Hi! Welcome to this extended talk on composition with knowledge assumptions. I'm Tom Skerber, and this is joint work with my co-authors and supervisors, Agilos Kias and Paul Weiss, who's done at the University of Edinburgh at Agilos Kias. So I want to start a bit with our motivation, and if you've dealt with both knowledge assumptions and compositional systems before, then you're probably already familiar with this, but at the core these are both two very very useful concepts, and for knowledge assumptions they're useful because they often give succinctness where it would otherwise be impossible. The core idea of knowledge assumptions in many ways is that a short message can imply knowledge of something much larger, and this is something which is quite hard to do if you're not making assumptions about it. And in compositional systems you have a tendency to lose sight of the bigger picture of how cryptographic primitives actually end up being used, and it can be a large problem if they're used in ways that are not inherently secure, especially if they're interacting, perhaps negatively, with other cryptographic primitives somewhere else on the system. Perhaps there are shared secrets or shared messages that are being given to both systems, and there are correlations that can be drawn between these. This is something which you want to avoid, and compositional security gives you a very nice way of reasoning about why this does not happen in certain constructions. Now unfortunately the two tend to conflict, and we've seen in practice that this is because of the reliance on white box extraction in knowledge assumptions for the most part, and I'll get into that in a few slides. But essentially, especially when we've looked at this through the lens of how our ZK Snarks modeled, which was our primary motivation for this work, we ran into two approaches, and the first was, well, let's make a Snark protocol more complex and no longer as succinct in order to make it usable in a composable setting. So what's done here is often the witness is encrypted as part of the Snark proof, and this makes the proof both more expensive because you now need to prove correct encryption, and also it makes it longer and not succinct anymore because it contains the witness by definition. The other direction we've seen is an approach of we have composition up to non-interactive zero knowledge and assume that Snarks do that securely, and this is something that many works take, and some do this explicitly and say we are going to instantiate this with Snark, and we know that that doesn't fit into compositional frameworks, but we're going to do it anyway. This is obviously not satisfactory. There's a gap in the security analysis there, and it's a gap that should be filled. So to start with, I'm going to do a very brief recap of both compositional security and of knowledge assumptions to make sure that we're all on the same page. Now compositional security generally tends to be a fairly simple premise, which is you have some protocol of interacting systems on the left-hand side. Now they don't need to be interacting, but they tend to be, and you want to show that a series of interactions with something external, and this is usually where it gets instance instructions from, so these might be your proof or your verify or encrypt or whatever messages your protocol takes. These are the external interactions. We want to prove that this corresponds to some setting where you've got a trusted third party dealing with these, with everything, but with the same messages, and this isn't quite the entirety of the story. It gets a little bit more complicated than that, obviously, and one of the things that make this slightly more complicated in the compositional setting is the notion of an anniversary, and this notion is more complicated because usually in the real world we want to give the adversary quite a lot of power. It's denoted here through the dashed interfaces, and we want to have them have power over things like what are the exact ciphertexts that are being sent, be able to observe all network messages, this kind of power, which is a very large attack surface that our trusted third party here probably doesn't replicate, and in fact it shouldn't. We wanted the trusted third party to be an ideal of how this should be implemented, and so it would be ideal if it had a reduced attack surface, one which is secure by definition. That's what's usually done, and then in order to have any sense of equivalence, we need to expand this attack surface again. We need to show that this can be, that the larger attack surface can be replicated with it, and that's the task of the simulator that gives simulation security its name. So this simulator interacts with both the reduced attack surface and the larger attack surface that it provides in order to be equivalent with the real world protocol. Now the only thing that's left there and where the notion of composition really comes in is what does this indistinguishability notion, this equivalence between the two sides mean, and in practice what's done is a distinguishing environment to see. Now terminology is a little bit of an issue here that the two largest systems are universal composition and constructive cryptography, and our work follows more on the lines of constructive cryptography just because of its simplicity, but we are also aware that most people are more familiar with the universal composition terms. We're going to go in with universal composition terms here as well, and this distinguisher is actually the pair of your environment and your adversary, and as many people observe in universal composition you can use the dummy adversary with add loss of generality, because that's essentially what we're assuming here, we're assuming a dummy adversary where your