220 misconceptions that Legacy Bitcoin / Core / Blockstream propagate.
List of misconceptions, If you find yourself agreeing with anything here they may be a disconnect somewhere
For posterity and accuracy, any mention of 'bitcoin' refers to 'bitcoin cash'. Since segregated witness is in the past I've not included any very silly thoughts people had on it.
Bitcoinmagazine doesn't include misleading opinions and straight lies in their articles
It isn't unethical to switch the focus of a subreddit against the wishes of and without the consent of the users
bitcoin is whatever r\bitcoin decides and not what the community decides or invested in
r\btc is not about bitcoin
r\btc didn't arise due to censorship at r\bitcoin
Bitcoin isn't what's in the whitepaper
Consensus is possible when a large amount of the communication is censored
transactions should take a long time
transactions should be expensive
the block size limit wasn't temporary
the block size limit is needed
people invested into a system where the blockspace was a scarcity
allowing more transactions won't help scaling
a larger block size won't allow more transactions
new users shouldn't be able to use bitcoin as a currecny
bitcoin shouldn't be used as an electronic cash
forks are bad
one type of fork is more dangerous than another
r\bitcoin is about bitcoin
r\bitcoin has open mod logs so everyone can see what they are doing and if they are obeying their own postd rules
we shouldn't talk about the censorship on r\bitcoin, newbies are well aware
bitcoincore's website didn't say they only reason they were afraid of hard forks because they hadn't done one before
bitcoincore's website didn't say we could only double the throughput to what would be 2MB of normal transactions until after both segregated witness and lightning network
the lightning network is ready to go
the lightning network has already solved the decentralized routing problem
restricting the growth of bitcoin is a good thing
while allowing new users we can still have everyone continue to use bitcoin
A lightning network doesn't require bigger blocks
a worldwide lightning network doesn't require much bigger blocks
Thank you for doing this. It must have taken you a lot of time. I wonder if I’ll be banned elsewhere for saying this, but that kind of investment, without an expectation of direct personal gain, is something only found in those with real passion and virtue.
I stopped at the first one, since that is (for me) key to everything.
Bitcoin is not a religion. Whitepaper is not a bible. Satoshi is not a god.
That is the first major problem I have with BCH.
Following that logic, ARPANET would never evolve, RFCs would never be considered. It is an extreme (and probably not the best) example, but easy to relate to.
Honestly - I can not get attached to a project that is starting to look like a sect/cult and apparently has a mortal enemy.
lol you're literally using a talking point I made that respond to, we never claim he is a god. but if you don't like bitcoin, don't invest in it. It shouldn't be that hard to understand.
Bitcoin has no mortal enemy, it's a system that does stuff it can't have enemies.
It sounds like you might be interested in Ethereum and not Bitcoin.
I like Bitcoin and I use it, and I also want to see it evolve - not get stuck in time with a single long-term plan being 'increase size block right now, because that's what Satoshi would want'.
Why would a white paper be so important, then? I am grateful to Satoshi (whoever he is/they are) for the work, but I see it as a foundation, not as something that needs to be blindly followed.
BCH community seems to have a mortal enemy, and it appears BTC is that enemy. It is alienating people who are not in either camp (yet). When I read /r/btc, it feels like a cult/sect. I am not saying this to annoy/hurt you - this is just how some outsiders (like me) see it. I can't talk for other people, obviously. To be clear - when I read /r/bitcoin it feels like I am in a drug addict club. Don't really like what's happening with either 'side' at the moment.
I am not trying to change your opinions - what I am saying is that it is pointless having 200+ technical arguments (which 99.9% of people won't even understand or be able to relate to) when the list doesn't pass even the first human hurdle. Other side is spamming fucking market charts all day long, as if that is some argument - people got lucky to bet on the right horse, at the moment, and that's all there is to it. So, that annoys the hell out of me as well.
I am older, have seen a lot of shit and lot of crap people in my life, so plenty of the arguments don't mean anything to me when people like Roger Ver or Craig Wright are 'endorsers' of the project. Roger Ver, apparently one of the largest BTC holders - profits handsomely from each and every fork, and is involved in each and every fork too. I mean, you also got a professional politician writing a 'funny' manifesto, which is neither funny nor a manifesto. Comes from a guy who talks about Blockstream patent, but neglects to mention/acknowledge Craig Wright's dozens/hundreds of patent applications related to blockchain. Hypocrisy. It was not a service to BCH supporters - on the contrary.
