Crypto was great for shady organizations at the beginning because you could purchase things with crypto that you couldn’t purchase otherwise without leaving a trace. It was great for money laundering for the mob as well.

Crypto currency makes me laugh because people assume the central banks and governments would just let a decentralized currency take over. That alone is an ignorant notion.

The other funny thing is that the instability of the currency and its potential to be hacked and stolen. Why would I take a single bitcoin today to sell my product at X amount when tomorrow it’s going to potentially drop 50%?

Crypto currency makes me laugh because people assume the central banks and governments would just let a decentralized currency take over. That alone is an ignorant notion.

We never thought TPTB would allow us free access to unlimited information... yet we now have the internet. This is very similar. And they have done anything BUT just "let this happen". They've fought it tooth and nail non-stop for the last 9 years.

The other funny thing is that the instability of the currency and its potential to be hacked and stolen. Why would I take a single bitcoin today to sell my product at X amount when tomorrow it’s going to potentially drop 50%?

The first part of this statement has nothing to do with the second. How does price volatility have anything to do with potential to be hacked or stolen?

Two separate points but I guess you needed a line break for that. I’ll fix it for you.

How about you try responding to any of the points I made

We never thought TPTB would allow us free access to unlimited information... yet we now have the internet. This is very similar. And they have done anything BUT just "let this happen". They've fought it tooth and nail non-stop for the last 9 years.

Ok so the only point you made, other than grammar shaming me.

The internet is constantly being fought over and the freedom of information side is losing.

Why do you think the centralized banks would relinquish control over money to the general population? In what dimension does this seem like a reasonable assumption?

So what you’re saying is, bitcoins price volatility is a huge problem and that you recognize the security issues. instead of just agreeing or ignoring that you had to attack the other user on the sly. Why?

its potential to be hacked and stolen

Don't confuse exchange security with protocol security. Bitcoin itself was hacked once very early on where someone was able to produce millions of coins for himself, but the community was able to get together, erase his fraudulent coins, and fix the issue. Every single hack you've heard of since was someone failing to safely hold other people's balances. Mostly they were exchanges. In at least one case, there was an insecure implementation of the random number generator for one wallet that made it easy for an attacker to back into the private key from a Bitcoin address. In that case, a white hat hacker came along and swept as many insecure wallets as he could and setup a system to return all funds to their rightful owner once they proved they held the balance in their unsafe wallet.

If you're also thinking of TheDAO hack and the tens of millions stolen from Ethereum holders, again, that was not a protocol hack. That was a poorly implemented smart contract that all those people chose to use. Someone found and exploited a weakness in the contract's code and used it to drain a ton of money placed in there by others. A white hat team stepped in and raced the hacker to drain the rest of it. That was not a flaw in the base Ethereum code and nothing was changed in the base Ethereum code to prevent that from happening because nothing needed to be changed.

I know a lot of people think it must be easy to hack Bitcoin because of how often and how big the hacks are that appear in the media, but those are not attacks on Bitcoin. They are attacks on people who use unsafe practices to protect private keys behind wallets with big balances. It's simple. Don't store your money on an exchange. Don't expect people who just learned node.js to develop a better security model than a team of people who have been developing code for bankcard EMV chips for twenty years.

And as was already said, the security discussion is totally separate from the price fluctuation discussion.

This is all fine and true, but human interference is always the weakest link.

There are so many problems with crypto currency exchanges it’s not even funny. To praise bitcoins security while acknowledging the exchanges have tremendous flaws speaks volumes.

I see more potential in blockchain technology than the crypto currencies themselves.

You’re right. The security discussion is separate. Which is why I have separated points in my original post.

It’s obvious that crypto isn’t going away, but the future of crypto as a decentralized currency is pure fantasy.

To praise bitcoins security while acknowledging the exchanges have tremendous flaws speaks volumes.

That's the primary reason I don't use exchanges that store balances on my behalf. All of my purchases go straight to a hardware wallet.

I see more potential in blockchain technology than the crypto currencies themselves.

As an IBMer for longer than most Redditors have been alive, the company agrees wholeheartedly.

