Author

Topic: Bitcoin XT - Officially #REKT (also goes for BIP101 fraud) - page 169. (Read 378996 times)

hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

Emphasis mine.

1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.
2) There is one little detail here, removal of the limit on block size makes the orphaning a non-issue as it opens the door for targeting higher bandwidth layers (those fiber optics under the ocean are waiting Smiley) where profit-driven miners would be incentivized to move sooner than later. They have little incentives to do that at the moment as the costs won't justify the effect with the current 1MB limit in place.



There are two costs that play against each other with Bitcoin.

1) First is the cost to transact on a single unified ledger that comes from the limit on block size (which incurs tx fees).
2) Second is cost to run a full validator of the protocol rules and transactions from home (ever growing blockchain).

The more transactions are allowed in the block the cheaper they become, but the costs of validating get higher as a result (and vice versa).



As of right now Bitcoin gives us two "keys" for our monetary sovereignty.

1) First is the "private key" from our coins that we can generate in a permissionless way and then use to receive and send money.
2) Second is the "key" to validate the fact that money we hold and use operate as intended by having permissionless access to blockchain.

The fees we pay in the network is the price to hold the second key, don't lose it!

Well put.
jr. member
Activity: 42
Merit: 1
We should be able to test this empirically: if the theory is true, then, for example, we should never have a sustained period in the future where the total fees collected by miners is significantly greater than the aggregate losses due to orphaning.

Emphasis mine.

1) We definitely should. We must let the pressure build up and see if the network effect alone can hold it. Maybe even let the pressure leave for a while.
2) There is one little detail here, removal of the limit on block size makes the orphaning a non-issue as it opens the door for targeting higher bandwidth layers (those fiber optics under the ocean are waiting Smiley) where profit-driven miners would be incentivized to move sooner than later. They have little incentives to do that at the moment as the costs won't justify the effect with the current 1MB limit in place.



There are two costs that play against each other with Bitcoin.

1) First is the cost to transact on a single unified ledger that comes from the limit on block size (which incurs tx fees).
2) Second is cost to run a full validator of the protocol rules and transactions from home (ever growing blockchain).

The more transactions are allowed in the block the cheaper they become, but the costs of validating get higher as a result (and vice versa).



As of right now Bitcoin gives us two "keys" for our monetary sovereignty.

1) First is the "private key" from our coins that we can generate in a permissionless way and then use to receive and send money.
2) Second is the "key" to validate the fact that money we hold and use operate as intended by having permissionless access to blockchain.

The fees we pay in the network is the price to hold the second key, don't lose it!
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
Someone's working on this www.goabra.com

They aren't the only one and unfortunately one such business in Africa recently shut down its operation (don't have a link sorry).

For sure Bitcoin should be *owning* this area as things like Western Union are entirely ridiculous (as much as 50% fees for people sending small amounts to African countries).

If people who support Bitcoin want to see "world changing stuff" then I think they should want to see the end of ripping people off to send money overseas rather than worrying about buying a coffee with their smartphone.


Is Abra using bitcoin?  I see they are using a blockchain, but don't see Bitcoin on their site.  

They are. The fact that they barely mention it is intentional as every operation and money transfers are denominated in local currency.

They use smart contracts w/ derivatives to avoid value fluctuations.
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 250
Earn with impressio.io
Someone's working on this www.goabra.com

They aren't the only one and unfortunately one such business in Africa recently shut down its operation (don't have a link sorry).

For sure Bitcoin should be *owning* this area as things like Western Union are entirely ridiculous (as much as 50% fees for people sending small amounts to African countries).

If people who support Bitcoin want to see "world changing stuff" then I think they should want to see the end of ripping people off to send money overseas rather than worrying about buying a coffee with their smartphone.


Is Abra using bitcoin?  I see they are using a blockchain, but don't see Bitcoin on their site. 
sr. member
Activity: 504
Merit: 250
Earn with impressio.io
-snip-
Note that if I had used by credit card I could just "tap to pay" but if I use BTC they'll have to find their person that knows how to do the tx (and many stories on this forum show that places that accept BTC only have one person that even knows how to do that) and muck around with QR codes (which will take at least 5x as long as tap and go does).