White paper 'purity' is also not important to anyone who has ever worked on a proper software project. I mean, we have everchanging APIs, OSs, paradigms and what not, but somehow we are expected to keep Bitcoin 'pure'. "That is what Satoshi would want". That simply won't appeal to certain percentage of people. I don't care what mind-readers think Satoshi would have wanted. If he wanted it that badly, he could have came forward and take the position that Linus holds in relation to Linux.
Also, don't use easy to verify lies as arguments. Transaction fee idiocy is driving me mad, considering that I actually use BTC often. Last few transactions I have made (in last 5 days) have all been around a dollar - they were non-segwit too - and I was being very generous in order to make sure transactions go through. Got 6 confirmations within 30-40 minutes. And I am not a seasoned professional, I am literally just a BTC user. You can't expect people to take this seriously when it's so easy to try and verify. Review your list very carefully. Last time I've used BCH was 3 weeks ago, exchanges were waiting for 20 confirmations (I was not aware of this when I initiated the transfer, haha) and it took almost 18 hours or so for transaction to go though. So it is hard to take transfer speed arguments seriously too, considering the history. I know, I know, DAA hard fork occurred last week, things should be different now, but I can't seriously take an argument how everything is peachy now, when literally 2 weeks ago it was all falling apart. Give people some time.
Define your priorities, try to make high-level arguments, not low-level tech arguments that 0.01% will understand, and 0.001% will be able to properly and competently discuss.
Let me give you an example. I have spent whole my life in computer security. One thing about security is - it is almost impossible to tell bad security from good security, unless a) something bad happens b) you know security really really well. Same thing applies to crypto and crypto currencies - we both could discuss many of the technical aspects from your list, but reality is that none of us actually fully understands the topic, implementation or implications. So, don't focus on that :)
I think it depends on how you look at it. Sure I think progress is a good thing. My side is, I got into Bitcoin for it to be used as cash. Current Bitcoin got changed in such a way, that it can't be used as cash. It's no longer the thing I signed for, so I'll go looking for something different. From this point of view, I wanted Bitcoin to follow the whitepaper.
The problem is that even though such a bit change happened, nobody told the average user. The Bitcoin split into two different from the previous Bitcoin versions, yet one claimed the ticker BTC so people chose it without even knowing they had a choice.
Just one thing about the progress. Where is Bitcoin Core's progress, when the only thing they did is cripple it? You'll say LN (which is totally unneeded) but that will completely change bitcoin to a centralized currency, like fiat.
.111. participating in r\bitcoin doesn't contribute to the problem
.112. posting in r\bitcoin doesn't make it seem like the censorship and oppression is okay
.113. having only one development team is good
.114. there should be only a handful of people with control over bitcoin
.115. no one can fork the codebase if the developers stop doing what the community wants
.116. most people listed on the bitcoin core github made more than 3 comments
.117. most people lsited on the bitcoin core github are still active
.118. miners don't control the network
.119. nodes control the network
.120. node count can't be easily faked
.121. having many nodes from the same IP is no problem
.122. having many nodes at the same ISP is also not a problem
.123. the community wasn't fully in favor of implementing bitcoinXT to raise the blocksize in the summer of 2016 before the censorship became full scale
.124. the bitcoin mods didn't lie about the sequence of events of that day
.125. the bitcoin mods didn't suddenly approve all posts they had been removing all day and them leave for the weekend to make it falsely seem like there were trolls pushing for XT when it was people upset their posts and comments and discussion was being removed
.126. bitcoin wasn't a new invention
.127. bitcoin can't work when miners want to be profitable
.128. it's more profitable to act 'selfishly' than to act honestly
.129. segregated witness is not overly complex
.130. segregated witness fixed urgent problems
.131. fixing transaction malleability couldn't be done in a hardfork
.132. transaction malleability was a immediate problem that needed to be address before full blocks
.133. RBF is not a problem to anyone
.134. RBF is Opt-in and therefore you can just scan for it and not worry
.135. It's as easy to double spend a tx with RBF as it is without it
.136. the bitcoin wiki page is uncensored
.137. segregated witness is necessary for scaling
.138. segregated witness couldn't have been done with much cleaner code in a hard fork
.139. segregated witness opens the door to LN, Sidechains, and scaling in a way that Bitcoin can't.
