1s. This is significantly quickly than propagation times we currently see.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction (i.e. bandwidth does not increase as quickly as predicted) by 15% absolute and 37.5% relative (i.e. bandwidth improves at a rate of 25% per year rather than the predicted 40%) and we would still only ever see propagation times similar to today and it would take 20 years before this would happen.
 
Orphan Rate
Using our best guess predictions the orphan rate would never go over 0.2%.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative, orphan rate would never go above 2.3% and it would take over 20 years to happen.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a non-pruned full node would never exceed $40 with blocks consistently 50% full and would in fact decrease significantly after reaching the peak cost. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the maximum cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $90.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $100 by 2022 and $300 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $230 by 2022 and $650 in 2039. It is important to note that for storage costs to be as high as this, bitcoin will have to be enormously successful, meaning many many more people will be incentivised to run a full node (businesses etc.)
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a pruned full node would never exceed $0.60 with blocks consistently 50% full. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the max cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $1.30.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $1.40 by 2022 and $5 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $3.20 by 2022 and $10 in 2039. It is important to note that at this amount of storage the cost would be effectively zero since users almost always have a large amount of free storage space on computers they already own.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 0.3% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would still only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 4% (average).
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 1.6% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 24% (average) and this would take over 20 years to occur.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
Using our best guess predictions bootstrapping a new node onto the network should never take more than just over a day using 50% bandwidth.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and it would take one and 1/4 days to bootstrap the blockchain using 50% of the download bandwidth. By 2039 it would take 16 days to bootstrap the entire blockchain when using 50% bandwidth. I think it is important to note that by this point it is very possible the bootstrapping the blockchain could very well be done by simply buying an SSD with blockchain already bootstrapped. 16 days would be a lot of time to download software but it does not necessarily mean a decrease in centralisation. As you will see in the next section, if bitcoin has reached this level of adoption, there may well be many parties will to spend 16 days downloading the blockchain.
 
What if Things Turn Out Worse than the Worse Case?
While it is likely that future trends in the technology required to scale bitcoin will continue relatively similar to the past, it is possible that the predictions are completely and utterly wrong. This plan takes this into account though by making sure the buffer is large enough to give us time to adjust our course. Even if no technological/cost improvements (near zero likelihood) are made to bandwidth and storage in the future this proposal still gives us years to adjust course.
 
 
What Does This Mean for Bitcoin?
 
Significantly Increased Adoption
For comparison, Paypal handles around 285 transactions per second (tps), VISA handles around 2000tps and the total global non-cash transactions are around 12,400tps.
Currently bitcoin is capable of handling a maximum of around 3.5 transactions every second which are published to the blockchain roughly every 10 minutes. With Seg Wit implemented via a hardfork, bitcoin will be capable or around 7tps. With this proposal bitcoin will be capable of handling more transactions than Paypal (assuming Paypal experiences growth of around 7% per year) in the year 2027. Bitcoin will overtake VISA's transaction capability by the year 2035 and at the end of the growth cycle in 2039 it will be able to handle close to 50% of the total global non-cash transactions.
When you add on top second layer protocols( like the LN), sidechains, altcoins and off-chain transactions, there should be more than enough capacity for the whole world and every possible conceivable use for digital value transfer.
 
Transitioning from a Subsidy to a Transaction Fee Model
Currently mining is mostly incentivised by the subsidy that is given by the network (currently 25btc per block). If bitcoin is to widely successful it is likely that price increases will continue to outweigh btc denominated subsidy decreases for some time. This means that currently it is likely to be impossible to try to force the network into matching a significant portion of the subsidy with fees. The amount of fees being paid to miners has averagely increased over time and look like they will continue to do so. It is likely that the optimal time for fees to start seriously replacing the subsidy is when bitcoin adoption starts to slow. Unless you take a pessimistic view of bitcoin (thinking bitcoin is as big as it ever will be), it is reasonable to assume this will not happen for some time.
With this proposal, using an average fee of just $0.05, total transaction fees per day would be:
  • Year 2020 = $90,720
  • Year 2025 = $483,840.00
  • Year 2030 = $2,903,040.00
  • Year 2035 = $15,482,880.00
  • Year 2041 = $123,863,040.00 (full 8GB Blocks)
Miners currently earn a total of around $2 million dollars per day in revenue, significantly less than the $124 million dollars in transaction fee revenue possible using this proposal. That also doesn't include the subsidy which would still play some role until the year 2140. This transaction fee revenue would be a yearly revenue of $45 billion for miners when transaction fees are only $0.05 on average.
 
 
Proposal Data
You can use these two spreadsheets (1 - 2 ) to see the various metrics at play over time. The first spreadsheet shows the data using the predicted trends and the second spreadsheet shows the data with the worst case trends.
 
 
Summary
 
It's very clear we are on the edge/midst of a community (and possibly a network) split. This is a very dangerous situation for bitcoin. A huge divide has appeared in the community and opinions are becoming more and more entrenched on both sides. If we cannot come together and find a way forward it will be bad for everyone except bitcoin's competition and enemies. While this proposal is born from an attempt at finding a balance based on as many relevant factors as possible, it also fortunately happens to fall in between the two sides of the debate. Hopefully the community can see this proposal as a way of making a compromise, releasing the entrenchment and finding a way forward to scale bitcoin. I have no doubt that if we can do this, bitcoin will have enormous success in the years to come.
 
Lets bring bitcoin out of beta together!!
submitted by ampromoco to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Heartbeats Remembered; A Shrine For Those Who Still Care. -Gone but not forgotten-

Hi guys!! I'm new here, so pls forgive me if ever I seem clueless about the inside culture going on on this sunny side of the internet...

K now that's out of the way, let's head straight to business...

  1. What's this post for?? - I wanna make some sort of a shrine for a webtoon I fell in loved with, the title of it is "Hearbeats per Second" (hence the post title, heartbeats remembered) linky here: https://www.webtoons.com/en/challenge/heartbeats-per-second/list?title_no=46502&page=2 as you can see the project has been discontinued right after it got featured (you can't see any content about it now except for Q/A's and announcements on the link above) So ya, it's dead alright; so dead that i wanna make a proper shrine for it, for the fans who still care. I have sufficient reason to believe it won't be coming back. (more on that later)
  2. Heartbeats per Second? What is it? What's special about it? - It's a webcomic authored by mjbee; published under webtoon platform (exclusively, as i haven't seen it on any other site save for fansub sites). First released back in nov. 2016 but I think a teaser for it went up way earlier than that. It's a romance/drama title with a hint of supernatural elements. Just by reading the old comments, one thing can be identified that made it special across fans' hearts; its art and I'd be lying if I said it doesn't have one of the best art on a webcomic when it came out (including featured comics). I should say it has one of the most peculiar life cycle for a webcomic too, at first the updates for it were tad erratic, like the next chap was released on jan of 2017, more than a month after the first chap (weird for a webcomic under the same "weightclass" lol) and the next (proper) chap took another month, but some time around march the author promises to update regularly on a bi-monthly basis, so come march of 2017 we got 2 chapters and another one mid april (it started to feel like a proper webcomic by that time) and poof it got featured (deservingly) by the end of april, although announcement for the feature came later than that. It was last updated on jun of 2017 for a Q/A (i believe during the time in between, a "featured" version for it was being worked on). And we've never heard about it again... the social media of the creator went silent at around the same date, according to lifelight (my dear cold blooded king author) mjbee had been sick and on a follow up comment, lifelight further added that mjbee couldn't be reached anymore, heck even webtoon itself can't reach mjbee thus HpS's feature was put on hold indefinitely... Nobody knows what exactly happened to the author to this date, but I may have a few conjectures...
(For those not interested about mere conjectures regarding topic as sensitive as such you may skip this part of the post. However understanding 1 or 2 of them helped me find peace but ya that's just me.)
Theory #1 - "Exactly what it says on the can." - Top comment on the aforementioned "last update" is by lifelight informing the readers that mjbee has been sickly for months and needed time to recoup. This is very likely since if memory serves me right one chap. within the series includes an apology by the author stating that she's been sick hence the updates were as irregular as they are. I myself subscribes to this theory since it's the least hardest to swallow but leaves important stuff unanswered. One of those is that, it doesn't explain the sudden radio silence by the author. You'd think that mjbee would've at least made even just 1 official statement regarding her circumstances. Which leads to...