environment is the attacker as well. And so this, the statement of security is usually one of you have a set of permitted distinguishes or environments, and you say that well for any distinguisher in this set, if you connected up with both your your protocol on the left hand side here and with your ideal world consisting of your specification or ideal functionality in UC terms and your simulator, if you connected up with both of these it's still equivalent. This doesn't quite reduce the problem because you've still got an issue with well one is when is one interactive system equivalent to the next, but one thing which you can do very nicely with the set is you can say well I don't want to have any open interfaces left except for one which outputs a single bit and this bit can be interpreted as a guess of is it in the left hand side or in the right hand side. So that is how this is usually phrased that you phrase it as a guessing game of the environment is trying to tell which of the two worlds it's in if it can't tell then you have security by definition because it means that any attack can be translated any attack against the real system can also be translated into an attack against the ideal specification and that the two behave identically. One thing which this notion affords is and this depends a bit on the the set of permissible distinguishes that you can freely move things between this set and the protocol or ideal functionality on the left or right hand side and this does depend on the set in particular if your set of distinguishing environments is closed under addition and subtraction of these notes and in the settings of universal composition and by constructive cryptography it is in our setting this is a little bit more complex and I'll get into that in a moment but if it is then this is what gives you composition for free because the semantics of the whole execution aren't changed by this move you're just reassigning what you're labeling what and it means it's still going to be secure for regardless of the set of distinguishes on the left and right hand side and yeah this can be used to both do sequential composition if you absorb simulators into the distinguisher and it can also be used for parallel composition by just absorbing parts which you're not interested in into the distinguisher or pulling them back out. Now I also want to briefly go over knowledge assumptions and I'm going to work with the example of the algebraic group model which is a very powerful and very useful knowledge assumption the basic premise is that if you have some algorithm which behaves algebraically and we'll get into the constraints of that the assumption usually is that all algorithms you're interested in including your attacker and your your environments will be algebraic then if this algorithm outputs a group model a group element in the algebraic group model so here it outputs y and it must know how to construct them from its inputs g and h in this case our our algorithm knows that y is g to the h to the b and this this should be the case for any algebraic system and to make concrete what it means for it to know this we introduce the notion of an extractor and this also is how you can interact with knowledge assumptions on a practical level the assumption is that there is an extractor which takes the same inputs as our algorithm it knows all of the details about the algorithm including its code and its randomness and instead of outputting the the group element it outputs how this group element can be constructed it outputs essentially a witness corresponding to the knowledge of this group and we call the group elements that are being output here knowledge implying objects in our setting in the sense that the possession of one of these objects implies knowledge of something further and we call these representations witnesses in our set now one of the the questions we ran into is how do you take this from a setting of where there's a single algorithm and move it to one where suddenly you have complex interacting systems sending messages and large parts of these messages are not going to be group elements are not going to be knowledge implying objects and to address this we introduce a rudimentary type system now most of this type system so everything here in black is is just dealing with standard messages how would you send bit strings how would you send a single bit how would you send a field element to these kinds of things but here in blue highlighted are the parts of this type system which are specifically dealing with knowledge assumptions and specifically given a specific knowledge assumptions and its public parameters which which is something I will not be going into in this talk we have two additional types of objects the first is knowledge implying object so this would be the group element y here and we also have an annotated knowledge implying object saying for a given set of inputs with this knowledge implying object we have a pair of both the object and its witness so in this case this would be both of these parts together and it's crucial that we have the inputs here because for any kind of knowledge assumption and not just for the algebraic group model you can trivially just pass on a knowledge implying object and that doesn't need to add any information but it's something that you can always do and as a result you need to know what your inputs are to know what witnesses are valid and the additional typing rules here are just essentially unwrapping this we say that well for whatever kind of knowledge implying object we have there's some internal representation of how this is actually sent over the wire and corresponding with these pairs there's also a representation of the witnesses and crucially if we have one of these pairs of knowledge implying objects