And in order to get the BTC you would have most likely had to set up an account at an exchange (requiring all sorts of ID checks) or gone through an even more complicated procedure (risking being targeted as some sort of tax evader by using localbitcoins).
Why on earth would anyone do that?
Your post makes zero logical sense to me. What are you talking about? Are you telling me that you did not have to set up an back account to receive your credit card? Did it fall from the sky loaded with money? The procedure is seemingly similar aside from some fees when buying. Basically you had to set up a bank account and receive your CC. Then you proceed to load it with money and use it.
With Bitcoin, you set up an account at a exchange. Then you proceed to load it with money and buy Bitcoin. Then you transfer back your Bitcoin and use it. There's just 1 additional step in this. It's not even complicated. The problem is that people are closed minded and do not like change.

It seems that a lot of people here are just living in some sort of "fantasy land" in which BTC is able to be acquired for zero fees or hassles.
I do agree with this though.

Why would that be preferable to cash or credit cards?  As much as I'd like to see bitcoin be accepted everywhere, it is just not likely to compete on ease of use. So, why go through that hassle?  

Setting up an account isn't easy and has a waiting period here.  Also, at the only pub I found that accepts bitcoins, they don't accept them for alcohol, only food.  

Now, if I were paid in Bitcoins, then, yes, I'd want to spend them without having to convert them to fiat and pay conversion fees.  This isn't rocket science.  We want to spend the money we receive, and payroll is how most people receive money.

To abstract his point higher, I agree with another who said it needs to be a store of value first.  Because, then you have a savings, and may want to at some point spend that savings.  However, short of regular Bitcoin income, this would likely foster spending in higher ticket items than coffee, like maybe buying a new computer or phone.


full member
Activity: 196
Merit: 100
scalability and taxability resolved: http://taler.net/

Taxable Anonymous Libre Electronic Reserves

go for it n00bs! Grin

Unsure if sarcasm, if it is I'm sorry.
You should read this.
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner

I, want bigger blooooocks!
Cheesy
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
The plan is to replicate the hugely successful M-Pesa model worldwide but in a decentralized fashion.
...
They are IMHO one of the most promising Bitcoin companies out there. One which serves a true purpose and offers immediate value to their users.

I do hope they gain traction and agree that this is the kind of thing we really want to see to show off the Bitcoin potential.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
of course let's not sure make sure that Bitcoin is resilient to attacks from totalitarian governments and handicapped internet grids in war-torn countries and other areas of geo-political instabilities. because fuck these people right, they can't have Bitcoin, just too bad they weren't born in cozy north america  Undecided

much rather design it to work only in the la-la land of infinite growth where progress never stops and government are perfectly fine with Bitcoin challenging their monetary sovereignty

have you guys ever opened an history book? do you not see the debacle unfolding before your very eyes on the international scene? do you really imagine that the next decade is going to be some kind of rosy economic prosperity where citizens of the world and their government hold hands and sing kumbaya!?
In terms of resistance against government persecution there are different ways to look at it, I think that adoption is important because of how it relates to decentralization and security. If more people adopt Bitcoin it would by extension lead to more people running full nodes. It would also make Bitcoin more secure from suppression or persecution from governments or other entities. Since the more people that use Bitcoin the more difficult it will become to attack. In the history of file sharing for example, it was in part because of the shear number of people using it that prevented effective persecution, not because of anonymising technologies. More users and uses for Bitcoin gives Bitcoin more value, and therefore by extension more security because of the increased incentive for mining.
How has that worked for the last 2 years and a half? Again you ignore reality and make arguments based on fantasies.

Governments couldn't care less about file sharing, it has no impact on their ability to govern and only affects certain industries.

If you really believe that more Bitcoin adoption and therefore more challenge to the monetary sovereignty will not bring about more attacks and incentive to destroy Bitcoin then you are quite simply utterly clueless.
It is not a fantasy to think that when more people learn about Bitcoin that some of those people will start to run full nodes, I even know people where this has been the case recently. Furthermore the node count has actually increased recently, which is a positive effect that has been brought about because we now have multiple competing clients.

