Best TruStories of the Week - #5


Claim: Uncle blocks, which are used to reward miners when duplicate block solutions are found, contribute to the security of the main chain.


Category: Ethereum

Argument/Evidence: See original argument/evidence here which originally rejected this claim. This was, in fact, a false claim UNTIL the most recent Byzantium hard fork, during which uncle blocks were included in the difficulty algorithm. Thanks to @nicksdjohnson for pointing this out here. Source for this in geth can be found here.

Status: Confirmed


Challenge claim with 50 Cred.
I just checked up on this. It looks like this deal may have been considered but it never went through.
Cointelegraph ( published about it a few days after the Disruptblock and Forbes articles.

The Dash Merchant twitter account tweeted apologizing that the news was “premature” and "represented [thier] optimism rather than the current state discussions with KFC Venezuela.



wow. nice job digging this up! @jtierney


Stake: Challenge Claim - 50 cred

The reason that I am challenging it is mainly because the abstract lacks important details to define what “awareness” is and if “use” has actually increased. The full study is forthcoming, so perhaps these questions are answered more fully there.

They state in the original survey in 2016:

Awareness of Bitcoin in the BTCOS is measured by the response to the question, “Have you heard of Bitcoin?”.

Are they asking people if they have ever heard the term Bitcoin and considering that awareness, or is awareness supposed to imply more than that? They refined the questions to better understand the knowledge level of the responders in 2017 but then drew comparisons using ‘attempting to answer’ as a proxy for knowledge in the 2016 study. I think that is a stretch.

The total population surveyed was also quite small – 1,997 and 2,623 total. That does not seem like a large enough sample to be able to pull statistical significance from.

Finally their claim that “use” increased is questionable. They found an increased number of Bitcoin holders but a lower percentage of people transacting with it (versus holding it as an investment). That flags the debate of: is holding Bitcoin the same as using Bitcoin? It seems the overall holders increased but the % of those transacting in Bitcoin fell. I would not define that as increased use.


:100: I often find these sample sizes to be pretty small so I agree. I wonder if there is way to know what is a good enough sample size. @bhaumik any ideas?


The sample size is fine but I challenge the framing of the question.

If you go to a sample size calculator (e.g. SurveyMonkey), and input 37 million Canadians (source) for population, 95% for confidence interval, and 5% for margin of error, 385 is considered a sufficient sample size. Even if we reduce margin of error to 2%, we still only need 2401. If you’re curious, the formula for calculating sample size is listed on that link as well.

RE: methodology, the authors should have structured the question differently to leave room for a “don’t know” or “not sure” option.

This Census Burea paper articulates why:

Nice digging @SadieRaney. I’d also Challenge the claim with 50 Cred for the poor question choice.


I just watched the video, What is Coin Burn?, offered by Binance Academy. The videos and tutorials are organized by four categories: blockchain, security, economics, and tutorials. Thus far, I’ve enjoyed using this platform for the following reasons:

  • It’s well-organized
  • Videos are accompanied by related notes and visual learning aids
  • Their glossary lists terms related to an entry when applicable
  • Intuitive UI
  • If users have suggestions for videos, tutorials, and or articles that will expand their understanding of crypto and blockchain-related concepts, there’s an option to make and forward the request

Thanks for posting.


Great to hear! Then need to check it out myself now too.