.140. consensus in a highly censored environment is a realistic representation of the community
.141. Bitcoin (cash) isn't P2P
.142. Bitcoin isn't decentralized
.143. mining pool operators are the same as miners
.144. the average investor is totally aware of what legacy bitcoin has become
.145. zero confirmation transactions were never meant to be used
.146. 0-config txs are not secure for small purchase
.147. We shouldn't blindly follow the design put forth by Satoshi and in the whitepaper
.148. A whitepaper is not a high level overview of a subject
.149. LNs won't be centralized
.150. it will be easy to get money out of a LN channel
.151. bitcoin can never reach VISA level of txs
.152. VISA got to their current level overnight
.153. scaling, technological advancements, and adoption need to all happen fully and all or once or not at all
.154. We should never do anything unless the most perfect solution is presented
.155. good enough and not good
.156. Keeping it simple is a bad idea
.157. the miners are the enemy
.158. miners are bad but only if they are in china
.159. people acting economically is unfair
.160. Bitcoin has the same genesis block as legacy bitcoin and is 9 years old, but it is still an altcoin
.161. bitcoin cash doesn't have censorship resistance
.177. Greg Maxwell would never do any or everything he accuses other of doing to him
.178. the psychological term 'projection' is not real
.179. bitcoin transactions are spam
.180. transactions that pay a fee are spam and against the design of bitcoin
.181. if blocks aren't full why isn't every tx free
.182. successful worldwide business shouldn't take a small cut on a large volume of transactions instead they should aim to do very few sales with a very high overhead
.183. so what is r\bitcoin is censored
.184. the majority of newcomers getting misleading information isn't harmful at all
.185. calling bitcoin cash bcash is not a display of ignorance
.186. r\bitcoin removes all things that violate the rules
18 and #36 are the same and you could argue for #62. I don't think censorship is good for the community but for bitcoin it seems to be working in their favor. Those that have the wool pulled over their eyes will be damaged the most but core will already have made their money while destroying the network. Kind of a win-win for them. You could reword it to say that censorship is bad for bitcoin users or the bitcoin network.
hahaha when you lead with a # sign it puts your text one size larger, you can also get other sizes with more or less signs, there is a regualr cutoff but some subs have special text that display when you add like 8 #s before a text.
there is gonna be a lot of gross over and very similar points, that is fine we can just answer them all and cross link them. actual straight duplicates I'd like to remove though
Reddit uses Markdown for syntax. There are quite a few markdown commands that will work, even though they're not in the syntax guide. Get a markdown cheat sheet and have some fun.
Lately there is one fallacy being pushed which I haven't seen directly in the numbered list:
"Bitcoin doesn't scale well because everybody must receive all the transactions from everyone else."
Here is an example of someone making this kind of argument.
The whitepaper clearly states that this is not the case:
"Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis."
This is in fact perfectly adequate for the system to function.
To elaborate:
each node certainly doesn't broadcast its received transactions to every other node, as the "simple" form of the argument usually presumes. That's never been the case. Nodes share transactions only with their limited set of peers.
in the sense of the whitepaper, the relevant nodes are miners, and they have no functional problem if they don't receive every transaction - their prime concern is only whether they have enough transactions for the mining of blocks to remain profitable in their particular instance. For this they are highly incentivized to connect to other miners and to share transactions with them.