I'm ignoring you btw. Any conversation you are involved in is the same old boring story all over again. I can't be bothered with you anymore

hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
Someone's working on this www.goabra.com

They aren't the only one and unfortunately one such business in Africa recently shut down its operation (don't have a link sorry).

For sure Bitcoin should be *owning* this area as things like Western Union are entirely ridiculous (as much as 50% fees for people sending small amounts to African countries).

If people who support Bitcoin want to see "world changing stuff" then I think they should want to see the end of ripping people off to send money overseas rather than worrying about buying a coffee with their smartphone.


They aren't your typical remittance company.

They have money, they understand the importance of physical locations.

The plan is to replicate the hugely successful M-Pesa model worldwide but in a decentralized fashion.

Some quotes from the CEO:

Quote
Barhydt: "The Abra footprint needs to be more in the order of 20 to 30 million locations. Our goal is to build massive liquidity whether you're receiving a remittance or getting off a cruise ship, you can find a teller."

Quote
Barhydt says it is creating "master" network to deploy around the world. "This is a multi-year excercise. It took them years to have driver liquidity."

They've recently raised an additional 14M$ and seemingly have a great understanding of their target market:

Quote
Arbor sees huge potential for the Abra business model globally, but especially in China and Southeast Asia, which are traditionally large cash economies but leapfrogging into mobile payments and bypassing traditional banking and card infrastructure at an accelerating rate. Making cash mobile will unlock a lot of opportunities in these markets and across the region.

They are IMHO one of the most promising Bitcoin companies out there. One which serves a true purpose and offers immediate value to their users.
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
of course let's not sure make sure that Bitcoin is resilient to attacks from totalitarian governments and handicapped internet grids in war-torn countries and other areas of geo-political instabilities. because fuck these people right, they can't have Bitcoin, just too bad they weren't born in cozy north america  Undecided

much rather design it to work only in the la-la land of infinite growth where progress never stops and government are perfectly fine with Bitcoin challenging their monetary sovereignty

have you guys ever opened an history book? do you not see the debacle unfolding before your very eyes on the international scene? do you really imagine that the next decade is going to be some kind of rosy economic prosperity where citizens of the world and their government hold hands and sing kumbaya!?
In terms of resistance against government persecution there are different ways to look at it, I think that adoption is important because of how it relates to decentralization and security. If more people adopt Bitcoin it would by extension lead to more people running full nodes. It would also make Bitcoin more secure from suppression or persecution from governments or other entities. Since the more people that use Bitcoin the more difficult it will become to attack. In the history of file sharing for example, it was in part because of the shear number of people using it that prevented effective persecution, not because of anonymising technologies. More users and uses for Bitcoin gives Bitcoin more value, and therefore by extension more security because of the increased incentive for mining.
How has that worked for the last 2 years and a half? Again you ignore reality and make arguments based on fantasies.

Governments couldn't care less about file sharing, it has no impact on their ability to govern and only affects certain industries.

If you really believe that more Bitcoin adoption and therefore more challenge to the monetary sovereignty will not bring about more attacks and incentive to destroy Bitcoin then you are quite simply utterly clueless.
It is not a fantasy to think that when more people learn about Bitcoin that some of those people will start to run full nodes, I even know people where this has been the case recently. Furthermore the node count has actually increased recently, which is a positive effect that has been brought about because we now have multiple competing clients.
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
Someone's working on this www.goabra.com

They aren't the only one and unfortunately one such business in Africa recently shut down its operation (don't have a link sorry).

For sure Bitcoin should be *owning* this area as things like Western Union are entirely ridiculous (as much as 50% fees for people sending small amounts to African countries).

If people who support Bitcoin want to see "world changing stuff" then I think they should want to see the end of ripping people off to send money overseas rather than worrying about buying a coffee with their smartphone.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
You really don't.  People can buy BTC for dollars and then buy coffee.

You are kidding aren't you?