You realise that the notion of 'the elites always win' is why they have been winning up until now. Without even thinking the reality you shape around yourself is one in which the faceless rich guys always prevail. It's the point of all those Hollywood movies over the past decades where the bad guy is always some wealthy dude. They control the media so they propagate the notion that rich people always win. And you play into that with this type of attitude.

Yes, they are going to oppose it, but taking the perspective that it's hopeless just so you can tell everyone 'I told you so' is doing far more harm than you think it is. Furthermore, they've won up until now because they controlled information, but the internet has changed all that. And if you look further into cryptocurrency you'll see that there are several decentralised projects that have a very real shot at wide scale adoption. Millions of people adopting a decentralised currency can't be stopped by them, because they are not all powerful. They just want to give you them impression that they are so the can manifest their goals easier.

Here's some food for though, the NSA wrote a paper on cryptocurrencies in 1996, luckily block chain came out 12 years later and the elites were ready to pounce on it. http://groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/classes/6.805/articles/money/nsamint/nsamint.htm

Everyone should have known when Goldman Sachs jumped into the mining game that something wasn’t right.

I am just waiting for the rest of community to realise that Bitcoin Cash is the best money can be. Can't print as you please, can't raid offices, can't block traffic, can't easily seize it online or physically...

It is Occupy movement online. But we don't need to block banks, we just stop using them.

Those are my thoughts.

You're confusing this with Bitcoin. Bitcoin is the digital occupy movement.

With unlimited blocksize, Bitcoin Cash becomes incredibly susceptible to node centralization, which is the core of Bitcoin's trustless security. By running your own node, you don't have to trust anyone else with your money. With Bitcoin Cash, those nodes can/will become so big in the future, that regular people will no longer be able to secure their own nodes, and will then have to trust a third party to do it for them.

There's a shitton of propaganda out there right now for Bitcoin Cash, and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have about why Bitcoin Cash isn't the future.

Yes I do have questions and comments please.

So I need more disk space to acommodate Bitcoin Cash bigger blocks. That's the price I'd rather pay rather than making it:

More expensive to transact, pricing out third world and many use cases

Jumping to Lighting network eliminates it's peer to peer attribute altogether with centralised hubs

Why worry about being your own node if segwit blocks don't actually contain signatures therefor eliminating reason to keep full ledger alltogether?

So I need more disk space to acommodate Bitcoin Cash bigger blocks.

It's much more complicated than that. We're looking at a staggering amount of data that all major industries are just begging to put onto a blockchain (and going with the most secure and tested one only makes

More expensive to transact, pricing out third world and many use cases

This is only a temporary issue, one that Bitcoin Cash proponents love to harp on, yet it is just that... a temporary issue. Every single blockchain based coin is going to experience the same problems as adoption grows. BCH has no possible idea how many blocksize increases will be needed, and what kind of problems could come from rapid mass adoption.

Jumping to Lighting network eliminates it's peer to peer attribute altogether with centralised hubs

Lightning network does not eliminate it's peer to peer attribute, it simply adds an additional option to help deal with transaction volume. Do you really care about having a truly p2p transaction with Starbucks? No, so then lightning would suffice. Do you care about having a truly p2p transaction to buy a house? Absolutely, in which case you can still do a p2p transaction on the main chain (and probably pay a higher fee for that extra layer of security).

Also, lightning networks encourage more people to run full nodes, and therefore reduce the risk of hub centralization. And if any hub starts to do some shady shit, the network can just stop using it and take another route. I'm a big fan of LN so far, but I remain skeptical.

Why worry about being your own node if segwit blocks don't actually contain signatures therefor eliminating reason to keep full ledger alltogether?

This is a fair question, and I'll have to look into more. I don't think that's true about eliminating reason to keep full ledger all together, but I can't say enough to really challenge you on that point definitively.