Theory #2 - "Yes, but actually no." - It is often said to not take everything at face value and I think that applies here. Ever find yourself saying "I'm not feeling well, guess I'll pass"? Half of the time when I say that, I'm not actually sick-sick, just not mentally willing. But 9/10 your buddy would just be like "Man you got the flu? get well soon." We automatically assume it's a disease or something but truth is we can never discount other forms of sickness. Though I may not be physiologically sick it doesn't mean I'm not sick at all. Just maybe, I'm simply "sick and tired of your antics John." (sorry man)
Having to redo, revise and not to mention churn up production for the official launch probably broke the creator. That's not to mention the pressure it entails; having to work with an editor, when you've mostly been independent all this time, can be taxing, trying to make sure it fits necessary standards and what not, upgrading your work even though you've already given it all. (I wouldn't know though but I can always imagine.) ... or worse... loss of creative control? It's like having your child get mutilated and you have to do the trimming by yourself. (surely i could of put that in a better manner lol but you get the idea lmao). But still it doesn't answer the radio silence... or does it? Prepare your tinfoil lads.
What causes somebody to forget and turn away from someone he/she previously loved? The answer is simple, a BREAK UP!! (specially a nasty one). In this case, it's not a literal one but a metaphoric break up. Heck even the author's last tweet shades about things "breaking apart" see link: https://twitter.com/supermjbee/status/871362419313922048
You may say I'm stretching it, and that it's merely convenient but not exactly a satisfying explanation and you're right about that. But I'd take this all day over the next theory that we all have at the back of our heads...

Theory #3 - "As art does, life so mirrors." - HpS heavily plays on the idea of "sudden disappearance" which made me very engaged and invested on the comic during the short time it was up. However it is not fun anymore when it happens irl. I've knocked on so many wood, praying for it not to be the case but deep down I know things as such are possible. From an arm injury causing her unable to perform at the level she previously did, to carpal tunnel syndrome, to nerve damage; none of these are fun. These cases corroborates to theory#2 so much too, in that such a fortuitous events may have forced her in the dark.
I don't even wanna go further with the other possibilities...

Theory #4 - "It's just that good." - On a lighter note (though I myself considers this as a fringe theory) it is possible that the creator of the series simply just dropped it. Why? It could be that the creator got engaged or became part of a bigger project and is no longer able to work on HpS. It's a weak theory with the same symptoms as the first one but it's a "good end" and there are nights that I wish for this to simply be the case. Who knows maybe the spirit of HpS still lives on albeit on a different title. Mjbee's twitter says that she's a "drawer of things" and I believe once an artist will always be an artist. :)
When you actually think about it, this theory kinda makes sense. You produce something of quality, gain exposure and eventually newer, bigger opportunities will come knocking. It's just that good, the art doesn't need further mention and even with the art alone, it's already enough. But just about everything is amazing with HpS, the scene direction, dialogue, overall writing, story, even the layout is amazing. I still remember just how crazy hooked I was when I first read the prologue. And even if it's in spanish (fan sub upload, the last living remnant of HpS) I can feel every emotion in a scene and the cliffhangers are absolute bangers, in fact I've never seen a comic that got featured with the same or fewer amount of proper chapters. So yes, I wouldn't wonder if mjbee got involved into something else though it stings to think that we didn't get any official news buttttt the world doesn't revolve around me, as long as everything's fine I can be happy for her.

Last one I promise, Theory #5 - "Get those tin foils back on." - Bear with me for a bit. It could be that mjbee isn't an individual, or she's not completely independent. It is possible that she's affiliated with an organization or is actually one. It may explain why HpS has to be abandoned on such an auspicious of a timing, maybe it has something to do with rights management. Maybe webtoons was only interested with the artist that did the art and didn't want to involve the rest so no understanding was reached. It sort of reminds of the case with "Your Favorite Martian" by Ray William Johnson for those familiar with it. Both share the same "abandonment" circumstances.
"Hahhh?? an organization??" you ask, well it's not that uncommon. I've seen other creators who produces inhuman amount of content with varying degrees of style, it can only mean it's a bunch of individuals sharing the same creator id to easily hit metrics for monetization, or idk lmao. (told you this is tin foil-y). This is not to downplay mjbee's talent or anything, somebody still has to actually do it, and I believe that the individual who makes and draws is actually mjbee. The one we interact with, it's just that there may be others involved behind the scenes.

Anyway those are my theories, one may be true, or a mix, or all of them or none of them. We don't know perhaps we may never know.

  1. Who am I? - Well, I'm a fan of the series. For the longest time HpS was my favorite. I've been a fan since the teaser went up and I've been patiently waiting for any drop of news despite being years since the last nugget we got. I still check back from time to time, and it pains me to see that the amount of subscribers slowly drains away bit by bit, but I can't blame them. I just wish HpS won't be forgotten... So I carved this little corner here on reddit dedicated to fellow fans, to convene, discuss and share memories about the series. That's the gist of it...

"That's not all there is to it, there's more right?" heh heh heh... Yep... FASTEN YOUR SEATBELTS BOIS n GALS!!
I'd like to think I've inherited the will of Heartbeats per Second. What? What do I mean? Well hear my story.

Sometime around 2018, just couldn't recall the date exactly probably Q2-Q3 of the year, I had a chance encounter. By this time it has already been more than a year since HpS last updated and I was starting to forget the series. I couldn't even remember the names of the characters anymore. An instructor in one of my class has this habit of incorporating references in the materials. The references ranges from pop culture, to anime; from mythologies to lovecraftian stuff. Some are easy to identify such as "Ackerman AOT Inc. has the following data related to it's 2018 statement of financial position" bla bla, that's clearly referring to mikasa ackerman from attack on titan. While others require a bit of digging. Well one day i decided to pay close attention to the said references, especially the ones I'm not familiar with. Oddly, names like "Mira" and "Tyke" showed up (separately), well the names didn't particularly rang a bell at that time but out of sheer curiosity I asked away where the references that I can't identify were from. "Tyke and Mira were from a discontinued project". Looking back now I would of killed myself for my stupidity, I never did recognize the names, ever not until recently! but I'm so glad I had the audacity at that time to ask for the manuscripts from the said "discontinued project". I wasn't really interested in it I was just trying to be chummy for extra marks lmao. Well ya I got em, but it wasn't til early 2019 that I discovered what i had. I checked back on HpS's page for news one day, nothing, so I went for the bootleg spanish fansub version, just to reminisce. And then I noticed, Tychus' name was often shortened as "Ty" or "Tyke". I was literally shaking... I compared the notes I had in me, and just about everything checks out. Is it the script of HpS? Not sure it's not a 1:1 copy but it's so close it couldn't be a mistake or coincidence. Well you can argue that it may be a fan-fic? and the parts related to the released portion were simply copied while the ones that aren't yet cannot be verified but it's too compelling to be so. Even the concept art for future events released on intstagram checks out!

DISCLAIMER: I cannot verify the authenticity of the script or whether it is even related to HpS at all, it may or may not be the script of HpS. It may actually be just an elaborate fanfic but I feel like, something like this has to be shared among other readers who, like myself, fell in love with the series.
SIDE NOTE: I don't think my former instructor was mjbee, i am pretty positive about that. I do however, think that either my theory about HpS not being a one-man-show is correct, or they are simply related like friends or something IDK I wanna leave it at that. It is something I still haven't forgiven myself for not confirming.