So I pay a % in order to by BTC for dollars then I buy a coffee making my coffee actually more expensive (and it took me the time to first change my dollars into BTC which I could have instead just used to by my coffee saving me that wasted time).

Note that if I had used by credit card I could just "tap to pay" but if I use BTC they'll have to find their person that knows how to do the tx (and many stories on this forum show that places that accept BTC only have one person that even knows how to do that) and muck around with QR codes (which will take at least 5x as long as tap and go does).

And in order to get the BTC you would have most likely had to set up an account at an exchange (requiring all sorts of ID checks) or gone through an even more complicated procedure (risking being targeted as some sort of tax evader by using localbitcoins).

Why on earth would anyone do that?

It seems that a lot of people here are just living in some sort of "fantasy land" in which BTC is able to be acquired for zero fees or hassles.


... i gotta start doing this.


and there you have it. the number one reason why people can't be bothered with Bitcoin for retail purchase: lazyness.
hero member
Activity: 644
Merit: 504
Bitcoin replaces central, not commercial, banks
some poeple say bitcoin isn't useful for low value transactions, and at the same time they are saying low value tx are clogging up the blocks.

somehow low value TX using bitcoin are both not useful and popular?

Maybe take a look at what these "low value transactions" actually are.

To help you out let's say "stupid ad-sig campaigns that pay people to post rubbish in this forum" and "idiotic gambling systems like Satoshi Dice" and then more recently simply "stress testing rubbish txs".

So basically you're in favour of increasing the block size so we can have "more rubbish posts" and "more idiotic gambling systems" and "more useless stress tests". Did I miss anything (apart from the ridiculous coffees that no-one is buying)?

If Bitcoin can't do remittance then basically it has failed (as that is the biggest 'low hanging fruit" in the entire financial system).


Someone's working on this www.goabra.com
hero member
Activity: 546
Merit: 500
I never said this.

Here:
that somehow Bitcoins success is guaranteed even if we all just sit on our holdings while having no regard to its utility.
This is incredible you are blatantly quoting me out of context, I was actually criticizing your view on transnational utility. Also I will put it in better context by including the next sentence of this quote:

that somehow Bitcoins success is guaranteed even if we all just sit on our holdings while having no regard to its utility. This in my opinion is not correct.

I disagree, I even personally have ideological reasons for why I prefer using cryptocurrency over traditional payment and monetary systems. If I can no longer do this on the Bitcoin blockchain I will simply move to another blockchain that does allow me to do this. Which relates to my point about competition as well.

I don't care if you disagree "for personal reasons". It is still absolutely true. Bitcoin has an absolutely poor value proposition from a consumer standpoint. If you propose the opposite then you are simply not being honest.
I am being honest, I use it for many things, furthermore that does not even matter. If I believe in Bitcoin for these ideological reasons then other people can as well.

I disagree, I prefer Bitcoin. If I could use it for everything I would.

You are part of an microscopic minority. 99% of the world's population will side with me on this
Most of the worlds population does not even know what Bitcoin is and they most certainly would not understand the pros and cons of increasing the blocksize, so I do not see how the majority of the worlds population siding with you is even relevant. Popular believe should never be a measure for a personal understanding of truth.

I am not advocating for pushing dangerous changes to Bitcoin, I actually think that we should not increase the blocksize beyond conservative projected estimates of the technical limitations for running a full node, mainly bandwidth actually. A guideline could be that most people should be able to run a full node from their homes if they live in the developed world. So please do not mischaracterize my views as dangerous unless you do think that what I have just described is actually dangerous.
You have dangerous views because you attempt to politicize everything and are absolutely ignorant of some critical technical details.
This is ad hominem.

It is not a case of either or, Bitcoin can have notable transnational utility and have a sound monetary theory while remaining decentralized and censorship resistant. These properties are not mutually exclusive, they are actually synergistic. It is a false dichotomy to think that we must choose. Increasing the utility of Bitcoin allows it to be a better store of value. Being a better store of value in turn also allows Bitcoin to function more effectively as payment system. Bitcoin can be many things simultaneously and be different things to different people at the same time, we should not try and restrict Bitcoin.