I would rather have to pool resources with friends and family to run a Bitcoin community node rather than forcing villager in India to choose between a meal and opening a lightning channel because their government declared 10 rupi notes invalid. May be I am going overboard with this example but Bitcoin needs to maintain mass world adoption capability. It is a designed "temporary issue" as you call it, in order to push segwit and lighning for a reason. Bitcoin is the biggest money exchange revolution at a planetary level and the biggest powers are doing their thing to push it in their direction. That is why I was in support of community agreement, once it was broken I am happy Bitcoin Cash was born, othervice cryptosphere would have one less hero to fight the big boss.

Totally reasonable, and I get where you're coming from. I just do not see it the same way as the Bitcoin Cash community, looking at Roger Ver as a savior fighting against big business and big banking.

Which is one of the reasons I'm super excited to attend Anarchopulco later this month. It's sponsored by bitcoin.com, so I hope to get a ton of info on the issue. Because after all of my research, I've yet to see someone give better arguments than Andreas Antonopoulos. At least you are knowledgeable enough to have a real discussion with, and have brought up some good points.

You going to Anarchapulco ?!?! Dude insane.. Me may be next year.. If BCH does it's thing lol. Look out after Jeff, literally be like his body guard, ppl like him, Julian Assange, Snowden need to be protected.

Hell yea, I'm super stoked. Sold a little bit of each type of crypto from my portfolio at the near ATH last month, so it's already been paid for at a major discount lol.

And no doubt, but Jeff seems to have shit pretty well handled on his own.

It's a shame how much divisiveness this fork has caused. We clearly all have similar intentions and goals, it's just a matter of how to get there. If BCH ends winning out and the centralization concerns prove to be moot, then I'll gladly switch.

I'm just still so unconvinced, and generally distrusting of Ver and Antminers endgame. I know you can say the same thing about Core, but IMO its still a much larger pool of developers and interests working together. Great puzzle we got here!

There's a lot to unpack here. But I can tell you that TPTB do NOT want to push people into cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. They want to push people into a cashless society that they can control, not one that runs as a truly free market economy.

Bitcoin Cash, IMO, is nothing but an attempted hostile takeover of the name Bitcoin, and can potentially become the very virtual currency that they control, and will then push onto everyone as THE original bitcoin. This is a very hot button issue, and you will get many different opinions on this. After looking into this specific topic for over a year, and reading as much as possible from all sides, it really strikes me as nothing more than a hostile takeover attempt of the name.

It's simply a brand new and emerging technology. Investing in it is very risky because of the potential for failure, but the potential payoff of it becoming the next standard internet protocol like HTTP is immense. Still difficult to use, which only adds to the reasons to get in now.

Feel free to ask me any follow up questions. I love talking about this shit, and I am a huge proponent.

That guy is full of shit. Look at this, jump to line 1062. https://csrc.nist.gov/CSRC/media/Publications/nistir/8202/draft/documents/nistir8202-draft.pdf

But since we’re in conspiracy, why trust the NIST when they already demonstrated untrustworthiness during the early 2000s

How is Bitcoin Cash a hostile take over and ignoring community agreements, pushing unproven technologies, censoring is not?

Bitcoin Cash literally ignored any community agreements, and forked off on it's own. Not only that, they changed a very crucial aspect of Bitcoin (the 1mb blocksize cap), and are now trying to sell it to people as if it were BTC, "the ORIGINAL bitcoin", when that's far from the case.

The "unproven technologies" they are pushing, I assume you mean lightning networks? The best thing about them is that, if they fail, the main chain remains INTACT. With Bitcoin Cash, if a centralization problem is discovered 3, 10, 20 years down the line, then it's too late to revert to the old system, because the blockchain has already become too large in size.

The censoring thing I agree, I'm not a fan of. But it seems to be from them trying to deal with the shilling and brigading they've had to deal with from the r/btc gang. But I agree, the censorship is pretty shady.

There were several agreements including the famous New York one which besides activating Segwit included block size increase. Well that did not happen to this day causing the transaction fees to skyrocket and Bitcoin adoption to drop. So much harm and so much for your statement "Bitcoin Cash literally ignored any community agreements".

If Lightning and Segwit have problems, then peoples money residing off chain will be lost and trust in Bitcoin will be damaged further.

Do you choose hypothetical "centralization problem" because of bigger blocks or a guaranteed hub centralization in the Lightning network?

All you're doing is parroting the same FUD that I see over and over again, from people that have very little idea of what they are actually talking about.

Bitcoin Cash forked because they literally couldn't get consensus for an unlimited blocksize increase... so they forked. Segwit became activated within consensus, and everyone pulled out of the shitty NYA.

If Lightning and Segwit have problems, then peoples money residing off chain will be lost and trust in Bitcoin will be damaged further.

I completely agree, which is why this shit needs to be done right, and done slowly. If you don't want to risk it, then keep your coins off of the new tech, and in your cold storage. Problem solved.

Do you choose hypothetical "centralization problem" because of bigger blocks or a guaranteed hub centralization in the Lightning network?

Again, this is typical r/btc FUD. At least Hub centralization is incredibly easy to deal with and reverseable. Node and mining centralization is not. Do you see the difference?

Everybody knows about New Your agreement and how it was supposed to activate segwit and increase block size to 2MB. Not a rocket scientist but I think that's why they called it Segwit2X. Parroting the truth what else am I to do?

Hub centralization easily reversable? Remember if some unexpected event goes down with a big hub then all those funds are off chain and much harder to recover. Then you also have the block size bottleneck in case of a mass panic to major attack on lightning or segwit or something. Where's if I see that the node count is starting to drop on Bitcoin Cash network I still have time to react.

Hub centralization is easily reversible in the sense that you don't have to use these hubs, or the lightning network at all. The LN just adds a second layer so that there are less transactions filling up the main chain/mempool. You can still use the main chain just like you would normally, but the fees will most likely be higher (but you will get more security assurance).

At least it's opt-in, so yea, you could potentially lose your coins if something were to happen, but that's why you wouldn't store even a large minority of your coins on the network. It's for convenience, and by maintaining the integrity of the original chain, less risk for major fallout.

On the other hand, if Bitcoin Cash approaches a block size increase that leads to a decrease in nodes, there is no going back. The whole point of bitcoin in the first place was having a decentralized network, so if your coin becomes increasingly centralized, what's the point?

The simple fact you believe that the 1mb blocksize cap is a "crucial aspect of Bitcoin" tells me you know next to nothing about Bitcoin. The 1mb cap was temporarily put into place to prevent spam to the network. Core developers then use this as some type of proof that 1mb is the gold standard.

You talk about the fear of centralization yet have no problem allowing a small group of developers centrally plan the capped blocksize instead of the people using Bitcoin.

Hence, why consensus rules still apply. Just because a vocal minority wanted to allow an unlimited succession of block size increases, everyone else has to go along with it? You either have to convince the majority or you fork your coin, but don't bitch cause you guys chose the fork.

My take? Crypto is designed to teach AI economics, to the ends of taking over all economy

This is already outlined in the Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars document

I would like to look into this. Suggestions of where to start?

http://www.stopthecrime.net/docs/SILENT%20WEAPONS%20for%20QUIET%20WARS.pdf

10-4 partner I'll look into it, thanks

That was my thought too. There is no way they or the AI or whoever would waste that amount of energy and computing power. Something big has to be happening. Exactly what, idk. But I like that theory.

James Corbett and the Bitcoin Psyop

This is just another crack at contracting the money supply and sending it up, except instead of stocks it's bitcoins this time round and it's the few pesky millenials who have managed to claw there way to a semblance of wealth who are getting fleeced.

Wall Street is destroying the crypto market... ever since Bitcoin futures were introduced it has fallen overall but most importantly the volatility has been insane. Think about it... Bitcoin is not a stock. Futures trading in all other cases applies to stocks and commodities sold on the Nasdaq and other exchanges. To put it simply, if Bitcoin were a stock, I would be breaking the law if i placed a short on bitcoin and manipulated the share price so I make shitloads of cash. But since it's not, what is stopping my investment firm, which is worth more than bitcoin itself, from buying enormous amounts of bitcoin, placing a short order and then selling everything off and crashing the market. Nothing, you make enormous profits from the sell off and the short sale, its totally legal and fuck everyone else. Meanwhile the corporations all owned by wall street tell the media to publish bullshit articles about how this or that country is banning bitcoin and that's why its falling. Anyways... I don't see bitcoin recovering again any time soon... The futures market isn't going to stop and nobody is going to invest in something with this much volatility. All the blockchain technology being developed nowadays is based on ethereum anywas.