So yeah guys, here I am typing away on reddit despite not dropping a single comment on the series while it was ongoing (hey don't judge me)... I will post whatever related HpS content I can process via edit (does that work out? sorry new here) But for now I need some sleep.
EDIT: Hi reddit its been a long time, sorry i kinda forgot i made this post lol was just reminded when i checked the webtoon page for hps, anyway I have compiled my files related to Hps and as promised will share the processed bits
First off lets start with char bio as i believe these ones are official and are generally harmless to the overall story incase it does resurface again, and i feel like they are meant to be published soon anyway (unlike most of the bits i have which have already been reworked or dropped or drafts of plans, some bits still have author's remarks left intact in them)
CHARACTER BIO
Jack
Jack Tarver De Vera
Age 20
Jack is the resident bartender of The Verthandi, the hottest bar in town or so he claims. His uncle, who owns the joint, also entrusted Jack in overseeing the bar's whole operation despite his seemingly young age. He's good at what he does if that's just it, indicating that he may have years of experience under his belt but despite that he still lacks the necessary refinements in dealing with drunken customers; that's where Mia and Alex come in. That and the occasional 'inventory misappropriation' which he adamantly claims as 'just compensation' for the troubles he has to put up with.
He's rough around the edges, blunt and cynical at times (most of the time); a punk through and through. Good thing he can take in as much spew as he can dole out or he'd be insufferable. Well, Alex takes full advantage of this fact, capitalizing every opportunity to rub, technically, her 'boss' the wrong way. Maybe for stress relief? Maybe to get even at his punkish demeanor? Or maybe, entirely something else...
Jack may have had a tough childhood; orphaned at a young age, raised by just his uncle who's not getting any younger, it is even hinted that he never got any formal schooling, but despite all these he got to where he wants to be. Friends by his sides, top shelf spirits behind, and the rowdy shenanigans of drunks and merrymakers in the forefront.
Trivia: "In vino, veritas" Jack usually isn't honest with himself, but if you can outlast him in a drinking session he might just spill his guts out, sometimes literally.
Mia
Mirabelle Corlin (assumes mother's maiden last name)
Age 20
Mia was raised by her mother without knowing much about her father, she grew up to live a prudent life because of this. She's a model student with great grades during her time in school and was often the class representative. A kind hearted soft spoken girl by nature, she often keeps to herself, leading others to assume she's unfriendly; due to this she never had much friends.
Ever since her mother moved out with her partner, Mia lived alone with her pet cat, Milky. She works at a local bar nearby as a waitress along with her long time bestbud from way back, Alex.
Mia may appear timid on the outside but she's cunning and sharp. Although she's a bit sentimental, she never lacks hope and often looks forward to what tomorrow brings.
Trivia: Mia has an allergy with crustaceans, poor girl can never completely enjoy a lobster. She also dreams of becoming a vet! :3 soft spot for kitties!!
Tychus
Tychus Fortuna
Age 21
There's not much to say about Tychus, much of his info is unknown. He is presumed to be from a foreign land judging from his peculiar last name, when asked where specifically he just blurts out a different place every single time. Rumor has it that he has a penchant for gambling, sightings of him in gambling dens and casinos aren't unheard of but when asked about it he adamantly denies though.
A wisecracking charmer, it's hard to think he's the type to be secretive, yet he is. He carries himself with staunch composure even under duress. He likes avoiding attention and often seems uninterested about most things.
Trivia: His favorite sport is pro wrestling but it's fake so he settled for boxing. Also, he sleeps alot and just about anywhere you'd think he lived on the streets one point in his life.
Alex
Alexis Jean Ridley
Age 20
Alex, as she is fondly referred to by her friends, was born in the countryside by a loving couple. Due to the laid back environment she grew up in, Alex developed to be a congenial and gregarious girl, the kind that you'd expect to be friends with everybody. A spark plug of energy, Alex has always been enthusiastic with just about anything as long as she deems it fun. Well, studying is out of the question but it doesn't take much for her to consider a thing fun. Don't let her jolly nature and small stature fool you, she's way more athletic than she appears. In fact it was due to an athletic scholarship that she was able to attend high school in the city, where she met one of her long time friends, Mia.
Her spunky upbeat attitude coupled with her sporty nature may make it seem like she's a tomboy but truth is, she's a romantic that longs for love's first embrace. And so when the time came where athletics no longer proved beneficial, she dropped track altogether, vowed to take better care of herself and be more feminine. Love may just be around the corner after all.
Currently, she works at a local bar with her friend, Mia, since the post doesn't require her to be up early in the morning. Happily living day by day with not much worries or plans, taking life one step at a time with a smile.
Trivia: She claims to be one of the "cool kids" back in high school as she was the star of the track team, even making it as far as the regionals; her record for 100m dash is at 12.49 sec!! Bonus Trivia: She easily gets carried away by sappy romance flick.
EDIT2: METASTUFF - the following entry is my own inference and take regarding the original plan for the overall flow of HPS -
HPS seems to have been originally intended to be told in an achronological manner through the eyes of different perspectives. An ambitious and truly unique way of story telling, had it been the case I think I can say that we might have been robbed of a potential masterpiece considering the fate HPS has ultimately faced. (though there were already signs indicating that the idea for the narrative structure was dropped midway through)
Anyway based on an old printout regarding its skeletal and general flow HpS was planned to have 2 major spheres of events, i say spheres since it isnt exactly gonna be told in a chronological order especially events relating to the past; pre time jump. Yr2014. The other sphere being the then present yr2016. The first arc is told through the eyes of mia and next perspective would be alex's. Tyhus and another character were originally planned to have aswell. It was also planned to have quasi independent side stories tht are presented regardless of the chapter that preceded it, and are intended to flesh out the main story further, one such example is the "Valentines Special" originally intended to be published on feb 2017 i suppose (i will upload the storyboard writeup for it later on) and on top of that, a "SideB" of it. (sadly no write up of it exists just mere plans) Side B is used by the author to denote the same event under Tychus' eyes. The author explains it as "SideA=result SideB=how". After understanding what i can from the mess of scripts it was made apparent to me why the need for such thing, some readers have correctly guessed why so way before. The author described the past sphere as a "whimsical school romance with a bang at the end madoka style" if you would read it from chronological start to end. While the present sphere is like "clannad minus the harem" according to what seems to be a pitch summary.
Btw some few facts worth sharing:
Heartbeats per Second's original working title was called Linking Hearts
And it was suppose to be a visual novel but was transformed into a webcomic, this explains Mia's blank personality abit as pointed out by some comments early on the series
This is it for now I'll see you guys again. Next up Recap!

EDIT3: RECAP (WARNING!!! EXTREMELY LONGGG!!!)
I'll post the storyboard script (no drawings) of the episodes from here on out, i believe these are the final text output before everything gets drawn and dialogue gets put into speech bubbles. Things in brackets [ ] are i think panels of illustrations, which the author uses as guides when actually illustrating the webtoon. I'll also post a link to the fansub version for the starting episodes so you can compare. Also note that the written dialogue is not 1:1 from what was released, I think some revisions are still done during actual writing down of dialogue inside speech bubbles. Here goes...

Prologue - https://tmofans.com/viewe5af4e62c0159f/cascade
Time... They say time is like a flowing river... And we are merely flotsams at the mercy of its current.
[environment shot: raining,leaf floating on a rain stream by the curb: closeup and sidepanel: profile face of heroine in the past wearing uniform, apply bloom effect or sumthng to indicate dreaminess]
At times it would rage on like a coursing rapids; stopping for no one despite your pleas...
[wideshot of heroine walking along on the street holding her umbrella and bag, sidepanel: checking her phone for the time 4:48pm july 25 2014 1new message unopened]
And sometimes it feels like a tranquil stream, cradling you gently as you weave through its meandering banks...
[close up heroine admiring the scene]
I wonder, can time hear me? If i cried hard enough would the droplets of tears make a ripple?
[full body shot wind blowing trees swaying abit and leaves swirling in the air heroine looks wondering]
Sadly all i can ever do is float along with it lest i drown in its depths, time is a cruel mistress it is unforgiving as it is all powerful...
[back focus on the leaf along the ditch floating downstream]
I wish time could stop for a little bit, i wish it can let me drift around in circles on a quiet pond, i wanna relish those fleeting moments filled with butterflies a lil bit longer...
[obvious flashback scene: guy presenting girl necklace] [obvious flashback scene some more: late night hugging by the park under a streetlight with fireflies] [obvious flashback scene: walk together shoulder to shoulder, guy holds umbrelle, girl fully covered guy has his outer shoulder getting wet]
[focus on puddle with leaf by the curb]
[back shot of heroine by the crossing about to step forward, light turns green, construction site across it,, side panels: pitterpatter]
[pitter patter] [car] [scaffolding]
[ stomping on the puddle, splash]
[shoutout: Mia!!! Full body matrix shot: mia turning back water splashes and rain drops frozen suspended in air, leaf fluttering by them, heroine surprised look, necklace swings along, back of hero shown reaching out]
[focus on girl mouth: smiling] [saying: tychus] [one more panel focusing on her necklace being clutched by her]
[car goes by blurred]
[whiteout]
[big title with fancy font: linking hearts]
That was the last day i saw him... Since that day i felt like swimming against the current, maybe if i stood still he'd come rushing back just like before.
[repeat matrix shot minus shoutout and change her expression from surprised to longing, outfit changes too from uniform to server less bloom now we cn take off the dreamlike filter]
[same focus on girl mouth too: but this time she's sad] [speech bubble:tychus] [same same still clutching on the necklace]
Every time i chance upon that place i always find myself looking back to the past... Its an awful habit i know and im just making it hard for myself but i'm just a slave subject to the whims of my heart...
[crestfallen look back shot of heroine by the same crossing no more scaffolding, side panel: focus on her pony-ed hair, side panel: checking phone 4:50pm july 29 2016]
Ive always known it was too much to ask... Sigh...
[black]
[traffic light: green]
Well time to keep moving...
[ focus: leaf on a puddle] [ wind blows, leaf flies]
[zoom out shot panning to the sky, sunny, leaves flying by carried by wind, below small figure of heroine, crossing the street, moderately densed population, abit busy environment]
Prologue end huffhuff
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Episode 1 - "I still remember..." (on the official release ep1 is titled "Nothing but Memories")
https://tmofans.com/viewe5af4e62d1ee6a/cascade