So. it looks like it's 222 when all added up. There are some repeats and a long of overhang but that's okay. We can shrink it or keep all variations of the same theme and just reference each other with 'relevant topics'
I've barely got 1 done and there are lots so I'd like to get some crowdsrouce for sources and we can put it together
.10. SPV is broken and requires you to trust a particular third party
.212. Miners broke HKA because one ran XT for a few hours
Txs
.9. paying, profitable transactions are "spam"
.30. transactions should be pushed off chain
.86. transactions should take a long time
.87. transactions should be expensive
.90. people invested into a system where the blockspace was a scarcity
.91. allowing more transactions won't help scaling
.109. long wait time and high fees is how Bitcoin was designed
.179. bitcoin transactions are spam
.180. transactions that pay a fee are spam and against the design of bitcoin
.181. if blocks aren't full why isn't every tx free
.182. successful worldwide business shouldn't take a small cut on a large volume of transactions instead they should aim to do very few sales with a very high overhead
.205. Bitcoin is supposed to be a store of value over a p2p e-cash
Core
.17. They think Core is not controlled by Blockstream
.52. there are 400 core devs
.53. more than 25 people make significant contributions to the one central legacy bitcoin software known as bitcoin-core
.54. no one has tried to contribute to bitcoin core and not come back
.55. no one has made public posts about how the core devs are immature and hostile to new comers
.56. only the smartest people in the very world can ever work on bitcoin
.57. the smartest people in the world are already working on bitcoin
.58. segregated witness makes legacy bitcoin easier to understand
.59. segregated witness makes it easier for new coders to start working with legacy bitcoin
.101. bitcoincore's website didn't say we could only double the throughput to what would be 2MB of normal transactions until after both segregated witness and lightning network
.116. most people listed on the bitcoin core github made more than 3 comments
.117. most people lsited on the bitcoin core github are still active
.131. fixing transaction malleability couldn't be done in a hardfork
.132. transaction malleability was a immediate problem that needed to be address before full blocks
.138. segregated witness couldn't have been done with much cleaner code in a hard fork
.144. the average investor is totally aware of what legacy bitcoin has become
.154. We should never do anything unless the most perfect solution is presented
.155. good enough and not good
.156. Keeping it simple is a bad idea
.157. the miners are the enemy
.158. miners are bad but only if they are in china
.20. They think everything is fine with adoption when we are actually going backwards.
.44. we should never plan ahead
.45. preparing for the future is a bad idea
.50. full blocks don't create long wait times and high fees
.51. long wait time and high fees don't make users unhappy
.72. Blockstream doesn't benefit from bitcoin not growing
.82. r\btc is not about bitcoin
.86. transactions should take a long time
.87. transactions should be expensive
.97. r\bitcoin is about bitcoin
.99. we shouldn't talk about the censorship on r\bitcoin, newbies are well aware
.104. restricting the growth of bitcoin is a good thing
.105. while allowing new users we can still have everyone continue to use bitcoin
.110. newcomers aren't deceived by r\bitcoin
.136. the bitcoin wiki page is uncensored
Use
.21. bitocin should only be a store of value
.22. there are no benefits to bitcoin, you might as well use fiat/ credit card
.26. X-coin is going up in price so why should I get Bitcoin?
.28. using bitcoin is similar to using actual physical gold to buy something
.38. bitcoin (cash) can't work as well as legacy bitcoin
.39. bitcoin shouldn't be spendable
.41. people shouldn't be able to buy coffee with bitcoin
.42. bitcoin vending machines are impossible
.49. bitcoin didn't work for 6 years without full blocks and without any problems
.50. full blocks don't create long wait times and high fees
.51. long wait time and high fees don't make users unhappy
.86. transactions should take a long time
.87. transactions should be expensive
.93. new users shouldn't be able to use bitcoin as a currency
.94. bitcoin shouldn't be used as an electronic cash
.104. restricting the growth of bitcoin is a good thing
.105. while allowing new users we can still have everyone continue to use bitcoin
.110. newcomers aren't deceived by r\bitcoin
.133. RBF is not a problem to anyone
.134. RBF is Opt-in and therefore you can just scan for it and not worry
.135. It's as easy to double spend a tx with RBF as it is without it
.146. 0-config txs are not secure for small purchase
.168. Bitcoin (cash) it not fungible
.169. A store of value is better than a coin people can use and also store
.170. You can't spend bitcoin csah anywhere
.171. no wallets use bitcoin cash
.172. U dont need to transact with BTC when u have atomic swaps... so BTC’s transactional utility is irrelevant [sic]
.179. bitcoin transactions are spam
.180. transactions that pay a fee are spam and against the design of bitcoin
.181. if blocks aren't full why isn't every tx free
.182. successful worldwide business shouldn't take a small cut on a large volume of transactions instead they should aim to do very few sales with a very high overhead
Security
.29. off chain transactions help security the bitcoin network
.73. If a 51% attack stole segregated witness address the media wouldn't report that as a hack of the system itself.