I think you are bang on. Except Eth also is volatile. There are also other useful coins like Ripple.

Yea the problem is ethereum is tied to bitcoins value. Which doesn't necessarily make sense because you can buy ethereum with fiat on coinbase.

Go back and look at https://coinmarketcap.com/historical/ this has all happened before, almost every year around the same times.

Yea its for sure had its ups and downs but just look at the volatility for this this past January. 10% or more changes almost every week. That makes trading virtually impossible because every time the price of bitcoin goes in either direction it throws off the market.

Trading against bots? No thank you.

The Conspiracy in my mind is how it is now falling, perfectly timed with the popularity of it. Whether co-incidence or not, it has turned the vast majority of people off of it who thought it'd be a good investment or just curious to try it. This is what the banks/gov't want. They realize they can't BAN it or regulate it so next best option is to make it unappealing to the main stream. Just my thoughts tho...

Re-posting my response from another thread about same subject:

The main conspiracy behind cryptos is Biblical in nature.

It's going to be the "one world currency" everyone was afraid of when it was being peddled as physical thing like the Amero. Since crytopcurrencies are on the "light side" of the dialectic it is going to be accepted as the rebel when it is actually what was intended all along.

This then fits in with the Mark of the Best:

Rev 13:16 And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads: Rev 13:17 And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

Combine this with the move toward chips and you have the precursor to the Mark. Our credit cards used to be strips that were swiped, now they use chips. Soon they will move sub-dermal:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTBJ6OIGkzc

A key point here is that the King James Bible is the only one that uses the word "in" the hand or forehead instead of "on." It was right all along even though it made no sense to people 400 years ago.

So I don't have to bring a card with me anymore to pay for something? I always lose that thing, I'm excited about this!

It will be much more than just that I'm sure. People will feel like they cannot survive without it. Anyone who takes the real one when it shows up is condemned to eternal torment in the lake of fire. Anyone who doesn't take it will likely be killed. At that point you will have to be willing to die for Jesus Christ's sake not to take it.

That's why you should just get saved now before this dispensation ends. Repent of your rebellion against God and your sinful nature and believe this:

1Co 15:1  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;  1Co 15:2  By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto you, unless ye have believed in vain.  1Co 15:3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;  1Co 15:4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: 

He did it all. Nothing for you to do but accept it.

Hm I gonna take my chances and get the mark.

God did give you free will to choose.

Rev 14:9  And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,  Rev 14:10  The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:  Rev 14:11  And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. 

Why doesn't he leave me alone, it's like he's threatening and harassing me. I know that he is the real evil god. The one who gives the mark is the benevolent God.

The benevolent God marks 12,000 of each tribe of Israel. The false god is just an imposer and copies this with his mark.

What had led you to believe this way? Did you do blood magic (blood over intent)?

No, magic used for manipulation is for service to self entities.

Just know that there is nothing God won't forgive if you repent and believe in the gospel of Jesus Christ. You can always receive the atonement through him which causes you to be grafted into the root of David and become his child.

The god you are following is just a created being. A rebellious cherebum. He's just trying to take you where he knows he's already going.

Isa 14:12  How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!  Isa 14:13  For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:  Isa 14:14  I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.  Isa 14:15  Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit. 

Eze 28:13  Thou hast been in Eden the garden of God; every precious stone was thy covering, the sardius, topaz, and the diamond, the beryl, the onyx, and the jasper, the sapphire, the emerald, and the carbuncle, and gold: the workmanship of thy tabrets and of thy pipes was prepared in thee in the day that thou wast created.  Eze 28:14  Thou art the anointed cherub that covereth; and I have set thee so: thou wast upon the holy mountain of God; thou hast walked up and down in the midst of the stones of fire.  Eze 28:15  Thou wast perfect in thy ways from the day that thou wast created, till iniquity was found in thee.  Eze 28:16  By the multitude of thy merchandise they have filled the midst of thee with violence, and thou hast sinned: therefore I will cast thee as profane out of the mountain of God: and I will destroy thee, O covering cherub, from the midst of the stones of fire.  Eze 28:17  Thine heart was lifted up because of thy beauty, thou hast corrupted thy wisdom by reason of thy brightness: I will cast thee to the ground, I will lay thee before kings, that they may behold thee.  Eze 28:18  Thou hast defiled thy sanctuaries by the multitude of thine iniquities, by the iniquity of thy traffick; therefore will I bring forth a fire from the midst of thee, it shall devour thee, and I will bring thee to ashes upon the earth in the sight of all them that behold thee.  Eze 28:19  All they that know thee among the people shall be astonished at thee: thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more. 

Rev 12:7  And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,  Rev 12:8  And prevailed not; neither was their place found any more in heaven.  Rev 12:9  And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him. 

Rev 20:2  And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,  Rev 20:3  And cast him into the bottomless pit, and shut him up, and set a seal upon him, that he should deceive the nations no more, till the thousand years should be fulfilled: and after that he must be loosed a little season. 

Rev 20:10  And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. 

Ok

Thank you for fulfilling Ezekiel 3:18

It's my pleasure to plant and water for the Lord. Even if it seems like these days we are throwing seeds on pavement you never know what might slip through the cracks and take root! God bless.

I think the real conspiracy, is the fact tjat gpvt has so many convinced that Crypto = Bad lmfao have fun with your monopoly money. Ill hodl till i yodl with this digimoney

Venezuela becomes the first nation-state to attempt a crypto-current exit scam, and they're doing this by tying into the oil industry they took and nationalized ....

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/31/venezuela-says-will-pre-sell-petro-cryptocurrency-on-feb-20.html

There are plenty of other deeper conspiracies with it. However, you have right there a blatant economic conspiracy from Maduro.

I did not know that. However, I was just talking about Venezuela's crypto-currency, and had the link handy. People will talk a lot about one world currency and AI with the blockchain, and maybe so. However, at this point it's also really easy to make a financial scam with cryptocurrency, which is what Maduro is doing. I don't think Maduro's movement has anything to do with one world currency or AI. I think it's just a desperate financial scam, but that's probably more of a real conspiracy -- and a real conspiracy that has bearing on your life -- than anyone else is offering up.

Bitcoin was developed by Japanese intelligence in retaliation for Hiroshima and Nagasaki and has since been picked up by other Asian powers in their quest to overturn the US’s global hegemony.

Hub centralization is easily reversible in the sense that you don't have to use these hubs, or the lightning network at all. The LN just adds a second layer so that there are less transactions filling up the main chain/mempool. You can still use the main chain just like you would normally, but the fees will most likely be higher (but you will get more security assurance).

At least it's opt-in, so yea, you could potentially lose your coins if something were to happen, but that's why you wouldn't store even a large minority of your coins on the network. It's for convenience, and by maintaining the integrity of the original chain, less risk for major fallout.

On the other hand, if Bitcoin Cash approaches a block size increase that leads to a decrease in nodes, there is no going back. The whole point of bitcoin in the first place was having a decentralized network, so if your coin becomes increasingly centralized, what's the point?

This is already outlined in the Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars document

I did not know that. However, I was just talking about Venezuela's crypto-currency, and had the link handy. People will talk a lot about one world currency and AI with the blockchain, and maybe so. However, at this point it's also really easy to make a financial scam with cryptocurrency, which is what Maduro is doing. I don't think Maduro's movement has anything to do with one world currency or AI. I think it's just a desperate financial scam, but that's probably more of a real conspiracy -- and a real conspiracy that has bearing on your life -- than anyone else is offering up.

That was my thought too. There is no way they or the AI or whoever would waste that amount of energy and computing power. Something big has to be happening. Exactly what, idk. But I like that theory.