Scene1
[chime clings as the back door opens]
[setting: staff room]
[mia enters]
Alexis: hi hi mia-mi! So sorry i had to ask you to come despite your off, it's gonna be a busy friday night so we gonna be short on hands not to mention our 2 part timers are coming in late so ...
[mia interrupts]
Mia: hushh it's okay alex! of course i'd come i work here after all besides i cant say no to you, hey that's what friends are for :)
Alexis: [stoked] waiii yaayy, you're a life saver, my best bud <3 [glomps]
[jack interjects]
Jack: [cynical] everyone's your best bud alex, but you know if everyone is your best friend then no one is wahaha
Alexis: [pouting] muhh is it like that? [proud] well everyone's my best bud here, uncle rus is my best bud, big rob too even our cook, i like everyone except you jack-o wacko :P
Jack: whatttttt?
[everyone shared a laugh]
[mia monologue on her laughing panel] "this is where im at now, it's been 2 years since that fateful day. I'm holding up pretty well, still waiting, hoping... I wonder how have you been?"
[mia clutches her pendant shown underneath her clothes]
[a flash of tychus full smile and chuckling hand out stretched as if asking to be held]
[black out] [voice: Mia...]
[setting back to staff room]
Alexis: [unamused] mia... Oi mia... Knock knock you there? *poke* *poke*
Mia: [apologetic] oh sorry i kinda zoned out ahaha *light chuckle*
Alexis: ehhh what have you been zoning out for? Mah anyway come help me log the purchases they arrived a little while ago quick before you-know-who chugs em
Mia:*nods*
Jack: [called out from the bar] hey!!! It wasnt me i swear!
-------------
Scene2
[setting: back alley]
[mia and alex checking and logging cases and kegs of beer]
[mia logging stuff on a journal]
Mia: [blank look zoning out] that's one and hmmm 2 from yesterday and this should be for...
[alexis interrupts]
Alexis:[surprised] wait wait! Those were already accounted for... Since yesterday... By you... [dumbfounded]
Mia: [flustered] oh my god im sorry *sigh*
[mia bites lip out of frustration, monologue "what is wrong with me"]
["somehow i still, up to now, can't take you out of my mind"]
Alexis: [worried] hmmm don't worry about it, uhmm let me take care of that one, you can just start with the kegs, i'll go ask big rob to sort this lot out
Mia: [down casted] thanks alot, i seem to be out of it *sigh*
[switches places]
Alexis: [sad worried look]
[mia bends down to check a keg and her pendant slips out of her blouse]
[pendant dangles]
[alexis wide eyed look, staring at the pendant]
Alexis: [realizes] [saddened] hey mia, what really happened that day?
Mia: [tight lipped] [a faint smile] [focus only up to her nose and lips down as she holds a fist near her chest] that day... He was strange that day...
-------------
Scene 3
[setting past street crossing/flashback]
[raining]

[money shot: tychus calling out for mia as she turns around on the street or just recycle the panel from prologue]
[tychus closes in on mia] [panels showing their expressions tychus relieved and mia eager]
[moneyshot tychus took her by the hand and around her waist pulls her close and shared a passionate kiss]
Mia: [surprised] hey whats gotten into you? [blushes]
[tychus shakes his head gently eyes closed almost in tears]
[tychus hugged her tight]
Tychus: [thankful] im just happy to see you well in my arms
Tychus: [determined] i just don't want to spend another second without you anymore
Mia:[bewildered] but it has only been an hour since
[tychus tightened his grip lowered his head and a drop of tear fell along with the raindrops]
[tychus pained expression]
Mia: [softened look] [strokes his face] it's ok i'm here [hugged back]
[wide shot with lots of negative space for narration, zoomed out 2 of em hugging it out while raining]
Narration: i didnt know what's going on, he acted strange, desperate, and almost as if worn out like a soldier who's just been to war. He was a bit forceful, but i felt like... For the first time... I felt like i've finally connected to him, past beyond his shell...
He's usually always composed and collected, cool and elegant, it's actually eerily surreal... But at that moment... He looked vulnerable, first time i saw him like that. First time he felt like... a human.
[expression focus on mia as she smiles]

Continued here - https://www.reddit.com/LINEwebtoon/comments/djerss/heartbeats_remembered_recap_continued/
submitted by IamClive14 to LINEwebtoon [link] [comments]

Author Rescinds GPL

The author of the GPL licensed text-mode casino game "GPC-Slots 2" has rescinded the license from the "Geek feminist" collective.

The original author, after years of silence, notes that the "Geek Feminist" changed[1] a bunch of if-then statements which were preceded by a loop waiting for string input to a switch statement. The author reportedly noted that to use a switch statement in such an instance is no more preformant than the if-thens. Switch statements should be used where the input to the switch statement is numerical, and of a successive nature, for most efficient use of the jump table that is generated from said code.

The author reportedly was offended, after quiet observation of the group, that the "Geek Feminists" mocked his code, mocked his existence as a male, and never did any work on the code afterwards and never updated to include new slot machines added to the original code by author subsequently.

The author notes that he neither sought nor received any compensation for the granted license, that is was a gratuitous license, and that there never was any refutation of his default right to rescind given. (A right founded in the property law of licenses.)

The copyright owner has reportedly watched quietly as each year the "Geek Feminists" published a recount of their heroic efforts regarding his code.[2][3] Presumably he has now had enough of it all...

The author notes that the SF Conservancy attempts to construe a particular clause in the GPL version 2 license text as a "no revocation by grantor clause", however that clause states that if a licensee suffers and automatic-revocation by operation of the license, that licensees down stream from him do not suffer the same fate. The author of "GPC-Slots 2" reportedly notes that said clause does only what it claims to do: clarifies that a downstream licensee, through no fault of his own, is not penalized by the automatic revocation suffered by a licensee he gained a "sub-license" from (for lack of a better term.)

The author reportedly notes that version 3 of the GPL did not exist when he published the code, additionally the author notes that even if there was a clause not to revoke, he was paid no consideration for such a forbearance of a legal right of his and thus said clause is not operative against him, the grantor, should it exist at all.

(Editor's note: GPL version 3 contains an explicit "no-revocation-by-grantor" clause, in addition to a term-of-years that the license is granted for. Both absent in version 2 of the GPL)

The author reportedly has mulled an option to register his copyright and then to seek damages from the "Geek Feminists" if they choose to violate his copyright post-hence.

(Editors note: Statutory damages for willful copyright infringement can amount to $150,000 plus attorney's fees for post registration violations of a differing nature to pre-registration violations.)

[1]https://geekfeminism.org/2009/10/19/
[2]https://geekfeminism.org
[3]http://geekfeminism.wikia.com

GPC-Slots 2 is a text console mode casino game available for linux with various slot machines, table games, and stock market tokens for the player to test his luck. For the unlucky there is a Russian Roulette function.

[Notice: the revocation of the "Geek Feminists"'s license /just/ occurred. 2019. January.]






Addendum: Statements from the program author:

"It's my right to rescind the permission I extended.
I have done so.

You speak as if me controlling my property is a criminal act.
And to you people, perhaps it is.

If the "geek feminists" wanted a secured interest, they would have to pay for one."




"I did rescind the license, yesterday"





"I did rescind the license, yesterday


Not "reportedly" anymore."

https://slashdot.org/submission/9087542/author-recinds-gpl


Thoughts?

submitted by LtGerome to devops [link] [comments]

Global An Gambling Market Outlook 2023 Growth by Top Company, Shares, Size, Trends and Challenges with Forecast to 2023

Global An Gambling Market Research Report presents point by point data on the current market trends, future advancement extension and industry growth is displayed. The business techniques connected for An Gambling development are clarified. Every single significant component like market share, An Gambling geographical regions, market drivers, CAGR esteem and market factors are assessed. The focused situation between An Gambling industry, key drivers are considered.
Global top sellers, manufacturer's of An Gambling Market, production capacity, development rate, utilization and import-export subtleties are clarified. Top topographical districts dissected in the examination include North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa and South America. The An Gambling product presentation, varied applications, types are clarified in this examination.
Download Free Sample Report Copy @: https://www.globalmarketers.biz/report/technology-and-media/global-an-gambling-industry-market-research-report/3653#request_sample
Global An Gambling Market Segment by Manufacturers, this report covers:
Major Players in An Gambling market are: Casino de Monte Carlo Expekt.com The Casino at the Empire Betsson Group Betclic Casino Estoril Casino di Campione ZEAL Bet-at-home.com Resorts World Birmingham
Global An Gambling Market Segment by Type, covers
Slot Machines Roulette Poker Lottery Scratchcards Blackjack Bingo Others
Global An Gambling Market Segment by Applications can be divided into:
Non-Gamblers Light-Medium Gamblers Heavy Gamblers
Imperative data on development opportunities, market hazards in An Gambling industry will delineate the business execution at present and in not so distant future. An Gambling Industry plans and approaches, new product launch events, mergers and securing and innovative headways are clarified. The upstream raw material providers of An Gambling, manufacturing base, cost structures and production process examination are broke down. Likewise, the marketing channels of An Gambling industry, downstream purchasers, work cost included and value structures are expounded.
The Global An Gambling market value and growth rate for each application, type and region is studied from 2013-2018. The import-export details, production and consumption status of An Gambling Market is provided for every region and key countries present in this region. Furthermore, the SWOT analysis to predict the An Gambling growth drivers, threats to the industry are studied.
Segment An Gambling competitive landscape will illustrate the dynamic competitive scenario among elite players in this market. A complete product portfolio, market share in 2017, and gross margin status is covered. In the next part, market value, volume and An Gambling consumption forecast from 2018-2023 are conducted. The forecast analysis will help in strategic business planning to achieve substantial growth in future. This will also lead to new project plans and investment feasibility analysis.
Inquire Here For More Information @: https://www.globalmarketers.biz/report/technology-and-media/global-an-gambling-industry-market-research-report/3653#inquiry_before_buying
The An Gambling report projects advancements and futuristic demand from 2018-2023. Downstream demand, raw materials analysis and market dynamics are explained. An extensive and valuable analysis with the latest development will provide feasibility study. All significant An Gambling parameters and complete insights on industry facts are explained. The revenue, capacity, manufacturing, production rate and import-export status are presented. Lastly, research conclusions, data sources, in-depth research methodology and analysts view, suggestions are offered.
Key Features Of Global An Gambling Market Report Are As Follows:
The assessment of growth opportunities in An Gambling with market size, share and forecast data is covered in this report. The growth drivers of this industry are extensively focused. Top elite An Gambling industry players, their business plans and tactics are explained with the analysis of market risks. Revenue analysis, market status, production and consumption analysis is presented.
The segmented An Gambling industry analysis provides a key focus on every segment like product types, applications and geographical regions. The study of past market status, the present status will lead to forecast study and market share view. An in-depth study on company profiles, product portfolio, sales, revenue and gross margin statistics is conducted. Additional players can be studied as per the user’s interest.
Browse Table Of content @: https://www.globalmarketers.biz/report/technology-and-media/global-an-gambling-industry-market-research-report/3653#table_of_contents
An Gambling analysis of upstream buyers, industry chain view, manufacturing process and downstream suppliers will provide useful industry insights. Financial analysis and key advancements to be taken place in the near future are portrayed in this study. Consumption, production and revenue forecast are key attractions of the report. Also, the information on traders, distributors, manufacturers and dealers are covered on a global scale.
Contact us:
Global Marketers
Tel: +1-617-2752-538
Email:[[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
Visit Our Blog: http://industrynewsdesk.com
submitted by pooja485 to u/pooja485 [link] [comments]

An attempt at a fully comprehensive look at how to scale bitcoin. Lets bring Bitcoin out of Beta!

 
WARNING THIS IS GOING TO BE A REALLY REALLY LONG POST BUT PLEASE READ IT ALL. SCALING BITCOIN IS A COMPLEX ISSUE! HOPEFULLY HAVING ALL THE INFO IN ONE PLACE SHOULD BE USEFUL
 
Like many people in the community I've spent the past month or so looking deeply into the bitcoin scaling debate. I feel there has never been a fully comprehensive thread on how bitcoin could scale. The closest I have seen is gavinandresen's medium posts back in the summer describing the problem and a solution, and pre-emptively answering supposed problems with the solution. While these posts got to the core of the issue and spawned the debate we have been having, they were quite general and could have used more data in support. This is my research and proposal to scale bitcoin and bring the community back together.
 
 
The Problem
 
There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution;
  • 'node distribution',
  • 'mining decentralisation',
  • 'network utility',
  • 'time',
  • 'adoption'.
 
 
Node Distribution
Bandwidth has a relationship to node count and therefore 'node distribution'. This is because if bandwidth becomes too high then fewer people will be able to run a node. To a lesser extent bandwidth also effects 'mining decentralisation' as miners/pool owners also need to be able to run a node. I would argue that the centralisation pressures in relation to bandwidth are negligible though in comparison to the centralisation pressure caused by the usefulness of larger pools in reducing variance. The cost of a faster internet connection is negligible in comparison to the turnover of the pools. It is important to note the distinction between bandwidth required to propagate blocks quickly and the bandwidth required to propagate transactions. The bandwidth required to simply propagate transactions is still low today.
New node time (i.e. the time it takes to start up a new node) also has a relationship with node distribution. i.e. If it takes too long to start a new node then fewer people will be willing to take the time and resources to start a new node.
Storage Space also has a relationship with node distribution. If the blockchain takes up too much space on a computer then less people will be willing to store the whole blockchain.
Any suitable solution should look to not decrease node distribution significantly.
 
Mining Decentralisation
Broadcast time (the time it takes to upload a block to a peer) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing broadcast time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Validation time (the time it to validate a block) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing validation time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Any suitable solution should look to not increase mining centralisation significantly.
 
Network Utility
Network Utility is one that I find is often overlooked, is not well understood but is equally as important. The network utility force acts as a kind of disclaimer to the other two forces. It has a balancing effect. Increasing the network utility will likely increase user adoption (The more useful something is, the more people will want to use it) and therefore decreasing network utility will likely decrease user adoption. User adoption has a relationship with node count. i.e. the more people, companies and organisations know about and use bitcoin, the more people, companies and organisations that will run nodes. For example we could reduce block size down to 10KB, which would reduce broadcast time and validation time significantly. This would also therefore reduce mining centralisation pressures significantly. What is very important to realise though is that network utility would also be significantly be reduced (fewer people able to use bitcoin) and therefore so would node distribution. Conversely, if we increased the block size (not the limit) right now to 10GB, the network utility would be very high as bitcoin would be able to process a large number of transactions but node distribution would be low and mining centralisation pressures would be high due to the larger resource requirements.
Any suitable solution should look to increase network utility as time increases.
 
Time
Time is an important force because of how technology improves over time. Technology improves over time in a semi-predicable fashion (often exponential). As we move through time, the cost of resources required to run the bitcoin network (if the resource requirements remained static) will decrease. This means that we are able to increase resource requirements proportional to technological improvements/cost reductions without any increase in costs to the network. Technological improvements are not perfectly predictable though so it could be advantageous to allow some buffer room for when technological improvements do not keep up with predictions. This buffer should not be applied at the expense of the balance between the other forces though (i.e. make the buffer too big and network utility will be significantly decreased).
 
 
Adoption
Increasing adoption means more people using the bitcoin/blockchain network. The more people use bitcoin the more utility it has, and the more utility Bitcoin has the more people will want to use it (network effect). The more people use bitcoin, the more people there that have an incentive to protect bitcoin.
Any suitable solution should look to increase adoption as time increases.
 
 
The Solution Proposed by some of the bitcoin developers - The Lightning Network
 
The Lightning Network (LN) is an attempt at scaling the number of transactions that can happen between parties by not publishing any transaction onto the blockchain unless it is absolutely necessary. This is achieved by having people pool bitcoin together in a "Channel" and then these people can transact instantly within that channel. If any shenanigans happen between any of the parties, the channel can be closed and the transactions will be settled on the blockchain. The second part of their plan is limit the block size to turn bitcoin into a settlement network. The original block size limit of 1MB was originally put in place by Satoshi as an anti-DOS measure. It was to make sure a bad actor could not propagate a very large block that would crash nodes and increase the size of the blockchain unnecessarily. Certain developers now want to use this 1MB limit in a different way to make sure that resource requirements will stay low, block space always remains full, fees increase significantly and people use the lightning network as their main way of transacting rather than the blockchain. They also say that keeping the resource requirements very low will make sure that bitcoin remains decentralised.
 
Problems with The Lightning Network
The LN works relatively well (in theory) when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions to the network are kept low. Unfortunately, when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions on the blockchain become high, the LN's utility is diminished. The trust you get from a transaction on the LN comes only from the trustless nature of having transactions published to the bitcoin network. What this means is that if a transaction cannot be published on the bitcoin network then the LN transaction is not secured at all. As transactions fees rise on the bitcoin blockchain the LN utility is diminished. Lets take an example:
  • Cost of publishing a transaction to the bitcoin network = $20
  • LN transaction between Bob and Alice = $20.
  • Transaction between Bob and Alice has problem therefore we want to publish it to the blockchain.
  • Amount of funds left after transaction is published to the blockchain = $20 - $20 = $0.
This is also not a binary situation. If for example in this scenario, the cost to publish the transaction to blockchain was $10 then still only 50% of the transaction would be secure. It is unlikely anyone really call this a secure transaction.
Will a user make a non-secured/poorly secured transaction on the LN when they could make the same transaction via an altcoin or non-cryptocurrency transaction and have it well secured? It's unlikely. What is much more likely to happen is that transaction that are not secured by bitcoin because of the cost to publish to the blockchain will simply overflow into altcoins or will simply not happen on any cryptocurrency network. The reality is though, that we don't know exactly what will happen because there is no precedent for it.
Another problem outside of security is convenience. With a highly oversaturated block space (very large backlog of transactions) it could take months to have a transaction published to the blockchain. During this time your funds will simply be stuck. If you want to buy a coffee with a shop you don't have a channel open with, instead of simply paying with bitcoin directly, you would have to wait months to open a channel by publishing a transaction to the bitcoin blockchain. I think your coffee might be a little cold by then (and mouldy).
I suggest reading this excellent post HERE for other rather significant problems with the LN when people are forced to use it.
The LN is currently not complete and due to its high complexity it will take some time to have industry wide implementation. If it is implemented on top of a bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network economy it will likely have very little utility.
 
Uses of The LN
The LN is actually an extremely useful layer-2 technology when it is used with it's strengths. When the bitcoin blockchain is fast and cheap to transact on, the LN is also extremely useful. One of the major uses for the LN is for trust-based transactions. If you are transacting often between a set of parties you can truly trust then using LN makes absolute sense since the trustless model of bitcoin is not necessary. Then once you require your funds to be unlocked again it will only take a short time and small cost to open them up to the full bitcoin network again. Another excellent use of LN would be for layer-3 apps. For example a casino app: Anyone can by into the casino channel and play using real bitcoins instantly in the knowledge that is anything nefarious happens you can instantly settle and unlock your funds. Another example would be a computer game where you can use real bitcoin in game, the only difference is that you connect to the game's LN channel and can transact instantly and cheaply. Then whenever you want to unlock your funds you can settle on the blockchain and use your bitcoins normally again.
LN is hugely more powerful, the more powerful bitcoin is. The people making the LN need to stick with its strengths rather than sell it as an all-in-one solution to bitcoin's scaling problem. It is just one piece of the puzzle.
 
 
Improving Network Efficiency
 
The more efficient the network, the more we can do with what we already have. There are a number of possible efficiency improvements to the network and each of them has a slightly different effect.
 
Pruning
Pruning allows the stored blockchain size to be reduced significantly by not storing old data. This has the effect of lowering the resource requirements of running a node. a 40GB unpruned blockchain would be reduced in size to 550MB. (It is important to note that a pruned node has lower utility to the network)
 
Thin Blocks
Thin blocks uses the fact that most of the nodes in the network already have a list of almost all the same transactions ready to be put into the blockchain before a block is found. If all nodes use the same/similar policy for which transactions to include in a block then you only need to broadcast a small amount of information across the network for all nodes to know which transactions have been included (as opposed to broadcasting a list of all transactions included in the block). Thin Blocks have the advantage of reducing propagation which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks.
 
libsecp256k1 libsecp256k1 allows a more efficient way of validating transactions. This means that propagation time is reduced which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. It also means reduced time to bootstrap the blockchain for a new node.
 
Serialised Broadcast
Currently block transmission to peers happens in parallel to all connected peers. Obviously for block propagation this is a poor choice in comparison to serial transmission to each peer one by one. Using parallel transmission means that the more peers you have, the slower the propagation, whereas serial transmission does not suffer this problem. The problem that serial transmission does suffer from though is variance. If the order that you send blocks to peers in is random, then it means sometimes you will send blocks to a peer who has a slow/fast connection and/or is able to validate slowly/quickly. This would mean the average propagation time would increase with serialised transmission but depending on your luck you would sometimes have faster propagation and sometimes have slower propagation. As this will lower propagation time it will also lower the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Serialised Broadcast Sorting
This is a fix for the variance that would occur due to serialised broadcast. This sorts the order that you broadcast a block to each peer into; fastest upload + validation speed first and slowest upload speed and validation speed last. This not only decreases the variance to zero but also allows blocks to propagation to happen much faster. This also has the effect of lowering the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Here is a table below that shows roughly what the effects these solutions should have.
Name Bandwidth Broadcast Time Validation Time New Node Time Storage Space
Pruning 1 1 1 1 0.014
Thin Blocks 0.42 0.1 0.1 1 1
libsecp256k1 1 1 0.2 0.6 1
Serialised Broadcast 1 0.5 1 1 1
KYN 1 0.75 1 1 1
Segregated Witness 1 1 1 0.4 1
TOTAL 0.42 0.0375 0.02 0.24 0.014
Multiplier 2.38 26.7 50 - 70
(The "multiplier" shows how many times higher the block size could be relative to the specific function.)
 
 
The Factors in Finding a Balanced Solution
 
At the beginning of this post I detailed a relatively simple framework for finding a solution by describing what the problem is. There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution; 'node distribution', 'mining decentralisation', 'network utility', 'time' and 'adoption'. The optimal solution needs to find a balance between all of these forces taking into account a buffer to offset our inability to predict the future with absolute accuracy.
To find a suitable buffer we need to assign a set of red line values which certain values should not pass if we want to make sure bitcoin continues to function as well as today (at a minimum). For example, percentage of orphans should stay below a certain value. These values can only be a best estimate due to the complexity of bitcoin economics, although I have tried to provide as sound reasoning as possible.
 
Propagation time
It seems a fair limit for this would be roughly what we have now. Bitcoin is still functioning now. Could mining be more decentralised? Yes, of course, but it seems bitcoin is working fine right now and therefore our currently propagation time for blocks is a fairly conservative limit to set. Currently 1MB blocks take around 15 seconds to propagate more than 50% of the network. 15 second propagation time is what I will be using as a limit in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Orphan Rate
This is obviously a value that is a function of propagation time so the same reasoning should be used. I will use a 3% limit on orphan rate in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $200 in the near-term and $600 in the long-term. I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for a business or enthusiast to pay to run a full node. As the number of transactions increases as more people use bitcoin the number of people willing to pay a higher price to run a node will also increase although the percentage of people will decrease. These are of course best guess values as there is no way of knowing exactly what percentage of users are willing to pay what.
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $3 in the near-term (next 5 years) and $9 in the long-term (Next 25 years). I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for normal bitcoin user to pay. In fact this cost will more likely be zero as almost all users have an amount of storage free on their computers.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 10% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Downstream is generally a much more valuable resource to a user than upstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 25% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Upstream is generally a much less valuable resource to a user than downstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
My limit for this value is at 5 days using 50% of downstream bandwidth in the near-term and 30 days in the long-term. This seems like a reasonable number to me for someone who wants to start running a full node. Currently opening a new bank account takes at least week until everything is set up and you have received your cards, so it seems to me people would be willing to wait this long to become connected. Again, this is a best guess on what people would be willing to do to access the blockchain in the future. Most users requiring less security will be able to use an SPV wallet.
It is important to note that we only need enough nodes to make sure the blockchain is distributed across many places with many backups of the full blockchain. It is likely that a few thousand is a minimum for this. Increasing this amount to hundreds of thousands or millions of full nodes is not necessarily that much of an advantage to node distribution but could be a significant disadvantage to mining centralisation. This is because the more nodes you have in the network, the longer it takes to propagate >50% of it.
 
Storage Cost Price Reduction Over Time
Storage cost follows a linear logarithmic trend. Costs of HDD reducing by 10 times every 5 years, although this has slowed over the past few years. This can be attributed to the flooding in South East Asia and the transition to SSD technology. SSD technology also follows the linear logarithmic trend of costs reducing 10 times every 5 years, or roughly decreasing 37% per year.
 
Average Upload and Download Bandwidth Increases Over Time
Average upload and download bandwidth increases in a linear logarithmic trend. Both upload and download bandwidth follow the same trend of doubling roughly every two years, or increasing 40% per year.
 
Price
I was hesitant to include this one here but I feel it is unavoidable. Contrary to what people say (often when the price is trending downwards) bitcoin price is an extremely important metric in the long-term. Depending on bitcoin's price, bitcoin's is useful to; enthusiasts->some users->small companies->large companies->nations->the world, in roughly that order. The higher bitcoin's price is the more liquid the market will be and the more difficult it will be to move the price, therefore increasing bitcoin's utility. Bitcoin's price in the long-term is linked to adoption, which seems to happen in waves, as can be seen in the price bubbles over the years. If we are planning/aiming for bitcoin to at least become a currency with equal value to one of the worlds major currencies then we need to plan for a market cap and price that reflect that. I personally think there are two useful targets we should use to reflect our aims. The first, lower target is for bitcoin to have a market cap the size of a major national currency. This would put the market cap at around 2.1 trillion dollars or $100,000 per bitcoin. The second higher target is for bitcoin to become the world's major reserve currency. This would give bitcoin a market cap of around 21 trillion dollars and a value of $1,000,000 per bitcoin. A final, and much more difficult target is likely to be bitcoin as the only currency across the world, but I am not sure exactly how this could work so for now I don't think this is worth considering.
 
As price increases, so does the subsidy reward given out to miners who find blocks. This reward is semi-dynamic in that it remains static (in btc terms) until 210,000 blocks are found and then the subsidy is then cut in half. This continues to happen until all 21,000,000 bitcoins have been mined. If the value of each bitcoin increases faster than the btc denominated subsidy decreases then the USD denominated reward will be averagely increasing. Historically the bitcoin price has increased significantly faster than subsidy decreases. The btc denominated subsidy halves roughly every 4 years but the price of bitcoin has historically increased roughly 50 fold in the same time.
 
Bitcoin adoption should happen in a roughly s-curve dynamic like every other technology adoption. This means exponential adoption until the market saturation starts and adoption slows, then the finally is the market becomes fully saturated and adoption slowly stops (i.e. bitcoin is fully adopted). If we assume the top of this adoption s-curve has one of the market caps above (i.e. bitcoin is successful) then we can use this assumption to see how we can transition from a subsidy paid network to a transaction fee paid network.
 
Adoption
Adoption is the most difficult metric to determine. In fact it is impossible to determine accurately now, let alone in the future. It is also the one of the most important factors. There is no point in building software that no one is going to use after all. Equally, there is no point in achieving a large amount of adoption if bitcoin offers none of the original value propositions. Clearly there is a balance to be had. Some amount of bitcoin's original value proposition is worth losing in favour of adoption, and some amount of adoption is worth losing to keep bitcoin's original value proposition. A suitable solution should find a good balance between the two. It is clear though that any solution must have increased adoption as a basic requirement, otherwise it is not a solution at all.
 
One major factor related to adoption that I rarely see mentioned, is stability and predictability. This is relevant to both end users and businesses. End users rely on stability and predictability so that they do not have to constantly check if something has changed. When a person goes to get money from a cash machine or spend money in a shop, their experience is almost identical every single time. It is highly dependable. They don't need to keep up-to-date on how cash machines or shops work to make sure they are not defrauded. They know exactly what is going to happen without having to expend any effort. The more deviation from the standard experience a user experiences and the more often a user experiences a deviation, the less likely a user is going to want to continue to use that service. Users require predictability extending into the past. Businesses who's bottom line is often dependent on reliable services also require stability and predictability. Businesses require predictability that extends into the future so that they can plan. A business is less likely to use a service for which they do not know they can depend on in the future (or they know they cannot depend on).
For bitcoin to achieve mass adoption it needs a long-term predictable and stable plan for people to rely on.
 
 
The Proposal
 
This proposal is one based on determining a best fit balance of every factor and a large enough buffer to allows for our inability to perfectly predict the future. No one can predict the future with absolutely certainty but it does not mean we cannot make educated guesses and plan for it.
 
The first part of the proposal is to spend 2016 implementing all available efficiency improvements (i.e the ones detailed above) and making sure the move to a scaled bitcoin happens as smoothly as possible. It seems we should set a target of implementing all of the above improvements within the first 6 months of 2016. These improvements should be implemented in the first hardfork of its kind, with full community wide consensus. A hardfork with this much consensus is the perfect time to test and learn from the hardforking mechanism. Thanks to Seg Wit, this would give us an effective 2 fold capacity increase and set us on our path to scalability.
 
The second part of the proposal is to target the release of a second hardfork to happen at the end of 2016. Inline with all the above factors this would start with a real block size limit increase to 2MB (effectively increasing the throughput to 4x compared to today thanks to Seg Wit) and a doubling of the block size limit every two years thereafter (with linear scaling in between). The scaling would end with an 8GB block size limit in the year 2039.
 
 
How does the Proposal fit inside the Limits
 
 
Propagation time
If trends for average upload and bandwidth continue then propagation time for a block to reach >50% of the nodes in the network should never go above 1s. This is significantly quickly than propagation times we currently see.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction (i.e. bandwidth does not increase as quickly as predicted) by 15% absolute and 37.5% relative (i.e. bandwidth improves at a rate of 25% per year rather than the predicted 40%) and we would still only ever see propagation times similar to today and it would take 20 years before this would happen.
 
