Reddit Posts
I watched the first episode of “The next crypto gem” so you dont have to…I mean it, you dont have to
Mentions
See I think this is one of the issues in helping others understand Bitcoin. I've only ever seen detailed explanations like this, or extremely simplified explanations like "lock and key" kind of stuff. Can you explain like I'm 15? I mean, I understand the basics of cryptography... ABCD becomes CADB. I understand that binary is just ON/OFF for computers... but I don't know what "hash" means. So I really just get lost after "cryptographic hash function". I really don't intend to sound insulting at all, I'm just mostly ignorant of what SHA256 is because I don't have a reference point. I don't know what SHA is, or hash, I don't know the name for things that SHA is *not* (like water is not tea is not coffee, but they are all liquid drinks). If that doesn't make sense, I don't really have a starting point for what I don't understand.
The problem with this setup is where they're being sent to. It could be setup to send to send the funds equally to 3 different wallets corresponding to the private access for each individual. The problem with this is that if one individual died or lost their private key, the other 2 individuals lose that money altogether. They'll never retrieve it. It could be setup so that the 3 of 3 transaction sends the funds to a new 3 of 3 shared multisig wallet where they'll be able to draft their own transactions whereever they want and split the money how they decide. The benefit to this strategy is if all 3 people sign the transaction, then all 3 people must be alive and have access to their keys. The problem is a low risk of enacting the transaction with all 3 people to a shared 3-3 multisig wallet, and while the money is sitting there, and before they split the money, 1 person dies, refuses to agree to a distribution proposal, or loses their codes. If just one person messes up in this situation, they all lose ALL the money. -- As for the other benefit, the 3-3 tx would send to a 3-3 multisig wallet, the 2-3 tx would send to a 2-3 multisig wallet, and the 1-3 tx would send to a 1-3 multisig wallet. So there is some flexibility for codes lost or people who die before the funds are sent to a multisig wallet, but whichever tx they decide on and multisig wallet they choose poses a risk if 1 party decides not to agree to any distribution, dies, or loses their codes after initiating the first transaction to a multisig wallet. Now, I did a bit more research and it seems like my idea for a smart contract for a WALLET to move from 3-3, to 2-3, to 1-3 is not only complicated; it's impossible. Wallets can't have smart contracts as far as I can understand. Only transactions can. Here's my new idea, although it is much more complicated. Each party creates their own wallet that only they have access to. Let's say there are 4 people: A, B, C, D. There are 4 different wallets they own. I am person Z, so my money is in there. Their wallets have no Bitcoin yet. I would draft several different transactions. A tx equally distributing to all of them: ABCD. In case 1 of them dies or loses their private keys, I'll also draft tx distributing to ABC, ABD, ACD, BCD. In case 2 of them die or lose their keys, I set up txs for AB, AC, AD, BC, BD, CD. And in case 3 of them die or lose their keys, I set up txs for A, B, C, and D. This means there are 15 different transactions that need to be drafted. As for each transaction, every single one needs smart contract language to automatically change from 4-4 multisig, to 3-4, 2-4, and eventually 1-4. This is necessary, as the alternative is drafting 4*15 transactions... Ex: ABCD 4-4, ABCD 3-4, ABCD 2-4, ABCD 1-4, ABC 4-4, ABC 3-4, etc... So using smart contract language dramatically decreases the number of transactions to keep track of. Using this methodology, it prevents the problem of 1 party extorting another and refusing to sign the transaction unless they get a higher distribution (since only equal distributions are even possible). It also solves the problem of any party dying or losing their keys at any point in time. No funds are ever risked in limbo as they would be if they were ever moved to a permanent multisig wallet. The obvious con is the complexity of: - writing smart contracts that would transition a single tx from 4-4, to 3-4, to 2-4, to 1-4 over time - drafting the sheer number of transactions necessary to mitigate the risk of inheritors dying or losing their keys. If there are 2 inheritors, there needs to be 3 tx drafts. 3 inheritors= 7 tx drafts. 4 = 15. 5 = 31. 6 = 63. 7 = 127. This is all assuming equal distributions between inheritors. If there are varying distribution options, it increases this amount much more. It might be cool to create a software that could take each party's receiving address and public key and other necessary information to automatically draft all the possible transactions in a neat format with easily scannable QRs. Possibly even put each inheritor's name and have an option to click buttons to signify which inheritor died or lost their key, to quickly display the correct transaction which would equally distribute the money among the remaining inheritors receiving addresses. This would make it super simple for the inheritors who may not fully understand Bitcoin or may not be the best record keepers to figure out which transaction they need to use. Then the software could even show the block (and predicted date) when the chosen tx would be possible. For instance, an ABCD distribution would be available a lot sooner than an AC distribution would be, because ABCD can be done with 4-4 multisig, but the AC needs to wait for 2-4 multisig which may be several months or years later. But, there is one really big problem with this and all the multisig options. Inheritors could strategize with each other. For example, maybe C and D are really close, and A and B are not so close with anyone. C and D could choose not to sign the 4-4 multisig and wait until it reaches the 2-4 multisig to send all the money to themselves (CD receiving addresses), while A and B are still alive and helpless to stop it. But, this is the case with any decreasing multisig strategy.