and witnesses and these need to satisfy some relation depending also on what inputs you got now how do we use this in practice where would we want to use this in a compositional system so in practice we would want to attach mainly use extraction in the simulator so we now and this is sort of also where this runs into its its issues in standard compositional frameworks is we also normally want to extract from the distinguished environment so we want to get more knowledge about the distinguisher and in particular for attacker created objects so for example in the case of non-interactive zero knowledge we'd like to extract from a non-interactive zero knowledge proof that is created from the by the environment or by the attacker and this is the problem because what that means for your standard notion of extraction is well if we want the simulator to extract from from this part here it needs to know this part's inputs and this parts randomness and its code which in a composable setting means we have to give the simulator which is the ideal world attacker full access to the entire system and that means we have essentially removed all notions of privacy that are possible in our ideal world we can no longer express privacy properties that's something that we probably want to avoid so this is a the fundamental problem of why you don't have white box extraction in composable settings and how we get around this is we make it not quite white box and in particular we give the simulator essentially oracle queries just to this extractor and in practice we do this by lifting our environments into environments which give the simulator access to an oracle that allows it to query the extractor and essentially the way we do that is we assume first off that all of our distinguishes are what we call knowledge respecting or in the algebraic group model case would be algebraic and this is crucial because if this is not the case then we can't extract from it so we need to make this as an assumption next up for each of the individual parts of this environment we transform it into a part which outputs as well to witnesses in particular if we have an original message which contains a knowledge implying object that may be an extra bit of information we transform this into a message with the extracted pre-applied and this message outputs not just the knowledge implying object but also its witness so here it's outputting that y is g to the a times h to the v the exact representation of this doesn't really matter now this message is not what the recipient at the other end is going to expect it's going to expect just the knowledge implying object so we intercept this message at the the midpoint of these channels so we essentially add a new node to this network which does this intercepting and this node is charged with doing two things first is parsing out which part of this is the the interesting part the part with the knowledge implying object and the witness and sending this to a centralized repository of knowledge which is just going to record right this knowledge implying object has this witness and the second part is it's going to erase this again replace it just with the knowledge implying object and send that on and this centralized repository of knowledge is then queryable by the simulator in the ideal world now because there's a mismatch in the real world in the ideal world there's no entity querying it in the real world we also introduce a node which essentially just makes sure the connections are balanced which exists in both worlds now there's one thing which is still quite important here and that is we should not let the distinguishing environment itself query the knowledge repository and it's not immediately obvious why this is the case but i'm going to argue it now and essentially it's so that we can preserve some notion of composition and crucially imagine if we wanted to move things out of the uh distinguisher into the the protocol on the left here then one of the consequences of this would be that part of the protocol would be providing knowledge implying objects and witnesses to the knowledge repository and crucially while if we do this as a single step it might be the same on on both sides in multiple steps we may have a case where one of the steps has something on its left hand side that is not on the right hand side placing things into the into the knowledge repository and so there's essentially a case where it may very well be possible that the knowledge repository will have different contents in the real and ideal worlds just because of the technicalities of how we have moved things in and out of the distinguisher this is something we don't want the distinguishes of a different of that experiment to be able to say tell so it's something that could very easily break break security statements and make them very brittle if the distinguisher could just uh say query a non-interactive zero knowledge proof to the knowledge repository and ask was this created in the real protocol or not um and to prevent that we we explicitly forbid querying of the knowledge repository in both worlds and this has some interesting consequences because it means that um the simulators cannot immediately be absorbed into uh into the sets of distinguishes so we come up with a slight variant of the denotation of constructive cryptography and there there are various ways in which this differs but essentially we have a calculus that allows for differences in sets of distinguishes so we no longer need this to be a something that is fixed and it's something that can vary between uh statements of security and in particular we note that for transitivity um this means that you need to be secure with respect also to the simulator of the first step of the transitivity statement when you're doing the second