Orphan Rate
Using our best guess predictions the orphan rate would never go over 0.2%.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative, orphan rate would never go above 2.3% and it would take over 20 years to happen.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a non-pruned full node would never exceed $40 with blocks consistently 50% full and would in fact decrease significantly after reaching the peak cost. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the maximum cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $90.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $100 by 2022 and $300 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $230 by 2022 and $650 in 2039. It is important to note that for storage costs to be as high as this, bitcoin will have to be enormously successful, meaning many many more people will be incentivised to run a full node (businesses etc.)
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a pruned full node would never exceed $0.60 with blocks consistently 50% full. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the max cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $1.30.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $1.40 by 2022 and $5 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $3.20 by 2022 and $10 in 2039. It is important to note that at this amount of storage the cost would be effectively zero since users almost always have a large amount of free storage space on computers they already own.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 0.3% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would still only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 4% (average).
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 1.6% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 24% (average) and this would take over 20 years to occur.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
Using our best guess predictions bootstrapping a new node onto the network should never take more than just over a day using 50% bandwidth.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and it would take one and 1/4 days to bootstrap the blockchain using 50% of the download bandwidth. By 2039 it would take 16 days to bootstrap the entire blockchain when using 50% bandwidth. I think it is important to note that by this point it is very possible the bootstrapping the blockchain could very well be done by simply buying an SSD with blockchain already bootstrapped. 16 days would be a lot of time to download software but it does not necessarily mean a decrease in centralisation. As you will see in the next section, if bitcoin has reached this level of adoption, there may well be many parties will to spend 16 days downloading the blockchain.
 
What if Things Turn Out Worse than the Worse Case?
While it is likely that future trends in the technology required to scale bitcoin will continue relatively similar to the past, it is possible that the predictions are completely and utterly wrong. This plan takes this into account though by making sure the buffer is large enough to give us time to adjust our course. Even if no technological/cost improvements (near zero likelihood) are made to bandwidth and storage in the future this proposal still gives us years to adjust course.
 
 
What Does This Mean for Bitcoin?
 
Significantly Increased Adoption
For comparison, Paypal handles around 285 transactions per second (tps), VISA handles around 2000tps and the total global non-cash transactions are around 12,400tps.
Currently bitcoin is capable of handling a maximum of around 3.5 transactions every second which are published to the blockchain roughly every 10 minutes. With Seg Wit implemented via a hardfork, bitcoin will be capable or around 7tps. With this proposal bitcoin will be capable of handling more transactions than Paypal (assuming Paypal experiences growth of around 7% per year) in the year 2027. Bitcoin will overtake VISA's transaction capability by the year 2035 and at the end of the growth cycle in 2039 it will be able to handle close to 50% of the total global non-cash transactions.
When you add on top second layer protocols( like the LN), sidechains, altcoins and off-chain transactions, there should be more than enough capacity for the whole world and every possible conceivable use for digital value transfer.
 
Transitioning from a Subsidy to a Transaction Fee Model
Currently mining is mostly incentivised by the subsidy that is given by the network (currently 25btc per block). If bitcoin is to widely successful it is likely that price increases will continue to outweigh btc denominated subsidy decreases for some time. This means that currently it is likely to be impossible to try to force the network into matching a significant portion of the subsidy with fees. The amount of fees being paid to miners has averagely increased over time and look like they will continue to do so. It is likely that the optimal time for fees to start seriously replacing the subsidy is when bitcoin adoption starts to slow. Unless you take a pessimistic view of bitcoin (thinking bitcoin is as big as it ever will be), it is reasonable to assume this will not happen for some time.
With this proposal, using an average fee of just $0.05, total transaction fees per day would be:
  • Year 2020 = $90,720
  • Year 2025 = $483,840.00
  • Year 2030 = $2,903,040.00
  • Year 2035 = $15,482,880.00
  • Year 2041 = $123,863,040.00 (full 8GB Blocks)
Miners currently earn a total of around $2 million dollars per day in revenue, significantly less than the $124 million dollars in transaction fee revenue possible using this proposal. That also doesn't include the subsidy which would still play some role until the year 2140. This transaction fee revenue would be a yearly revenue of $45 billion for miners when transaction fees are only $0.05 on average.
 
 
Proposal Data
You can use these two spreadsheets (1 - 2 ) to see the various metrics at play over time. The first spreadsheet shows the data using the predicted trends and the second spreadsheet shows the data with the worst case trends.
 
 
Summary
 
It's very clear we are on the edge/midst of a community (and possibly a network) split. This is a very dangerous situation for bitcoin. A huge divide has appeared in the community and opinions are becoming more and more entrenched on both sides. If we cannot come together and find a way forward it will be bad for everyone except bitcoin's competition and enemies. While this proposal is born from an attempt at finding a balance based on as many relevant factors as possible, it also fortunately happens to fall in between the two sides of the debate. Hopefully the community can see this proposal as a way of making a compromise, releasing the entrenchment and finding a way forward to scale bitcoin. I have no doubt that if we can do this, bitcoin will have enormous success in the years to come.
 
Lets bring bitcoin out of beta together!!
submitted by ampromoco to btc [link] [comments]

Downstream Casino!! DownstreamCasino - YouTube WIN WIN AND MORE WINS ON MY GO TO SLOTS - YouTube Downstream Casino iPhone App - YouTube FIRST ATTEMPT ON NEW MACHINE - YouTube Downstream Casino Resort ** VGThursday ** BIG WIN - RED SCREENS - DOWNSTREAM CASINO ...

redefining that winning feeling. Now Open 24 Hours! Please watch our Facebook page to stay updated. It’s what you enjoy — playing your favorite games where you feel lucky. Toll-Free Number: (888) 396-7876 Rooms: 200 Price Range: $109-$159 Suites: 22 Price Range: $219-$289 Restaurants:5 Liquor: Yes Buffet: B- $13.99 (Sunday) L- $8.99 D- $17.95/$19.99 (Tuesday-Thursday)/$21.99 (Friday/Saturday) Gambling Age: 18 Casino size: 70,000 Square feet Games Offered: Slots, Video Poker, Poker, Craps, Roulette, Blackjack, Three Card Poker, Mini Baccarat, Ultimate Texas Hold ... Rain or shine, make a splash in our indoor pool and spa with a temperature-controlled environment. Really nice in those chilly months. The outdoor pool is a full-on party, open May thru October, weather permitting. Hotel Downstream Casino Resort, Quapaw: 470 Bewertungen, 177 authentische Reisefotos und günstige Angebote für Hotel Downstream Casino Resort. Bei Tripadvisor auf Platz 1 von 1 Hotel in Quapaw mit 4/5 von Reisenden bewertet. Downstream Casino Resort 882 Follower auf LinkedIn Downstream Casino Resort provides a Las Vegas-style entertainment experience for everyone. Whether you prefer high energy surroundings or a more intimate experience, Downstream Casino Resort offers new ways to play influenced by the rich history of Native American culture. Casinos in Quapaw, OK Downstream Casino Resort, Quapaw: Address, Phone Number, Downstream Casino Resort Reviews: 4/5 las vegas-style entertainment. Downstream Casino Resort provides a Las Vegas-style entertainment experience for everyone. Whether you prefer high energy surroundings or a more intimate experience, Downstream Casino Resort offers new ways to play influenced by the rich history of Native American culture. please do not go hear this place would pay fines before letting you win. if you do not bet 25 dollars or more you are not going to win. and yes have paid fines for tight machines. the hotel is good and the cafes are good but your going home broke trust me. will give you 10 or 15… Less than 24 hours until we can all say goodbye to 2020, and around the 4-States, people are celebrating in plenty of new ways. We stopped by Downstream Casino to check in with Barry Linduff, who has the details behind what it takes to make a New Years Eve celebration happen in a year like this. For more information about...

[index] [24800] [8955] [20145] [33344] [23656] [29152] [25870] [11230] [30623] [14240]

Downstream Casino!!

I rarely go to Downstream casino but decided to give it a try again. Boy, am I glad I did! I walked out with $6000 profit. Here are a couple of slots I tried... Playing at Downstream Casino. Thanks for watching!!! Please like and subscribe!!!#GoodTimes#VGT come with us as we enjoy an afternoon in Oklahoma at downstream casino. If you are interested in donating to our page you can do so at http://www.paypal.me/t... Downstream Casino iPhone App is now available from the iTunes Store. http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/downstream-casino-resort/id471758533?mt=8 Playing at Downstream Casino and Kansas Crossing. Thanks for watching!!! Please like and subscribe!!! Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. Check out all the things we have going on here at Downstream Casino Resort! Visit downstreamcasino.com, our Facebook page or Call (918) 919-6000 to make rese... In this video I went to Downstream Casino for my 18th birthday with Ezdine and my mom! Watch the video and see how much money we gained or lost! I hope you enjoy this video and if you would like ...

https://olimptrade-review.ezcmining.website