ABCD always be 'cumulating dude
Obviously, investors are withdrawing from crypto exchanges due to the introduction of ETFs. The introduction of ETFs has long been factored into the price of Bitcoin. Who would want to own physical Bitcoin on a crypto exchange where it can be stolen (as has happened so many times over the past years...) when they can enjoy the benefits of Bitcoin ownership in a regulated and insured environment? For those with substantial capital in Bitcoin, either for serious speculation or even as a small part of their portfolio, it is clear that choosing an ETF is simpler and more secure. In my opinion, the price of Bitcoin over the past year has been primarily driven by the introduction of ETFs, as many crypto bubbles have already burst... Buy the rumors, sell the news. Technically: weekly is at 0.618 fib level, for me the current price is just a C edge of an ABCD correction.
Take the 24 word seed. Each slab contains 6 words and is labelled from A to D. In each location contains one of the 3 groups: ABC BCD DCA If you lose a slab from 1 location you still have the ABCD combination effectively making it 2 of 3.
I don't care if it's called CBCD, GDCB, ABCD or CBGB's. In the end it's just another shitcoin. Show me the code behind it. Oh, I can't see it? Instant shitcoin.
because the contract store the root hash (aka ABCD). when someone wants to prove to the contract that the A leaf is on it, it has to give to the contract, the A hash, and all the up branch it’s easier to understand with more child’s. ABCDEFGH ABCD EFGH AB CD EF GH A B C D E F G H Then, let’s say you want to prove to the smart contract that A is in the three, so you would send: A -> AB -> CD -> ABCD -> EFGH -> ABCDEFGH and then the smart contract can check if that’s is a valid branch by computing the hashes by itself, and if the final hash is the same as the sc is storing in the root, it’s confirmed
The output of hashing a merkle tree is a unique fingerprint. Suppose you take 4 transactions and hash them, giving you hash A, hash B, hash C, and hash D. You then hash A-B together, and C-D together. Now you have hash AB, and hash CD. You hash these together finally to create hash ABCD. Inside this ABCD fingerprint anyone can verify one of its leafs includes hash C without accessing the AB or D leaves. A validator can likewise check off ABCD without expending work on each individual hash. We know the hashes inside the merkle tree are legitimate because the tree used them as its seed. You can't generate a valid merkle tree with invalid hashes, for the same reason you can't process invalid transactions through the blockchain.
It’s the ABCD’s of Fraud: Accuse, Blame, Criticize, and Deny.
original article: https://morningconsult.com/2022/06/22/companies-inflation-profit-maximization-supply-chain/?utm\_content=null&utm\_source=Sailthru&utm\_medium=email&utm\_campaign=Wednesday%20Email&utm\_term=4ABCD
I thought about it too. You can split a long seed between trusted heirs, with redundancy, so that with 4 heirs for example your ABCD seed gets split AB**, *BC*, *CD*, *DA*. It takes any 3 out of 4 to reconstitute your phrase. If you trust them enough to have 2 out of 4 you can do *BCD, A*CD, AB*D, ABC*; that gives you a bit of time to react if one of your heirs disappears before you.
How are they 'fake' ownership? If facebook were to cease operations, you'd get the money back. How is this possibly fake? I've had plenty of companies liquidate in my portfolio, and what happens is that one day I have ticker ABCD, and the next day I have a bunch of cash. This is going to happen with TWTR perhaps in the next few months. One day I'll have TWTR and the next day i'll have hard cash in my account. In what way is that fake? In other instances of companies gone bankrupt, there are many instances of shareholders receiving monetary compensation based on the remaining assets. It may not be as much as their stock was purchased for (because usually companies in dire bankruptcy straits have been misreporting or up to other mischief), but it is still a real ownership interest. The only way you can possibly say something like this is by simply not being familiar with stock history.
6k is my swing trade target. The 2.618 extension, which is the inverse of the 0.618 retrace ETH has made throughout its lifetime. Also known as a reciprocal ABCD. Will post chart later if anyone cares
So what exactly are these ABCD's you speak of?