step so essentially this forbids negative interaction between simulators um and same thing goes for a parallel composition where we forbid negative interaction with the parallel component uh now this has interesting implications for knowledge assumptions um specifically because if one of the simulators is actually using the knowledge repository you can't just easily absorb this into this into the distinguisher and uh the reason for this is uh quite simply because that would then give the distinguisher access to the knowledge repository directly so uh one of the interesting things we observed is that this is still going to work fine so long as you have disjoint sets of knowledge assumptions um for the most part so if you're doing a transitivity step and both steps use different knowledge assumptions this is fine you just need to uh knowledge lift the simulator of the first part and it's also fine with parallel composition so long as what you're parallelly composing with is knowledge respecting um and you can lift it with respect to the set of knowledge assumptions you're working with then the most part this means you're fine so long as you don't reuse knowledge assumptions across your system and we also given possibility results where we show that if you do try to reuse knowledge assumptions bad things happen uh and specifically bad things happen because uh now your simulator can be used to essentially provide the the distinguishing environment access to the knowledge repository and this allows to distinguish uh what parts are being put into this in the real and ideal world this happens with the simulator and transitivity and it happens with the parallel component and parallel composition now finally we have some concrete results on zk snarks um we give a proof sketch that graph 16 is composable in the upgrade group model we also take this a step further and we show that it's still secure um using special case composition if you're using a setup ceremony for graph 16 and we want to finish this talk with some practical questions in particular um we believe it's understudied which snarks are simulation extractable and we think this is would be something that's valuable to study both for existing and new snarks um and we also raise a an open question which this leaves which is uh this is only if knowledge assumptions are not being reused and what we see in practice is that group uh curved pairs are reused frequently and we would like to know if this is safe um and it's not obvious to us at this moment it may very well be that re-randomization guarantees this uh but it's remains an open question now if you're watching this before the conference um please feel free to drop into the live session and ask your questions if you have any uh if not drop an email to me and thanks for listening to this talk all right it was great having you bye


You know, I don't know I thought I threw the ball pretty well obviously first inning struggle a little bit Not finding my breaking ball for strikes, but after that I feel like I threw the ball well you know fifth inning there things just didn't really go my way and Give up a few a few base hits right there in the walk led to a couple runs, but overall I felt good with my effort. Obviously not happy with the result, but I'll get back to work. Keep on going 4-2 0-2 count on Santana. How much did you think that that pitch that you threw there that fastball was strike 3? I felt like it was but you know, I don't make those calls It's just part of the game. So kept on going. Unfortunately, they got those a couple ground balls through the through Evenfield right there I scored those runs But you know boys did a great job scoring runs today both bullpen did a fantastic job and got us to win So that was a great day for us. Is it unnerving though when you don't get a call like that? In the moment. No, I wasn't thinking about it. No, I was just on to my next pitch trying to make that next pitch Looking back at it, you know, it's obviously frustrating But there's nothing I can do about it. So I just gotta move on when you guys use your big four relievers this year Kaylee out of you know, Britain and Chapman the team is 22 and oh how nice of a weapon is that to have that backing you up? It's huge. You know those guys have been great all year and I feel real comfortable handing the ball to those guys They've been fantastic. I'm sure you've thought about this more than all of us combined But is it puzzling to you that the first inning sometimes still is a nagging inning for you? Yeah, yeah, of course, you know, I've been Trying to find a way through it all year For some reason it just keeps on happening and I'll continue to do everything. I can to mitigate that How about the last two games winning close games against top teams? What does that say? I Mean this our team is pretty good, you know, we we can beat we can beat good teams They're a good team over there, but we we got him yesterday gotten today and we're gonna try and go get him tomorrow Where were you when the sixth inning? Activities erupted I was watching on TV. Yep, that was interesting You know just a guy looking our dugout trying to Try to seem like you know trying to find someone to throw out, but you know, obviously we were upset right there, but That's part of the game Yeah, I mean I'm going after it everything I've got you know It just seems to be that things are getting through things are going my way in the first inning for some reason I'm sticking with my process and Moving on to the next pitch every time out just kind of go out there and give it everything I've got