You're fighting a strawman here. You didn't address my point that Bitcoin as a store-of-value has been the driver of economic growth so far and this is absolutely undisputable.
I am not arguing a straw man here, because you are creating a false dichotomy between currency, store of value and monetary freedom, when Bitcoin can be all of these things simultaneously. I have addressed your point, Bitcoin as a store of wealth has been a driver for the economic growth of Bitcoin, however so has its use as a currency. Even people with "ideological" motivations have been drivers for the economic growth of Bitcoin along with many other factors.

It will take more time for Bitcoin to be more commonly be accepted as a means of exchange, for some people there are certain psychological barriers to overcome considering some of the anarchistic aspects of Bitcoin, currency without centralized authority. For me Bitcoin is much more then currency, it is trust without centralized authority which can be applied to many applications, including currency. For me the political benefits of using Bitcoin as a currency, as well as a store of value, would have profound effects on global economics and political power. Money is power, Bitcoin changes the fundamental nature of power. The benifits of this are not as easily measured because the true cost of the current financial system is borne through externalities like quantitative easing, regulatory capture, inefficiencies, corruption ect.

The currency and means-of-exchange utility will come in due time, but not before Bitcoin has asserted itself as a dominant economic store of wealth. By that I mean that before we can truly enjoy the promises of Bitcoin as a transnational currency we need to increase its market cap by several orders of magnitude.
It seems like increasing the market cap seems to be the most important thing for you, I disagree. You are again setting up a false choice these things are not mutually exclusive they are synergistic.

It seems like you are implying that a conservative blocksize increase would compromise monetary freedom when that is not the case. Again you are setting up a false dichotomy, a false choice. Increasing the block size does not compromise monetary freedom.

Yes, blocksize increase under mostly all of the current propositions paraded by their proponents would absolutely lead to the slow death of Bitcoin as a tool for monetary freedom.
You keep saying this but you have not backed it up with any evidence or reasoning whatsoever. Why and how does increasing the blocksize lead to the death of monetary freedom?

I am not making the generalization of what a user is

Yes you are. You argue that without increase in the transaction throughput (block size) Bitcoin cannot attract more users. This is wrong. You pretend that those looking for cheap alternatives will turn to another cryptocurrency and that this is a danger for Bitcoin. This is wrong.
I am not saying that Bitcoin cannot attract more users without increasing the blocksize. However I do think that allowing transactions to become unreliable and the fee to become prohibitively expensive would deter some people from using Bitcoin and using an alternative cryptocurrency instead, myself included, especially if this is because of an arbitrary restriction and not because of the technical limitations at the time.

I think that we should account for many different users of Bitcoin not just the "bankers, lawyers, accountants, government officials" whom you however are saying who the users should be which is a much worse generalization to make, furthermore I would consider that "prohibitive" for most people, myself included.

You are misrepresenting what I said. My comment was that the only alternatives for some people or generally capital worldwide to escape capital control is to pay astronomical fees to "bankers, lawyers, accountants, government officials". In contrast, a 20$ transaction fee to transact on the Bitcoin blockchain is negligible, especially when referring to transactions worth millions of dollars.
You are correct I did misunderstand what you said there, However I would still consider transactions worth millions of dollars to be to prohibitive of a use case, especially since we can do both of these things without sacrificing decentralization and financial freedom, it would actually be the best way to preserve these principles.

If the fee market determines that this the price for transacting on the Bitcoin network based on the technical limitations of the time then it would be justified and I would use an altcoin instead.

Your altcoin will be worthless and will likely have no liquidity. You will therefore use an alternative that seeks to leverage the network effect and value of Bitcoin: LN, voting pools, off-chain.
They will gain more liquidity when transactions on the Bitcoin network become unreliable and prohibitively expensive. I do not believe that this would happen though since the blocksize will most likely be increased before this happens, whether it be with or without Core.

However that would not be the case if we left the limit at one megabyte since that does not presently represent the median of our current technical limitations, since it is just an arbitrary limit after all.