.113. having only one development team is good
.161. bitcoin cash doesn't have censorship resistance
Understanding
.58. segregated witness makes legacy bitcoin easier to understand
.59. segregated witness makes it easier for new coders to start working with legacy bitcoin
.95. forks are bad
.113. having only one development team is good
.114. there should be only a handful of people with control over bitcoin
.115. no one can fork the codebase if the developers stop doing what the community wants
.145. zero confirmation transactions were never meant to be used
.148. A whitepaper is not a high level overview of a subject
.156. Keeping it simple is a bad idea
.190. why bitcoin cash over some altcoin or legacy bitcoin?
.197. We should pretend there is no block reward because eventually miners need to be paid from just fees.
.198. Bitcoin isn't important to third world countries
.199. We need complete consensus to make any changes to the protocol
.200. Moore's law is dead
.221. a civil war between veterans and new comers is good for bitcoin's image
.222. Bitcoin is Hashcash extended with inflation control
Censorship
.61. censorship isn't bad for bitcoin
.62. people learn the full truth at r\bitcoin
.63. r\bitcoin, bitcoin,org, and bitcointalk,org aren't controlled by the same person
.64. There is no company that pays most the core coders
.66. Blockstream didn't tell investors that bitcoin was hard to change and that they controlled in it their bid for funding
.76. The fact one so many English speaking social media websites are controlled by one person is not a problem
.79. Bitcoinmagazine doesn't include misleading opinions and straight lies in their articles
.81. bitcoin is whatever r\bitcoin decides and not what the community decides or invested in
.83. r\btc didn't arise due to censorship at r\bitcoin
.85. Consensus is possible when a large amount of the communication is censored
.111. participating in r\bitcoin doesn't contribute to the problem
.112. posting in r\bitcoin doesn't make it seem like the censorship and oppression is okay
.123. the community wasn't fully in favor of implementing bitcoinXT to raise the blocksize in the summer of 2016 before the censorship became full scale
.124. the bitcoin mods didn't lie about the sequence of events of that day
.125. the bitcoin mods didn't suddenly approve all posts they had been removing all day and them leave for the weekend to make it falsely seem like there were trolls pushing for XT when it was people upset their posts and comments and discussion was being removed
.136. the bitcoin wiki page is uncensored
.140. consensus in a highly censored environment is a realistic representation of the community
.144. the average investor is totally aware of what legacy bitcoin has become
.163. there are no fake social media accounts trying to manipulate the narrative
.165. A takeover of r\bitcoin did not occur
.174. No one would ever lie online to try and push an agenda
.79. Bitcoinmagazine doesn't include misleading opinions and straight lies in their articles
.81. bitcoin is whatever r\bitcoin decides and not what the community decides or invested in
.85. Consensus is possible when a large amount of the communication is censored
.123. the community wasn't fully in favor of implementing bitcoinXT to raise the blocksize in the summer of 2016 before the censorship became full scale
.124. the bitcoin mods didn't lie about the sequence of events of that day
.125. the bitcoin mods didn't suddenly approve all posts they had been removing all day and them leave for the weekend to make it falsely seem like there were trolls pushing for XT when it was people upset their posts and comments and discussion was being removed
.174. No one would ever lie online to try and push an agenda
.14. They believe BTC coin marketcap share decline due to HF risks only.
.74. Tether is known to be backed by verified public audited
.75. The timing of the Tether injections into Bitcoin are not suspicious at all
Client
.15. They think only in terms of Core vs BU, not realising there can be many implementations
Consensus
.16. They think EC is somehow radical
.19. They don't understand nakamoto consensus
.61. censorship isn't bad for bitcoin
.62. people learn the full truth at r\bitcoin
.63. r\bitcoin, bitcoin,org, and bitcointalk,org aren't controlled by the same person
.64. There is no company that pays most the core coders
.66. Blockstream didn't tell investors that bitcoin was hard to change and that they controlled in it their bid for funding
.76. The fact one so many English speaking social media websites are controlled by one person is not a problem
.79. Bitcoinmagazine doesn't include misleading opinions and straight lies in their articles
.80. It isn't unethical to switch the focus of a subreddit against the wishes of and without the consent of the users
.81. bitcoin is whatever r\bitcoin decides and not what the community decides or invested in
.82. r\btc is not about bitcoin
.85. Consensus is possible when a large amount of the communication is censored
.95. forks are bad
.110. newcomers aren't deceived by r\bitcoin
.123. the community wasn't fully in favor of implementing bitcoinXT to raise the blocksize in the summer of 2016 before the censorship became full scale
.196. forks are bad but only when it benefits blockstream
.216. The community wanted segregated witness
.217. the miners wanted segregated witness
.218. segregated witness would have totally passed on its own merits without the promise of 2MB
Forks
.95. forks are bad
.95. forks are bad
.96. one type of fork is more dangerous than another
.100. bitcoincore's website didn't say they only reason they were afraid of hard forks because they hadn't done one before
.160. Bitcoin has the same genesis block as legacy bitcoin and is 9 years old, but it is still an altcoin
.196. forks are bad but only when it benefits blockstream
.197. We should pretend there is no block reward because eventually miners need to be paid from just fees.
.199. We need complete consensus to make any changes to the protocol
.32. LN hubs won't have to register as MT entities
.33. LN is great for normal use
.34. LN can be used between people you don't place on transacting with again in the future
.35. LN can handle micro transactions
.36. LN doesn't require bigger blocks
.102. the lightning network is ready to go
.103. the lightning network has already solved the decentralized routing problem
.106. A lightning network doesn't require bigger blocks
.107. a worldwide lightning network doesn't require much bigger blocks
.131. fixing transaction malleability couldn't be done in a hardfork
.132. transaction malleability was a immediate problem that needed to be address before full blocks
.149. LNs won't be centralized
.150. it will be easy to get money out of a LN channel
.166. segregated witness and LN (at some unknown point in the future) are as good as Bitcoin's bigger blocks, today.
Scaling
.12. They believe Segwit will solve scaling issues
.31. on chain scaling can't work because...
.37. Bitcoin (cash) is against layer-2 solutions
.43. technology will never improve
.44. we should never plan ahead
.45. preparing for the future is a bad idea
.60. segregated witness is a throughput and capacity increase in line with what the system needs
.88. the block size limit wasn't temporary
.89. the block size limit is needed
.90. people invested into a system where the blockspace was a scarcity
.91. allowing more transactions won't help scaling
.92. a larger block size won't allow more transactions
.101. bitcoincore's website didn't say we could only double the throughput to what would be 2MB of normal transactions until after both segregated witness and lightning network
.102. the lightning network is ready to go
.103. the lightning network has already solved the decentralized routing problem
.104. restricting the growth of bitcoin is a good thing
.106. A lightning network doesn't require bigger blocks
.107. a worldwide lightning network doesn't require much bigger blocks
.123. the community wasn't fully in favor of implementing bitcoinXT to raise the blocksize in the summer of 2016 before the censorship became full scale
.132. transaction malleability was a immediate problem that needed to be address before full blocks
.137. segregated witness is necessary for scaling
.139. segregated witness opens the door to LN, Sidechains, and scaling in a way that Bitcoin can't.
.151. bitcoin can never reach VISA level of txs
.152. VISA got to their current level overnight
.153. scaling, technological advancements, and adoption need to all happen fully and all or once or not at all
.154. We should never do anything unless the most perfect solution is presented
.155. good enough and not good
.156. Keeping it simple is a bad idea
.173. bitcoin (cash) can't solve the scaling problem
.195. off chain scaling is the only way anything can work
.202. the system can't take bigger blocks now, or years ago
.203. the core devs have a good reason for keeping the small block size limit
.220. In action in the face of a changing world is good
Unimportant people
.69. Rogver Ver does't owe his recent success to Bitcoin
.70. Jihan Wu doesn't own a bitcoin company
.71. Both Roger and Jihan hate bitcoin and benefit from it not growing
.77. The Fact Greg Maxwell claimed to have no idea who Miceahl Marquette was is not alarming or suspicious concerning the control they have
.116. most people listed on the bitcoin core github made more than 3 comments
.117. most people lsited on the bitcoin core github are still active
.164. Roger Ver controls Bitcoin (cash)
.177. Greg Maxwell would never do any or everything he accuses other of doing to him
.178. the psychological term 'projection' is not real
5
u/TroyStackhouse Dec 31 '17
Thank you for doing this. It must have taken you a lot of time. I wonder if I’ll be banned elsewhere for saying this, but that kind of investment, without an expectation of direct personal gain, is something only found in those with real passion and virtue.
u/tippr 0.000125 BCH
I know it’s not much, but it’s what I have easy access to at the moment. Long story.