Hello, I'm Neil. I'm the TimeWod dad. Every day I try to make a video about being happy with the stuff that we've already got Today Today's vlog is about this. It's the go-friend micro SD card storage case It involves spending money, but it's to help me enjoy my SD cards and micro SD cards and to keep them safe So that when I'm shooting material on video like this I've got somewhere to to keep it when it's not in my GoPro camera so this is how the go-friend micro SD cards and SD cards holder arrives. I can never pronounce this. It's a carabinia carabinia clip Oh, look at this. There is a Micro SD card adapter. I always need one of these. It says 512 gigabytes That can't be right. That must be About how big a card it can hold. It's cheeky, isn't it? It's saying it's got that That's a nice genuine surprise, but this is the case itself. On the pictures it looks green But this is actually yellow in real life and there's a big chunky clip on the side if I flip that open That's easy to open and We have two four six eight ten twelve slots for the micro SD cards That seem to seem to push in like this. It's like a lip on the left-hand side Maybe should do it so that the chunky bit of the card is at the top There we go. That presses in. Oh really nicely. So you've got to tuck it into that Tongue on the left-hand side and then on top of that you could also either put the case for the micro SD card adapter or obviously a micro SD card itself or the way I do it is to Store the micro SD card in its own adapter and I number that adapter along with the number for the Micro SD card inside. So that is how the case looks Let me show you how I store my micro SD cards and why this is Trying to be more happy with what I've got. Basically I store my Micro SD cards loose at the moment in hard drive case So now I can finally empty these out and do my rain man Strength arrangements. I shoot take this. I shoot all my vlogs on a GoPro But it means I get through a lot of micro SD cards and I try to Rotate them. There we go. That is so much neater than cramming it all in All in my hard drive holder that I've got another adapter that could go down there Maybe that's so much more organized. I've got a little of crib sheets just to remind me what's on each card Before I go wiping them And there we go. That is my micro SD card storage solutions It's a hard plastic case and the inside it's like a very stiff but flexible foam It's waterproof, shockproof, hopefully tight-wad dad proof I hope this video has helped and I hope you find a storage solution for your micro SD cards if you have Experience of this case or maybe you have an even better solution Leave it in the comments below. It'd be lovely to hear from you It'll be great if someone could show that they got to this point of the video Just click on the thumbs up then I'll know there's someone actually watched the video all the way through Also, you never have to watch any of my videos ever again But if you hit the subscribe button, it would help us get closer to 1,000 subscribers when YouTube might rain down coin upon us I don't think they will but if you can help us get closer to 1,000 subscribers, that'd be awesome Thanks for watching and hope this helps Can you please help my daddy get 1,000 subscribers? Just click in the space. Thanks. Bye. How's that?


It was the day of July 1st 1998. My friends and I were on a Boy Scouts camping trip for the 4th of July to go set off fireworks. It was your usual camping trip, except on the 4th of July. That's when I got the Alizo tape in my hands. We were looking for a location to set the fireworks off at. It actually took us about 3 hours to look for a spot, because there were a lot of trees at the campsite, and not really any empty space for us to place all of our fireworks equipment. We couldn't set off the fireworks in the area we were sleeping at because of the tree line.  I was tired and exhausted for walking for so long. This wasn't fun at all, just imagine hiking for 3 hours non-stop, and looking and passing by trees, but there was one thing that immediately made me and my friends jump in excitement. We saw an old abandoned house. We were around 12-14 at the time, so naturally we loved scary movies. We figured that the abandoned house would be haunted. We really wanted to go inside of it. We had the best camp chaperone and he was very interested in going inside of it too. So we went in. The house had probably been abandoned 10 or 20 years ago, and looked like a building after an earthquake. We walked inside the house, but it was not empty as expected, not empty at all. It looked as if people had evacuated it, and left all their old belongings behind. There were toys on the ground and food in the pantry, and a no longer functional refrigerator. That sounds kind of disgusting, but as a 12-year-old boy, I thought it was awesome. But I too think this was pretty scary. In our group, I was always the last one to walk inside the rooms of the house, I did not do that when we were entering the attic of the house. The attic was probably the scariest looking part too. The attic caught my attention by the holes and rips in the door leading into it. It was pretty obvious that termites had eaten up the place over the years. I entered the attic first, terrified. There were only holes in the walls, no distinguishing features. The attic room was completely empty. There was absolutely nothing in it, or at least I first thought. I got my flashlight from my backpack and turned it on. Dead in the center of the room on the floor, there was a little videotape. I picked it up, it was a little dirty, but not damaged and would be easy to clean. It had a sticker on it that was ribbon, a Lizzo. I had no idea what that meant. I picked up the tape and placed it in my pocket. I showed my friends, but not the chaperone, because I feared he would tell me to place it back, and I wouldn't get to take it. After the camping trip I took the tape and cleaned it with a can of compressed air. After I cleaned it, I grabbed my camera and took a picture of me holding it, just for the sake of it. Finding something in the middle of nowhere in an abandoned house, would obviously entice you to take your camera out. I then placed the tape into my DCR. It looked as if it had been made in the 1990s. It took a minute to load. Then it started. The footage began as what looked like a school play or assembly, or something. The only thing unusual about it, was that the video and audio quality was horrible. Even for VHS. The video quality looked like it had been tampered with, and the audio was virtually inaudible. I couldn't understand a word anyone was saying. There was obviously something wrong with the camera, the clip would violently twitch to other scenes of the play. It didn't really bother me, not until the footage turned too static. The footage next went to another clip, with worse quality than the other clip, but this part wasn't related to the previous one. I couldn't really tell where it was.  The clip again went too static for about three seconds, and then moved to the next clip, which showed the camera sauntering towards the music box, with what looked like a dancing clown on it. This is when I knew things were getting creepy.  It then showed a whole marathon of disturbing pictures that went on for about two seconds. It also showed a one second long video that still scares me until this day. It showed a video of a woman, who looked like she had polio, dancing with an umbrella. This went on and on and on throughout the video. I couldn't speak, and got up to stop the video before I'd see anything else. As I was about to turn off the player of course, I lost the remote. I was way too scared to go up the TV and turn it off, because I feared that the woman would pop up on the camera again. And she did. It was wearing a clown hat, like the one the clown was wearing on the music box. She started walking towards the camera, looking at me. That's when the video ended. Then, I took the tape out as fast as I could, and shoved it into a safe that I never use. I placed this safe in my garage in the back with all of my family's random junk. Nine years and several therapy sessions later, possibly unrelated, but who knows, I found my brother messing with the tape. I asked him how he found it, and how he got in my safe. He told me that I left a sticker that had the password on my safe, so he managed to open it and get the tape. He was messing around with it, and said he was making a video called, Obey the Wallers, that he was going to upload to YouTube. My brother made really wacky videos then. He then placed the tape back in my safe. Six years later, my wife, my son, and myself went to my parents' house for Easter. My dad asked me to get his screwdriver in the back of the garage. Immediately I saw it there, sitting right on top of my old safe. I decided I'd take the safe home, and take the tape out. And that is how I was reminded of this whole strange experience. What you see, can't be unseen.


It's ahead of its time in a few ways to found footage thing, Cannibal Holocaust did it first, but this feels very Blair Witch-like with, you know, they find the footage of the big foot, find out whether or not this is true, they're interrogating the town, get different stories from the town. It's very Blair Witch must have bored from this movie. While they're camping out they get terrorized over multiple nights. Yeah, yeah, exactly. So it's very Blair Witch.


What's up everybody? This is Giovanni from the options trading channel Coming at you extremely late again. I greatly apologize for this I just been off my game on trying to make videos of my trades Again, mainly because I have a full-time day job And I'm a father of a five-year-old that I absolutely without a doubt love every time that I trade I'm committed to making a video Trade week recap or trying to record the actual train while it's happening Lately it's been just mainly recaps. I'm extremely happy with this trade I didn't make as much as I hope for But it's not about the money for me. It really is I know that sounds ridiculous When we are trading when we're traders day traders in the stock market. That's what it's all about, right making the money Really what beginner traders do not understand and why most day traders Fail and lose money is because they don't have a set of guidelines. They don't have rules They don't have a strategy an actual full-out from start to finish Strategy and that's what I have here guys I have a full strategy that I'm absolutely without a doubt trying to nail down the actual strategy and Be For lack of a better better way of explaining it I'm trying to be a robot an emotionless robot when trading the stock market and that's gonna You know keep me out of trouble and a quick recap here before I start for anybody new on the channel or just now Very first time watching any my videos off to the left hand side We have the one minute chart intraday chart of the options that I traded today the middle chart We have our main chart, which is our one hour chart on spy and the far right We have the daily chart on spy the daily chart is the actual chart and Direction of which we want to trade so meaning if the daily chart says up We're only looking to trade the market up or if it says down Then we're only looking to short the market. So as of right now and it's been that way since basically December 6th We've been trading the upside to the upside buying calls here So today I did get a signal here on the one hour Candlestick and my rules are I get in on the beginning of the very next candle in which the signal came in So in this particular case, I got in right at 830 and I was looking at the 327 calls that expire. I believe in seven days. Let me take a quick look Yes, seven days. I bought two two of the 327 call options that expire in seven days bought them at 255 just, you know, a couple of seconds actually Right before that candle actually closed and then I set my first cell order for a 10% game Which was at this particular point to 80 and it executed at 856 and this was me. I believe I had the high there for for a bit before it actually blew up but Again, my strategy says as soon as I get a signal Sell half at 10% the other half I'm either going to sell at the same price where I got in or I'm looking for bigger gains and in this particular trade it actually It went to 280 and then it came back down and Did I actually yeah actually sold right here? This is actually me so you can see volume right here and I actually ended up selling that last one For even money at 255 and then look what happened and then it actually went higher those options actually went higher to 293 but hey, that's fine because look what it actually ended up happening guys. The strategy itself is actually Actually called a bad trade here Look what happened. We we got this signal here by signal get in Failed to go much higher there and then a close below this lower Moboban and at that point I'm supposed to sell out completely now again. I just want to reiterate here had I not Gotten the opportunity to Sell at a 10% gain or if it felt it didn't get to a 10% gain And then it fell right back down and then actually closed below the lower Moboban I'm supposed to get out at a loss Now sometimes sometimes when that happens and it's gonna happen guys there will be a time when It just doesn't get it. It doesn't get it. It's completely bad signal not everything's a hundred percent foolproof and You're selling at a loss and sometimes this loss can be 40 50 60 percent And the idea here of me selling at 10% gain is it's gonna cover those bad trades now I don't have to be right all the time my the strategy per Backtesting per all of the data and research. It's right more of the times and There's a big sort of maybe controversy. Everybody has a different opinion But either you know, are you supposed to make more trades more winning trades and losing trades? Or can you actually have more losing trades and winning trades so long as your winning trades are bigger than your losing? trades if that makes any sense this particular strategy, I have found that it actually makes more good trades more Trades in the right direction rather than bad trades So this situation right here illustrates exactly what good money management skills will do for your trading guys It's with you don't always have to be right in the general direction So long that you have great or you know, I can even say as far as excellence money Management skills you can make money in the stock market guys You just have to find that edge find that strategy and this strategy works for me And it's it's supposed to protect me my my strategy my my plan my rules are supposed to protect me And this is exactly why had I not had a plan set or strategy set I could have just not sold anything and then actually been at a loss there I mean look at this loss I'm supposed to get out on the beginning of the following candle of which the signal came in this particular time The signal came in at the end of 12 30 my time at the beginning of 13 31 30 my time So what would that been if I would have held and sold there 13 30? Right there 191 guys From the original buy of 255 Downselling to 191 that is that represents a 25 percent loss there Had I just not sold anything at all and actually just took that huge loss instead of made money but Some people will argue with me as far as saying well, you didn't make that much money It's not about the actual amount of money That that I got basically that I made today It's the fact that I actually have a strategy in place a plan in place And I'm following through with that strategy That means a lot more Than than anything really so I I apologize greatly For this video being out so late or not getting it to you any sooner I promise to you guys that I'm gonna try my best to get these videos out sooner Sooner than I have been Just my my my day job and my life sort of gets in the way But I'm still committed on getting you guys all the details of all my trades at a later video I'm going to truly break down This strategy and how I'm using it to make money in the stock market And also it's not just by that I can trade I can trade apple facebook tesla Google amazon the cues Um this strategy seems to work on all of those so stay tuned for more content guys in the future Like and subscribe to my channel I would greatly appreciate that Comment down below comment down below what you made money on if you have any questions about day trading in general or spy Or this strategy that i'm using it's called the mobo ban Strategy guys I will put a link in the description down below That'll take you directly to the videos that explain this Strategy uh from start to finish. Thank you everybody so much for watching I'll see you here again on the very next trade hoping that it's another green trade guys Talk to you guys later. Take care


The House of Representatives has approved the legislation that made provisions to amend the Administration and Management of Customs and Exercise in Nigeria. Some of the reforms in the enacted legislation covers issues of funding, the appointment of the Comptroller General of Customs and the recruitment of personnel for the service. The legislation also makes room for increase in revenue generation for Nigeria from operations. Finance complained that the chairman of the board, supposed to be the minister, not a retired deputy Comptroller General of Customs, which we corrected here. So the mistake then was that anywhere board appeared, supposed to be changed to minister. When they were doing the cleaning, they didn't do that. So that was why they brought it back.