Every limit in Bitcoin is arbitrary, this argument is absolutely worthless. You also ignore that the resources to run a full node are already pushing the limits of some typical household computer and internet connection. Again you show you technical ineptitude by suggesting we use "the median". What we need to target is lower bound. This is a security-critical system whose main property needs to be resiliency, not efficiency. Therefore we plan and design for worst case scenarios
This argument is not worthless and not every limit in Bitcoin is arbitrary, Difficulty is based on hashing power and the supply curve of Bitcoin is based on gold. I can agree with you that the target can be lower bound if you consider the lower bound to be that the majority of people in the developed world should be able to run a full node from their home. However even if I accept your lower bound target it would still follow that one megabyte would not reflect that today and certainly would not into the future, since it is after all an arbitrary restriction.

Gold was used as a currency for millennia and it has been a good store of value for most of its history simultaneously, these concepts are not incompatible and historically has been how human society has operated for the vast majority of recorded history.

Gold was scarcely used as a currency by the common man. They were typically too poor and would use silver or copper.
You are most definitely wrong in your understanding of history in this regard, precious metals including silver and gold have been used as the dominant currency for the majority of recorded history. Both being commodities that have been used as currencies. Here are just some examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guilder
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Achaemenid_coinage#Siglos
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solidus_%28coin%29
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stater
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
some poeple say bitcoin isn't useful for low value transactions, and at the same time they are saying low value tx are clogging up the blocks.

somehow low value TX using bitcoin are both not useful and popular?

Maybe take a look at what these "low value transactions" actually are.

To help you out let's say "stupid ad-sig campaigns that pay people to post rubbish in this forum" and "idiotic gambling systems like Satoshi Dice" and then more recently simply "stress testing rubbish txs".

So basically you're in favour of increasing the block size so we can have "more rubbish posts" and "more idiotic gambling systems" and "more useless stress tests". Did I miss anything (apart from the ridiculous coffees that no-one is buying)?

If Bitcoin can't do remittance then basically it has failed (as that is the biggest 'low hanging fruit" in the entire financial system).
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner
you get a Starbucks gift card, but you don't want coffee you want a more potent drug?
NO PROBLEM!
liquidate your Starbucks gift card for bitcoin and buy le durg!

Hmm... not sure what to make of that.

Anyway - I think this is all now rather OT so perhaps get back to bashing XT. Smiley


its sorta on topic

some poeple say bitcoin isn't useful for low value transactions, and at the same time they are saying low value tx are clogging up the blocks.

somehow low value TX using bitcoin are both not useful and popular?

i could ONE DAY see bitcoin being use for high value TX ( country A making a deal with country B ) but we arnt there yet, and we'll never get there if we fuck with its current usefulness ( low value TX at little to no cost )
legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
what about poeple that sell drugs for BTC?
they like coffee, they have bitcoins, they would like some coffee for their bitcoins.  Wink

Maybe so - but Silk Road was shut down quite a while back (and so were all the other such sites) so those who were still hoping to buy drugs for BTC would probably be now actually too afraid of being caught to even try that (so they are probably holding their BTC).

Also it is very clear you are not the original owner of your account as that forum member had never mentioned about buying drugs (some of us have been around on this forum long enough to detect when an account suddenly completely changes their personality).
legendary
Activity: 1904
Merit: 1037
Trusted Bitcoiner

People that keep on saying they want to buy coffees for BTC can really only be people who are sitting on a large stash of BTC that they got for very little (say 5 USD or less).


what about poeple that sell drugs for BTC?
they like coffee, they have bitcoins, they would like some coffee for their bitcoins.  Wink



legendary
Activity: 1890
Merit: 1086
Ian Knowles - CIYAM Lead Developer
you get a Starbucks gift card, but you don't want coffee you want a more potent drug?
NO PROBLEM!
liquidate your Starbucks gift card for bitcoin and buy le durg!

Hmm... not sure what to make of that.

Anyway - I think this is all now rather OT so perhaps get back to bashing XT. Smiley
Jump to: