Trusted Bitcoin Investment Site 2020 - Invest BTC And Earn ...
Trusted Bitcoin Investment Site 2020 - Invest BTC And Earn ...
Where are Bitcoin’s ‘Retail’ Investors?
How to Invest in Bitcoin: Complete Beginner's Guide 2020
Bitcoin: What is it, where can you use it and is it worth ...
What is BIP 100? Bitcoin Insider
The Decade in Blockchain — 2010 to 2020 in Review
February — The first ever cryptocurrency exchange, Bitcoin Market, is established. The first trade takes place a month later. April — The first public bitcoin trade takes place: 1000BTC traded for $30 at an exchange rate of 0.03USD/1BTC May — The first real-world bitcoin transaction is undertaken by Laszlo Hanyecz, who paid 10000BTC for two Papa John’s pizzas (Approximately $25 USD) June — Bitcoin developer Gavin Andreson creates a faucet offering 5 free BTC to the public July — First notable usage of the word “blockchain” appears on BitcoinTalk forum. Prior to this, it was referred to as ‘Proof-of-Work chain’ July — Bitcoin exchange named Magic The Gathering Online eXchange—also known as Mt. Gox—established August —Bitcoin protocol bug leads to emergency hard fork December — Satoshi Nakamoto ceases communication with the world
January — One-quarter of the eventual total of 21M bitcoins have been generated February — Bitcoin reaches parity for the first time with USD April — Bitcoin reaches parity with EUR and GBP June — WikiLeaks begins accepting Bitcoin donations June — Mt. Gox hacked, resulting in suspension of trading and a precipitous price drop for Bitcoin August — First Bitcoin Improvement Proposal: BIP Purpose and Guidelines October — Litecoin released December — Bitcoin featured as a major plot element in an episode of ‘The Good Wife’ as 9.45 million viewers watch.
May — Bitcoin Magazine, founded by Mihai Alisie and Vitalik Buterin, publishes first issue July — Government of Estonia begins incorporating blockchain into digital ID efforts September — Bitcoin Foundation created October — BitPay reports having over 1,000 merchants accepting bitcoin under its payment processing service November — First Bitcoin halving to 25 BTC per block
February — Reddit begins accepting bitcoins for Gold memberships March — Cyprus government bailout levies bank accounts with over $100k. Flight to Bitcoin results in major price spike. May —Total Bitcoin value surpasses 1 billion USD with 11M Bitcoin in circulation May — The first cryptocurrency market rally and crash takes place. Prices rise from $13 to $220, and then drop to $70 June — First major cryptocurrency theft. 25,000 BTC is stolen from Bitcoin forum founder July — Mastercoin becomes the first project to conduct an ICO August — U.S. Federal Court issues opinion that Bitcoin is a currency or form of money October — The FBI shuts down dark web marketplace Silk Road, confiscating approximately 26,000 bitcoins November — Vitalik Buterin releases the Ethereum White Paper: “A Next-Generation Smart Contract and Decentralized Application Platform” December — The first commit to the Ethereum codebase takes place
January — Vitalik Buterin announces Ethereum at the North American Bitcoin Conference in Miami February — HMRC in the UK classifies Bitcoin as private money March — Newsweek claims Dorian Nakamoto is Bitcoin creator. He is not April — Gavin Wood releases the Ethereum Yellow Paper: “Ethereum: A Secure Decentralised Generalised Transaction Ledger” June — Ethereum Foundation established in Zug, Switzerland June — US Marshals Service auctions off 30,000 Bitcoin confiscated from Silk Road. All are purchased by venture capitalist Tim Draper July — Ethereum token launch raises 31,591 BTC ($18,439,086) over 42 days September — TeraExchange launches first U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission approved Bitcoin over-the-counter swap October — ConsenSys is founded by Joe Lubin December — By year’s end, Paypal, Zynga, u/, Expedia, Newegg, Dell, Dish Network, and Microsoft are all accepting Bitcoin for payments
January — Coinbase opens up the first U.S-based cryptocurrency exchange February — Stripe initiates bitcoin payment integration for merchants April — NASDAQ initiates blockchain trial June — NYDFS releases final version of its BitLicense virtual currency regulations July — Ethereum’s first live mainnet release—Frontier—launched. August — Augur, the first token launch on the Ethereum network takes place September — R3 consortium formed with nine financial institutions, increases to over 40 members within six months October — Gemini exchange launches, founded by Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss November — Announcement of first zero knowledge proof, ZK-Snarks December — Linux Foundation establishes Hyperledger project
January — Zcash announced February — HyperLedger project announced by Linux Foundation with thirty founding members March — Second Ethereum mainnet release, Homestead, is rolled out. April — The DAO (decentralized autonomous organization) launches a 28-day crowdsale. After one month, it raises an Ether value of more than US$150M May — Chinese Financial Blockchain Shenzhen Consortium launches with 31 members June — The DAO is attacked with 3.6M of the 11.5M Ether in The DAO redirected to the attacker’s Ethereum account July — The DAO attack results in a hard fork of the Ethereum Blockchain to recover funds. A minority group rejecting the hard fork continues to use the original blockchain renamed Ethereum Classic July — Second Bitcoin halving to 12.5BTC per block mined November — CME Launches Bitcoin Price Index
January — Bitcoin price breaks US$1,000 for the first time in three years February — Enterprise Ethereum Alliance formed with 30 founding members, over 150 members six months later March — Multiple applications for Bitcoin ETFs rejected by the SEC April — Bitcoin is officially recognized as currency by Japan June — EOS begins its year-long ICO, eventually raising $4 billion July — Parity hack exposes weaknesses in multisig wallets August — Bitcoin Cash forks from the Bitcoin Network October — Ethereum releases Byzantium soft fork network upgrade, part one of Metropolis September — China bans ICOs October — Bitcoin price surpasses $5,000 USD for the first time November — Bitcoin price surpasses $10,000 USD for the first time December — Ethereum Dapp Cryptokitties goes viral, pushing the Ethereum network to its limits
January — Ethereum price peaks near $1400 USD March — Google bans all ads pertaining to cryptocurrency March — Twitter bans all ads pertaining to cryptocurrency April — 2018 outpaces 2017 with $6.3 billion raised in token launches in the first four months of the year April — EU government commits $300 million to developing blockchain projects June — The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission states that Ether is not a security. July — Over 100,000 ERC20 tokens created August — New York Stock Exchange owner announces Bakkt, a federally regulated digital asset exchange October — Bitcoin’s 10th birthday November — VC investment in blockchain tech surpasses $1 billion December — 90% of banks in the US and Europe report exploration of blockchain tech
January — Coinstar machines begin selling cryptocurrency at grocery stores across the US February — Ethereum’s Constantinople hard fork is released, part two of Metropolis April — Bitcoin surpasses 400 million total transactions June — Facebook announces Libra July — United States senate holds hearings titled ‘Examining Regulatory Frameworks for Digital Currencies and Blockchain” August — Ethereum developer dominance reaches 4x that of any other blockchain October — Over 80 million distinct Ethereum addresses have been created September — Santander bank settles both sides of a $20 million bond on Ethereum November — Over 3000 Dapps created. Of them, 2700 are built on Ethereum
Hi Bitcoiners! I’m back with the 29th monthly Bitcoin news recap. (sorry a bit late this month) For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month. You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com A recap of Bitcoin in May 2019 Adoption
A Beginners Guide to Bitcoin, Blockchain & Cryptocurrency
As cryptocurrency, and blockchain technology become more abundant throughout our society, it’s important to understand the inner workings of this technology, especially if you plan to use cryptocurrency as an investment vehicle. If you’re new to the crypto-sphere, learning about Bitcoin makes it much easier to understand other cryptocurrencies as many other altcoins' technologies are borrowed directly from Bitcoin. Bitcoin is one of those things that you look into only to discover you have more questions than answers, and right as you’re starting to wrap your head around the technology; you discover the fact that Bitcoin has six other variants (forks), the amount of politics at hand, or that there are over a thousand different cryptocurrencies just as complex if not even more complex than Bitcoin. We are currently in the infancy of blockchain technology and the effects of this technology will be as profound as the internet. This isn’t something that’s just going to fade away into history as you may have been led to believe. I believe this is something that will become an integral part of our society, eventually embedded within our technology. If you’re a crypto-newbie, be glad that you're relatively early to the industry. I hope this post will put you on the fast-track to understanding Bitcoin, blockchain, and how a large percentage of cryptocurrencies work.
Altcoin: Short for alternative coin. There are over 1,000 different cryptocurrencies. You’re probably most familiar with Bitcoin. Anything that isn’t Bitcoin is generally referred to as an altcoin. HODL: Misspelling of hold. Dank meme accidentally started by this dude. Hodlers are much more interested in long term gains rather than playing the risky game of trying to time the market. TO THE MOON: When a cryptocurrency’s price rapidly increases. A major price spike of over 1,000% can look like it’s blasting off to the moon. Just be sure you’re wearing your seatbelt when it comes crashing down. FUD: Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt. FOMO: Fear of missing out. Bull Run: Financial term used to describe a rising market. Bear Run: Financial term used to describe a falling market.
What Is Bitcoin?
Bitcoin (BTC) is a decentralized digital currency that uses cryptography to secure and ensure validity of transactions within the network. Hence the term crypto-currency. Decentralization is a key aspect of Bitcoin. There is no CEO of Bitcoin or central authoritative government in control of the currency. The currency is ran and operated by the people, for the people. One of the main development teams behind Bitcoin is blockstream. Bitcoin is a product of blockchain technology. Blockchain is what allows for the security and decentralization of Bitcoin. To understand Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies, you must understand to some degree, blockchain. This can get extremely technical the further down the rabbit hole you go, and because this is technically a beginners guide, I’m going to try and simplify to the best of my ability and provide resources for further technical reading.
A Brief History
Bitcoin was created by Satoshi Nakamoto. The identity of Nakamoto is unknown. The idea of Bitcoin was first introduced in 2008 when Nakamoto released the Bitcoin white paper - Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Later, in January 2009, Nakamoto announced the Bitcoin software and the Bitcoin network officially began. I should also mention that the smallest unit of a Bitcoin is called a Satoshi. 1 BTC = 100,000,000 Satoshis. When purchasing Bitcoin, you don’t actually need to purchase an entire coin. Bitcoin is divisible, so you can purchase any amount greater than 1 Satoshi (0.00000001 BTC).
What Is Blockchain?
Blockchain is a distributed ledger, a distributed collection of accounts. What is being accounted for depends on the use-case of the blockchain itself. In the case of Bitcoin, what is being accounted for is financial transactions. The first block in a blockchain is referred to as the genesis block. A block is an aggregate of data. Blocks are also discovered through a process known as mining (more on this later). Each block is cryptographically signed by the previous block in the chain and visualizing this would look something akin to a chain of blocks, hence the term, blockchain. For more information regarding blockchain I’ve provided more resouces below:
Bitcoin mining is one solution to the double spend problem. Bitcoin mining is how transactions are placed into blocks and added onto the blockchain. This is done to ensure proof of work, where computational power is staked in order to solve what is essentially a puzzle. If you solve the puzzle correctly, you are rewarded Bitcoin in the form of transaction fees, and the predetermined block reward. The Bitcoin given during a block reward is also the only way new Bitcoin can be introduced into the economy. With a halving event occurring roughly every 4 years, it is estimated that the last Bitcoin block will be mined in the year 2,140. (See What is Block Reward below for more info). Mining is one of those aspects of Bitcoin that can get extremely technical and more complicated the further down the rabbit hole you go. An entire website could be created (and many have) dedicated solely to information regarding Bitcoin mining. The small paragraph above is meant to briefly expose you to the function of mining and the role it plays within the ecosystem. It doesn’t even scratch the surface regarding the topic.
How do you Purchase Bitcoin?
The most popular way to purchase Bitcoin through is through an online exchange where you trade fiat (your national currency) for Bitcoin. Popular exchanges include:
There’s tons of different exchanges. Just make sure you find one that supports your national currency.
Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are EXTREMELY volatile. Swings of 30% or more within a few days is not unheard of. Understand that there is always inherent risks with any investment. Cryptocurrencies especially. Only invest what you’re willing to lose.
Transaction & Network Fees
Transacting on the Bitcoin network is not free. Every purchase or transfer of Bitcoin will cost X amount of BTC depending on how congested the network is. These fees are given to miners as apart of the block reward. Late 2017 when Bitcoin got up to $20,000USD, the average network fee was ~$50. Currently, at the time of writing this, the average network fee is $1.46. This data is available in real-time on BitInfoCharts.
In this new era of money, there is no central bank or government you can go to in need of assistance. This means the responsibility of your money falls 100% into your hands. That being said, the security regarding your cryptocurrency should be impeccable. The anonymity provided by cryptocurrencies alone makes you a valuable target to hackers and scammers. Below I’ve detailed out best practices regarding securing your cryptocurrency.
Two-Factor Authentication (2FA)
Two-factor authentication is a second way of authenticating your identity upon signing in to an account. Most cryptocurrency related software/websites will offer or require some form of 2FA. Upon creation of any crypto-related account find the Security section and enable 2FA.
The most basic form of 2FA which you are probably most familiar with. This form of authentication sends a text message to your smartphone with a special code that will allow access to your account upon entry. Note that this is not the safest form of 2FA as you may still be vulnerable to what is known as a SIM swap attack. SIM swapping is a social engineering method in which an attacker will call up your phone carrier, impersonating you, in attempt to re-activate your SIM card on his/her device. Once the attacker has access to your SIM card he/she now has access to your text messages which can then be used to access your online accounts. You can prevent this by using an authenticator such as Google Authenticator.
The use of an authenticator is the safest form of 2FA. An authenticator is installed on a seperate device and enabling it requires you input an ever changing six digit code in order to access your account. I recommend using Google Authenticator. If a website has the option to enable an authenticator, it will give you a QR code and secret key. Use Google Authenticator to scan the QR code. The secret key consists of a random string of numbers and letters. Write this down on a seperate sheet of paper and do not store it on a digital device. Once Google Authenticator has been enabled, every time you sign into your account, you will have to input a six-digit code that looks similar to this. If you happen to lose or damage the device you have Google Authenticator installed on, you will be locked out of your account UNLESS you have access to the secret key (which you should have written down).
A wallet is what you store Bitcoin and cryptocurrency on. I’ll provide resources on the different type of wallets later but I want to emphasize the use of a hardware wallet (aka cold storage). Hardware wallets are the safest way of storing cryptocurrency because it allows for your crypto to be kept offline in a physical device. After purchasing crypto via an exchange, I recommend transferring it to cold storage. The most popular hardware wallets include the Ledger Nano S, and Trezor. Hardware wallets come with a special key so that if it gets lost or damaged, you can recover your crypto. I recommend keeping your recovery key as well as any other sensitive information in a safety deposit box. I know this all may seem a bit manic, but it is important you take the necessary security precautions in order to ensure the safety & longevity of your cryptocurrency.
Technical Aspects of Bitcoin
Address: What you send Bitcoin to.
Wallet: Where you store your Bitcoin
Max Supply: 21 million
Block Time: ~10 minutes
Block Size: 1-2 MB
Block Reward: BTC reward received from mining.
What is a Bitcoin Address?
A Bitcoin address is what you send Bitcoin to. If you want to receive Bitcoin you’d give someone your Bitcoin address. Think of a Bitcoin address as an email address for money.
What is a Bitcoin Wallet?
As the title implies, a Bitcoin wallet is anything that can store Bitcoin. There are many different types of wallets including paper wallets, software wallets and hardware wallets. It is generally advised NOT to keep cryptocurrency on an exchange, as exchanges are prone to hacks (see Mt. Gox hack). My preferred method of storing cryptocurrency is using a hardware wallet such as the Ledger Nano S or Trezor. These allow you to keep your crypto offline in physical form and as a result, much more safe from hacks. Paper wallets also allow for this but have less functionality in my opinion. After I make crypto purchases, I transfer it to my Ledger Nano S and keep that in a safe at home. Hardware wallets also come with a special key so that if it gets lost or damaged, you can recover your crypto. I recommend keeping your recovery key in a safety deposit box.
What is Bitcoins Max Supply?
The max supply of Bitcoin is 21 million. The only way new Bitcoins can be introduced into the economy are through block rewards which are given after successfully mining a block (more on this later).
What is Bitcoins Block Time?
The average time in which blocks are created is called block time. For Bitcoin, the block time is ~10 minutes, meaning, 10 minutes is the minimum amount of time it will take for a Bitcoin transaction to be processed. Note that transactions on the Bitcoin network can take much longer depending on how congested the network is. Having to wait a few hours or even a few days in some instances for a transaction to clear is not unheard of. Other cryptocurrencies will have different block times. For example, Ethereum has a block time of ~15 seconds. For more information on how block time works, Prabath Siriwardena has a good block post on this subject which can be found here.
What is Bitcoins Block Size?
There is a limit to how large blocks can be. In the early days of Bitcoin, the block size was 36MB, but in 2010 this was reduced to 1 MB in order to prevent distributed denial of service attacks (DDoS), spam, and other malicious use on the blockchain. Nowadays, blocks are routinely in excess of 1MB, with the largest to date being somewhere around 2.1 MB. There is much debate amongst the community on whether or not to increase Bitcoin’s block size limit to account for ever-increasing network demand. A larger block size would allow for more transactions to be processed. The con argument to this is that decentralization would be at risk as mining would become more centralized. As a result of this debate, on August 1, 2017, Bitcoin underwent a hard-fork and Bitcoin Cash was created which has a block size limit of 8 MB. Note that these are two completely different blockchains and sending Bitcoin to a Bitcoin Cash wallet (or vice versa) will result in a failed transaction. Update: As of May 15th, 2018 Bitcoin Cash underwent another hard fork and the block size has increased to 32 MB. On the topic of Bitcoin vs Bitcoin Cash and which cryptocurrency is better, I’ll let you do your own research and make that decision for yourself. It is good to know that this is a debated topic within the community and example of the politics that manifest within the space. Now if you see community members arguing about this topic, you’ll at least have a bit of background to the issue.
What is Block Reward?
Block reward is the BTC you receive after discovering a block. Blocks are discovered through a process called mining. The only way new BTC can be added to the economy is through block rewards and the block reward is halved every 210,000 blocks (approximately every 4 years). Halving events are done to limit the supply of Bitcoin. At the inception of Bitcoin, the block reward was 50BTC. At the time of writing this, the block reward is 12.5BTC. Halving events will continue to occur until the amount of new Bitcoin introduced into the economy becomes less than 1 Satoshi. This is expected to happen around the year 2,140. All 21 million Bitcoins will have been mined. Once all Bitcoins have been mined, the block reward will only consist of transaction fees.
Any computer that connects to the Bitcoin network is called a node. Nodes that fully verify all of the rules of Bitcoin are called full nodes.
In other words, full nodes are what verify the Bitcoin blockchain and they play a crucial role in maintaining the decentralized network. Full nodes store the entirety of the blockchain and validate transactions. Anyone can participate in the Bitcoin network and run a full node. Bitcoin.org has information on how to set up a full node. Running a full node also gives you wallet capabilities and the ability to query the blockchain. For more information on Bitcoin nodes, see Andreas Antonopoulos’s Q&A on the role of nodes.
What is a Fork?
A fork is a divergence in a blockchain. Since Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer network, there’s an overall set of rules (protocol) in which participants within the network must abide by. These rules are put in place to form network consensus. Forks occur when implementations must be made to the blockchain or if there is disagreement amongst the network on how consensus should be achieved.
Soft Fork vs Hard Fork
The difference between soft and hard forks lies in compatibility. Soft forks are backwards compatible, hard forks are not. Think of soft forks as software upgrades to the blockchain, whereas hard forks are a software upgrade that warrant a completely new blockchain. During a soft fork, miners and nodes upgrade their software to support new consensus rules. Nodes that do not upgrade will still accept the new blockchain. Examples of Bitcoin soft forks include:
A hard fork can be thought of as the creation of a new blockchain that X percentage of the community decides to migrate too. During a hard fork, miners and nodes upgrade their software to support new consensus rules, Nodes that do not upgrade are invalid and cannot accept the new blockchain. Examples of Bitcoin hard forks include:
Note that these are completely different blockchains and independent from the Bitcoin blockchain. If you try to send Bitcoin to one of these blockchains, the transaction will fail.
A Case For Bitcoin in a World of Centralization
Our current financial system is centralized, which means the ledger(s) that operate within this centralized system are subjugated to control, manipulation, fraud, and many other negative aspects that come with this system. There are also pros that come with a centralized system, such as the ability to swiftly make decisions. However, at some point, the cons outweigh the pros, and change is needed. What makes Bitcoin so special as opposed to our current financial system is that Bitcoin allows for the decentralized transfer of money. Not one person owns the Bitcoin network, everybody does. Not one person controls Bitcoin, everybody does. A decentralized system in theory removes much of the baggage that comes with a centralized system. Not to say the Bitcoin network doesn’t have its problems (wink wink it does), and there’s much debate amongst the community as to how to go about solving these issues. But even tiny steps are significant steps in the world of blockchain, and I believe Bitcoin will ultimately help to democratize our financial system, whether or not you believe it is here to stay for good.
Well that was a lot of words… Anyways I hope this guide was beneficial, especially to you crypto newbies out there. You may have come into this realm not expecting there to be an abundance of information to learn about. I know I didn’t. Bitcoin is only the tip of the iceberg, but now that you have a fundamental understanding of Bitcoin, learning about other cryptocurrencies such as Litecoin, and Ethereum will come more naturally. Feel free to ask questions below! I’m sure either the community or myself would be happy to answer your questions. Thanks for reading!
Complacency is much more dangerous than fatalism. Do not allow a hostile take over of a open source project by industry. This is the only bitcoin we have.
I was listening to a scientist who was on the global board of climate change advisory (unsure the exact name) and he made this "Complacency is much more dangerous than fatalism" statement in regards to global warming and it rung as true as any truth I've ever heard spoken. The majority of the problems we see in society we see because of political apathy and general apathy. People are too lazy to educate themselves so that they can make rational evidence based decisions. This same thing is occurring in bitcoin. You would think that industry members who are financially incentivized to make sure that bitcoin is the most successful system possible would educate themselves about the future of their system. Instead, we have a bunch of suits throwing money at the problem. As if money could fix this problem. Hiring your favorite dev to build a repository in an attempt to hijack the reference client is not a solution to an issue related to decentralized networks. The issue in the first place is that we have a centralized industry. The people who have advocated and signed on for SegWit2x are exactly the problem bitcoin was intending to avoid. Bitcoin was supposed to be a radically self-reliant system that did not need to trust intermediaries in order to function. And now instead, we have a host of industry leaders acting as intermediaries to force a non-technical and politically motivated "solution" down our throats. I cannot advocate for risky BIP's that are playing chicken with the blockchain and are assured to cause a split. But I can advocate for rejecting SegWit2x and refusing to transact on the blockchain that their hardfork creates. If you act complacent in this you are allowing the industry to hijack a decentralized network and to centralize it so that they can control aspects of the network that favor them. We currently have 100's of developers contributing to Bitcoin Core from around the world that have Cypherpunk roots, that are open and transparent in everything they do from their IRC meetings to PR's on github and here on reddit. And then you have the other people who work behind closed doors, refuse to onboard developers unless they are forced to agree with a plan, sign secret agreements and distribute them to "trusted intermediaries" only. Wake the fuck up bitcoiners. These assholes are the exact kind of people that bitcoin was designed to nullify! Yes, I understand that some of these people have helped build bitcoin. Bitpay is a great example, think of how much money they have poured into marketing and advertisement. But remember that they signed up for this. They signed up knowing that they were investing in a decentralized network in which they would not have control. What we need now more than anything are competitors within the ASIC manufacturing industry. We desperately need more companies like 21 but with good ideas that actually increase decentralization. We need more bitfury's. Instead of being complacent, what can we do to minimize the monopolistic forces? Who can we help fund? Who do we advocate for? Im asking because I dont have the answers. It seems very little do. The centralization of industry has been bitcoins biggest problem since the day it was born. It continues to be the largest problem we face today. What are we going to do about it? Are we going to sit on our thumbs and finger our butts while these assholes take over bitcoin? Or are we going to wake the fuck up and start making demands to the SegWit2x Signatories? I know one goddamn thing, I will never under any circumstance run a segwit2x client. I do not negotiate with terrorists and Jihan said himself, he was blocking SW to "fire core devs". He said it plain as day for everyone to see. Thats direct evidence of a coup. There is no speculation needed. He's like a certain someone who likes to talk on twitter and constantly puts his foot in his mouth, self-inflicting all of his problems. We cannot ignore this!
dcrd: Several steps towards multipeer downloads completed: an optimization to use in-memory block index and a new 1337 chain view. Maintenance: improved test coverage, upgrading dependency management system and preparing for the upcoming Go 1.11 release. dcrwallet: A big change introducing optional privacy-preserving SPV sync mode was merged. In this mode dcrwallet does not download the full blockchain but only gets the "filters", uses them to determine which blocks it needs and fetches them from random nodes on the network. This has on-disk footprint of 300-400 MB and sync time of minutes, compared to ~3.4 GB and sync time of hours for full sync (these are rough estimates).
jy-p: the server side of SPV (in dcrd) was deployed in v1.2.0, the client side of SPV (in dcrwallet) is in our next release, v1.3.0. Still some minor bugs in SPV that are being worked out. There will be an update to add the latest features from BIP 157/158 in the next few months. SPV will be optional in v1.3.0, but it will become the default after we get a proper header commitment for it (#general)
Decrediton: besides regular bugfixes and design improvements, several components are being developed in parallel like SPV mode, Politeia integration and Trezor support. Politeia: testing started on mainnet, thanks to everyone who is participating. A lot of testing, bugfixing and polishing is happening in preparation for full mainnet launch. There are also a few missing features to be added before launch, e.g. capacity to edit a proposal and versioning for that, discussion to remain open once voting starts. Decrediton integration is moving forward, check out this video for a demo and this meta issue for the full checklist. Trezor: Decrediton integration of initial Trezor support is in progress and there is a demo. Android: app design version 2.0 completed. dcrdata: development of several chart visualizations was completed and is awaiting deployment. Specifically, voting agendas and historic charts are merged while ticket pool visualization is in testing. atomicswap: @glendc is seeking reviews of his Ethereum support pull request. Dev activity stats for July: 252 active PRs, 220 master commits, 34,754 added and 12,847 deleted lines spread across 6 repositories. Contributions came from 6-10 developers per repository. (chart)
Hashrate: the month started at 40.5 and ended at 51.6 PH/s, with a low of 33.3 and a new all time high of 68.4 PH/s. F2Pool is leading with 40-45%, followed by the new BeePool at 15-25% and coinmine.pl at 18-23%. Staking: 30-day average ticket price is 92.6 DCR (-2.1). The price started the month at 94.6 and quickly retreated to month's low of 85 until 1,860 tickets were bought within a single period (versus target 720). This pushed the pool of tickets to 41,970 (2.5% above target), which in turn caused 10 price increases in a row to the month's high of 100.4. This was the highest ticket price seen on the new ticket price algorithm which has been in effect since Jul 2017. Second half of the month there was unusually low volatility between 92 and 94 DCR per ticket. Locked DCR held between 3.75 and 3.87 million or 46.6-48.0% of supply (+0.1% from previous peak). Nodes: there are 212 public listening and 216 normal nodes per dcred.eu. Version distribution: 67% on v1.2.0 (+10%), 24% on v1.1.2 (-1%), 7% on v1.1.0 (-7%). Node count data is not perfect but we can see the steady trend of upgrading to v1.2.0. This version of dcrd is notable for serving compact filters. The increased count of such full nodes allows the developers to test SPV client mode in preparations for the upcoming v1.3.0 release.
Obelisk posted three updates in July. For the most recent daily updates join their Discord. New miner from iBeLink: DSM7T hashes Blake256 at 7 TH/s or Blake2b at 3.5 TH/s, consumes 2,100 W and costs $3,800, shipping Aug 5-10. There were also speculations about the mysterious Pangolin Whatsminer DCR with the speed of 44 TH/s at 2,200 W and the cost of $3,888, shipping November. If you know more about it please share with us in #pow-mining channel.
emiliomann: stakebrasil is one of the pools with the lowest number of missed and expired tickets. It was one of the first and has a smaller percentage than the most recent ones who haven’t had the time to do so. (...) The Brazilian pool should be the one with the more servers spread around the world: 6 to decrease the latency. This is to explain to you why the [pool fee] rate of 5% (currently around 0.06 DCR) on the reward is also one of the highest. girino: 8 voting wallets now. I just finished setting up a new one yesterday. All of them in different datacenters, 3 in europe, 3 in north america, 1 in brazil and one in asia. We also have 3 more servers, 1 for the front end, one for "stats" and one for dcrdata. (#general)
On the mining side, Luxor started a new set of pool servers inside mainland China, while zpool has enabled Decred mining. StatX announced Decred integration into their live dashboard and public chat. Decred was added to Satowallet with BTC and ETH trading pairs. Caution: do your best to understand the security model before using any wallet software.
Marina Silva is the first presidential candidate in Brazil using blockchain to keep all their electoral donations transparent and traceable. VotoLegal uses Decred technology, awesome use case! (reddit)
We continue to see institutional interest in DCR. Large block buyers love the concept of staking as a way to earn additional income and appreciate the stakeholder rights it affords them. Likening a DCR investment to an activist shareholdebondholder gives these institutions some comfort while dipping their toes into a burgeoning new asset class.
Targeted advertising reports released for June and July. As usual, reach @timhebel for full versions.
Big news in June: Facebook reversed their policy on banning crypto ads. ICO ads are still banned, but we should be OK. My team filled out the appeal today, so we should hopefully hear something within a few days. (u/timhebel on reddit)
After couple weeks Facebook finally responded to the appeal and the next step is to verify the domain name via DNS. A pack of Stakey Telegram stickers is now available. Have fun!
Meetup in Berlin, Germany hosted by BlueYard Capital. @jz_bz and @lftherios discussed open source incentivization, the value of governance and their respective projects @decredproject and @oscoin. See @issedjur's feedback here. (photos: 1, 2, 3)
O'Reilly Open Source Convention in Portland, USA. @raedah's talk was "Decentralizing decision-making on the blockchain". Read his report here and see on the photos how the Big Stakey was entertaining the public. (photos: 1, 2, 3)
oregonisaac: many open source devs at OSCON were VERY interested in Politeia and it was probably the #1 hook that resulted in lots of long conversations about what makes Decred unique from the ground up. (#politeia)
Blockchain Meetup in Faro, Portugal. Marco Peereboom gave a talk "Decred 101" and answered questions.
Meetup in Lisbon, Portugal on Aug 2. @moo31337 and @mm will be presenting on Decred with talk "Decred 101 - Governance with skin in the game". Co-hosted by The Block Cafe. Free entrance.
Meetup in Taipei, Taiwan on Aug 5. @morphymore will give a short intro on Decred.
OKEx Global Meetup Tour in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam on Aug 9. @joshuam will introduce Decred and on-chain governance and take part in a panel discussion.
Twitter: Ari Paul debates "There can be only one" aka "highlander argument". Reddit and Forum: how ticket pool size influences average vote time; roadmap concerns; why ticket price was volatile; ideas for using Reddit chat for dcrtrader and alternative chat systems; insette's write-up on Andrew Stone's GROUP proposal for miner-validated tokenization that is superior to current OP_RETURN-based schemes; James Liu's paper to extend atomic swaps to financial derivatives; what happens when all DCR are mined, tail emission and incentives for miners. Chats: why tickets don't have 100% chance to vote; ideas for more straightforward marketing; long-running chat about world economy and failure modes; @brandon's thoughts on tokenizing everything, ICOs, securities, sidechains and more; challenges of staking with Trezor; ideas how to use CryptoSteel wallet with Decred; why exchange can't stake your coins, how staking can increase security, why the function to export seed from wallet is bad idea and why dcrwallet doesn't ever store the seed; ticket voting math; discussion about how GitHub workflow forces to depend on modern web browser and possible alternatives; funding marketing and education in developing markets, vetting contractors based on deliverables, "Decred contractor clearance", continued in #governance. #dex channel continues to attract thinkers and host chats about influence of exchanges, regulation, HFT, lot sizes, liquidity, on-chain vs off-chain swaps, to name a few topics. #governance also keeps growing and hosting high quality conversations.
In July DCR was trading in USD 56-76 and BTC 0.0072-0.0109 range. A recovery started after a volume boost of up to $10.5 m on Fex around Jul 13, but once Bitcoin headed towards USD ~8,000 DCR declined along with most altcoins. WalletInvestor posted a prediction on dcrtrader. Decred was noticed in top 10 mineable coins on coinmarketcap.com.
One million PCs in China were infected via browser plugins to mine Decred, Siacoin and Digibyte. In a Unchained podcast episode David Vorick shared why ASICs are better than GPUs even if they tend toward mining centralization and also described Obelisk's new Launchpad service. (missed in June issue) Sia project moved to GitLab. The stated reasons are to avoid the risk of depending on centralized service, to avoid vendor lock-in, better continuous integration and testing, better access control and the general direction to support decentralized and open source projects. Luxor explained why PPS pools are better. @nic__carter published slides from his talk "An Overview of Governance in Blockchains" from Zcon0. This article arguing the importance of governance systems dates back to 2007. Bancor wallet was hacked. This reminds us about the fake feeling of decentralizaion, that custody of funds is dangerous and that smart contracts must have minimum complexity and be verifiable. Circle announced official Poloniex mobile apps for iOS and Android. On Jul 27 Circle announced delisting of 9 coins from Poloniex that led to a loss of 23-81% of their value same day. Sad reminder about how much a project can depend on a single centralized exchange. DCR supply and market cap is now correct on onchainfx.com and finally, on coinmarketcap.com. Thanks to @sumiflow, @jz and others doing the tedious work to reach out the various websites.
About This Issue
SegWit would make it HARDER FOR YOU TO PROVE YOU OWN YOUR BITCOINS. SegWit deletes the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - like MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) deleted the "chain of (legal) title" for Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) in the foreclosure fraud / robo-signing fiasco
SegWit is a "clever innovation" brought to you by clueless / corrupt AXA-owned Blockstream devs;
MERS is a "clever innovation" brought to you by reckless / corrupt Wall Street bankers;
SegWit and MERS both work by simply deleting crucial "ownership data" for transactions.
Of course, the "experts" (on Wall Street, and at AXA-owned Blockstream) present MERS and SegWit as "innovations" - as a way to "optimize" and "streamline" vast chains of transactions reflecting ownership and transfer of valuable items (ie, real-estate mortgages, and bitcoins). But, unfortunately, the "brilliant bat-shit insane approach" devised by the "geniuses" behind MERS and SegWit to do this is to simply delete the data which proved ownership and transfer of these items - information which is essential for legal purposes (in the case of mortgages), or security purposes (in the case of bitcoins).
SegWit allows deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for bitcoins - ie, SegWit supports deleting the cryptographic data specifying "who transmitted what bitcoins to whom" (as originally specified in Satoshi's whitepaper defining Bitcoin);
MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) allowed deleting the "chain of (legal) title" for real-estate mortgages - ie, MERS supported deleting the legal "notes" specifying "who transmitted what mortgages to whom" (as previously tracked by banks / mortgage lenders / originators / notaries / land registries / "cadasters", etc.)
So, the most pernicious aspect of SegWit may be that it encourages deleting all of Bitcoin's cryptographic security data - destroying the "chain of signatures" which (according to the white paper) are what define what a "bitcoin" actually is. Wow, deleting signatures with SegWit sounds bad. Can I avoid SegWit? Yes you can. To guarantee the long-term cryptographic, legal and financial security of your bitcoins:
You should avoid sending / receiving / holding Bitcoins using the dangerous, new "SegWit" addresses. (As far as I understand, "SegWit" bitcoin addresses all start with a "3".)
You should just use safe, "normal" Bitcoin addresses - and avoid using unsafe "SegWit" addresses. (If I understand correctly, all "normal" Bitcoin addresses still start with a "1", while "SegWit" addresses always start with a "3".)
You can also use Bitcoin implementations which encourage using "normal" Bitcoin addresses. (As far as I understand, implementations such as Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic are being deployed mainly to support "normal", "non-SegWit" Bitcoin addresses - as well as market-based (bigger) blocksizes and (lower) fees.)
You can avoid Bitcoin implementations which require SegWit. (As far as I understand, SegWit2x, UASF/BIP148 are being deployed mainly to support "SegWit" Bitcoin addresses - as well as centrally-planned (smaller) blocksizes and (higher) fees).
MERS = "The dog ate your mortgage's chain of title". SegWit = "The dog ate your bitcoin's chain of signatures."
By deleting / losing the "chain of title" for mortgages stored in the MERS database (in the name of "innovation" and "efficiency" and "optimization" being pushed by "clever" bankers on Wall Street), MERS caused a legal and financial catastrophe for mortgages - by making it impossible to (legally) prove who owns which properties.
By deleting / losing the "chain of signatures" for Bitcoins stored in SegWit addresses (in the name of "innovation" and "efficiency" and "optimization" being pushed by "clever" devs at AXA-owned Blockstream), SegWit could end up causing a financial (and possibly also legal) catastrophe for Bitcoin - by making it impossible (or at least more complicated in many cases) to (cryptographically) prove who owns which bitcoins.
Wall Street-backed MERS = AXA-backed SegWit It is probably no coincidence that:
Clueless, corrupt bankers from Wall Street used MERS to recklessly delete the "chain of (legal) title" for people's mortgages;
And now clueless, corrupt devs from AXA-owned Blockstream want to recklessly use SegWit to delete the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for people's bitcoins.
by supporting the most ignorant developers and "leaders" (lying Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell and CEO Adam Back, drooling authoritarian idiot Luke-Jr, vandal Peter Todd, etc);
by supporting a massive campaign of propaganda, censorship, and lies (on forums like r\bitcoin and sites like bitcointalk.org - both controlled by the corrupt censor u/Theymos) to try to force SegWit on the Bitcoin community.
Do any Core / Blockstream devs and supporters know about MERS - and recognize its dangerous parallels with SegWit? It would be interesting to hear from some of the "prominent" Core / Blockstream devs and supporters listed below to find out if they are aware of the dangerous similarities between SegWit and MERS:
Luke-Jr u/luke-jr - co-founder of and occasional contractor for Blockstream, in charge of Core's "BIP" numbering process, known for his [delusions] and authoritarianism - and for the messy SegWit-as-a-soft-fork kludge - now leading the brainwashed lemmings and sybils of r\bitcoin off the cliff, with his doomed UASF/BIP148;
Core / Blockstream devs might not know about MERS - but AXAdefinitely does While it is likely that most or all Core / Blockstream devs do not know about the MERS fiasco... ...it is 100% certain that people at AXA (the main owners of Blockstream) do know about MERS. This is because the global financial crisis which started in 2008 was caused by:
CDOs - collateralized debt obligations
MBSs - mortgage-backed securities
MERS - the company / database Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems which "lost" (deleted) millions of people's mortgage notes - leading to "clouded titles" which made possible the wave of foreclosure fraud and robo-signing, which eventually cost the "clever" banks tens of billions of dollars in losses.
Loans originated with MERS as the original mortgagee purport to separate the borrower’s promissory note, which is made payable to the originating lender, from the borrower’s conveyance of a mortgage, which purportedly is granted to MERS. If this separation is legally incorrect - as every state supreme court looking at the issue has agreed - then the security agreements do not name an actual mortgagee or beneficiary. The mortgage industry, however, has premised its proxy recording strategy on this separation, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding that “the note and mortgage are inseparable.” [Compare with the language from Satoshi's whitepaper: "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures."] If today’s courts take the Carpenter decision at its word, then what do we make of a document purporting to create a mortgage entirely independent of an obligation to pay? If the Supreme Court is right that a “mortgage can have no separate existence” from a promissory note, then a security agreement that purports to grant a mortgage independent of the promissory note attempts to convey something that cannot exist. [...] Many courts have held that a document attempting to convey an interest in realty fails to convey that interest if the document does not name an eligible grantee. Courts around the country have long held that “there must be, in every grant, a grantor, a grantee and a thing granted, and a deed wanting in either essential is absolutely void.”
The parallels between MERS and SegWit are obvious and inescapable.
MERS separated (and eventually deleted) the legal information regarding the "conveyance" (transfer) of ownership of "realty" (real estate)
SegWit segregates (and allows eventually deleting) the cryptographic information regarding the sending and receiving of bitcoins.
Note that I am not arguing here that SegWit could be vulnerable to attacks from a strictly legal perspective. (Although that may be possible to.) I am simply arguing that SegWit, because it encourages deleting the (cryptographic) signature data which defines "bitcoins", could eventually be vulnerable to attacks from a cryptographic perspective. But I heard that SegWit is safe and tested! Yeah, we've heard a lot of lies from Blockstream, for years - and meanwhile, they've only succeeded in destroying Bitcoin's market cap, due to unnecessarily high fees and unnecessarily slow transactions. Now, in response to those legal-based criticisms of SegWit in the article from nChain, several so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" have tried to rebut that those arguments from nChain were somehow "flawed". But if you read the rebuttals of these "Bitcoin legal experts", they sound a lot like the clueless "experts" who were cheerleading MERS for its "efficiency" - and who ended up costing tens billions of dollars in losses when the "chain of title" for mortgages held in the MERS database became "clouded" after all the crucial "ownership data" got deleted in the name of "efficiency" and "optimization". In their attempt to rebut the article by nChain, these so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" use soothing language like "optimization" and "pragmatic" to try to lull you into believing that deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for your bitcoins will be just as safe as deleting the "chain of (legal) notes" for mortgages: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-legal-experts-nchain-segwit-criticisms-flawed/ The (unsigned!) article on CoinDesk attempting to rebut Nguyen's article on nChain starts by stating:
Nguyen's criticisms fly in the face of what has emerged as broad support for the network optimization, which has been largely embraced by the network's developers, miners and startups as a pragmatic step forward.
Then it goes on to quote "Bitcoin legal experts" who claim that using SegWit to delete Bitcoin's cryptographic signatures will be just fine:
Marco Santori, a fintech lawyer who leads the blockchain tech team at Cooley LLP, for example, took issue with what he argued was the confused framing of the allegation. Santori told CoinDesk:
"It took the concept of what is a legal contract, and took the position that if you have a blockchain signature it has something to do with a legal contract."
Stephen Palley, counsel at Washington, DC, law firm Anderson Kill, remarked similarly that the argument perhaps put too much weight on the idea that the "signatures" involved in executing transactions on the bitcoin blockchain were or should be equivalent to signatures used in digital documents.
"It elides the distinction between signature and witness data and a digital signature, and they're two different things," Palley said.
"There are other ways to cryptographically prove a transaction is correctly signed other than having a full node," said BitGo engineer Jameson Lopp. "The assumption that if a transaction is in the blockchain, it's probably valid, is a fairly good guarantee." Legal experts asserted that, because of this design, it's possible to prove that the transaction occurred between parties, even if those involved did not store signatures. For this reason, Coin Center director Jerry Brito argued that nChain is overstating the issues that would arise from the absence of this data. "If you have one-time proof that you have the bitcoin, if you don't have it and I have it, logically it was signed over to me. As long as somebody in the world keeps the signature data and it's accessible, it's fine," he said.
There are several things you can notice here:
These so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" are downplaying the importance of signatures in Bitcoin - just like the "experts" behind MERS downplayed the importance of "notes" for mortgages.
Satoshi said that a bitcoin is a "chain of digital signatures" - but these "Bitcoin legal experts" are now blithely asserting that we can simply throw the "chain of digital signatures" in the trash - and we can be "fairly" certain that everything will "probably" be ok.
The "MERS = SegWit" argument which I'm making is not based on interpreting Bitcoin signatures in any legal sense (although some arguments could be made along those lines).
Instead, I'm just arguing that any "ownership database" which deletes its "ownership data" (whether it's MERS or SegWit) is doomed to end in disaster - whether that segregated-and-eventually-deleted "ownership data" is based on law (with MERS), or cryptography (with SegWit).
Who's right - Satoshi or the new "Bitcoin experts"? You can make up your own mind. Personally, I will never send / receive / store large sums of money using any "SegWit" bitcoin addresses. This, is not because of any legal considerations - but simply because I want the full security of "the chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - which, according to the whitepaper, is the very definition of what a bitcoin "is". Here are the words of Satoshi, from the whitepaper, regarding the "chain of digital signatures": https://www.bitcoin.com/bitcoin.pdf
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
Does that "chain of digital signatures" sound like something you'd want to throw in the trash??
The "clever devs" from AXA-owned Blockstream (and a handful of so-called "Bitcoin legal experts) say "Trust us, it is safe to delete the chain of signatures proving ownership and transfer of bitcoins". They're pushing "SegWit" - the most radical change in the history of Bitcoin. As I have repeatedly discussed, SegWit weakens Bitcoin's security model.
The people who support Satoshi's original Bitcoin (and clients which continue to implement it: Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Classic - all supporting "Bitcoin Cash" - ie "Bitcoin" without SegWit) say "Trust no one. You should never delete the chain of signatures proving ownership and transfer of your bitcoins."
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures.
So, according to Satoshi, a "chain of digital signatures" is the very definition of what a bitcoin is.
Meanwhile according to some ignorant / corrupt devs from AXA-owned Blockstream (and a handful of "Bitcoin legal experts") now suddenly it's "probably" "fairly" safe to just throw Satoshi's "chain of digital signatures" in the trash - all in the name of "innovation" and "efficiency" and "optimization" - because they're so very clever.
Who do you think is right? Finally, here's another blatant lie from SegWit supporters (and small-block supporters) Let's consider this other important quote from Satoshi's whitepaper above:
A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
Remember, this is what "small blockers" have always been insisting for years. They've constantly been saying that "blocks need to be 1 MB!!1 Waah!1!" - even though several years ago the Cornell study showed that blocks could already be 4 MB, with existing hardware and bandwidth. But small-blockers have always insisted that everyone should store the entire blockchain - so they can verify their own transactions. But hey, wait a minute! Now they turn around and try to get you to use SegWit - which allows deleting the very data which insisted that you should download and save locally to verify your own transactions! So, once again, this exposes the so-called "arguments" of small-blocks supporters as being fake arguments and lies:
On the one hand, they (falsely) claim that small blocks are necessary in order for everyone to be run "full nodes" because (they claim) that's the only way people can personally verify all their own transactions. By the way, there are already several errors here with what they're saying:
Actually "full nodes" is a misnomer (Blockstream propaganda). The correct terminology is "full wallets", because only miners are actually "nodes".
Actually 1 MB "max blocksize" is not necessary for this. The Cornell study showed that we could easily be using 4 MB or 8 MB blocks by now - since, as everyone knows, the average size of most web pages is already over 2 MB, and everyone routinely downloads 2 MB web pages in a matter of seconds, so in 10 minutes you could download - and upload - a lot more than just 2 MB. But whatever.
On the other hand, they support SegWit - and the purpose of SegWit is to allow people to delete the "signature data".
This conflicts with their argument the everyone should personally verify all their own transactions. For example, above, Coin Center director Jerry Brito was saying: "As long as somebody in the world keeps the signature data and it's accessible, it's fine."
So which is it? For years, the "small blockers" told us we needed to all be able to personally verify everything on our own node. And now SegWit supporters are telling us: "Naah - you can just rely on someone else's node."
Plus, while the transactions are still being sent around on the wire, the "signature data" is still there - it's just "segregated" - so you're not getting any savings on bandwidth anyways - you'd only get the savings if you delete the "signature data" from storage.
Storage is cheap and plentiful, it's never been the "bottleneck" in the system. Bandwidth is the main bottleneck - and SegWit doesn't help that at all, because it still transmits all the data.
Conclusion So if you're confused by all the arguments from small-blockers and SegWitters, there's a good reason: their "arguments" are total bullshit and lies. They're attempting to contradict and destroy:
Satoshi's original design of Bitcoin as a "chain of digital signatures":
"We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership."
Satoshi's plan for scaling Bitcoin by simply increasing the goddamn blocksize:
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
The the notorious mortgage database MERS, pushed by clueless and corrupt Wall Street bankers, deleted the "chain of (legal) title" which had been essential to show who conveyed what mortgages to whom - leading to "clouded titles", foreclosure fraud, and robo-signing.
The notorious SegWit soft fork / kludge, pushed by clueless and corrupt AXA-owned Blockstream devs, allows deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" which is essential to show who sent how many bitcoins to whom - which could lead to a catastrophe for people who foolishly use SegWit addresses (which can be avoided: unsafe "SegWit" bitcoin addresses start with a "3" - while safe, "normal" Bitcoin addresses start with a "1").
Stay safe and protect your bitcoin investment: Avoid SegWit transactions.
[See the comments from me directly below for links to several articles on MERS, foreclosure fraud, robo-signing, "clouded title", etc.]
A letter to the IDW regarding Patreon and other social media CEO ideologues.
Hi Bitcoiners! I’m back with the nineteenth monthly Bitcoin news recap. For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month. You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com A recap of Bitcoin in July 2018
In a recent interview between John Carvahlo, CEO of Xotika and owner of the YouTube channel Bitcoin Error Log, and Roger Ver, millionaire Bitcoin investor and owner of the web domain bitcoin.com, tensions rise to all time highs much like the price of the coin these two individuals sponsor. In this near 45 minute interview that was cut short due to the latter “Rage-Quitting”, a lot was revealed from the core philosophies surrounding both Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash in the 2017 market of crypto currencies. The interview begins and ends with a discussion over the name “Bcash” which was infamously given to Bitcoin Cash by its opponents in the crypto-sphere. Bitcoin Cash was given the name Bcash by the Bitcoin community so as to not create confusion between the two coins as well as to anger the supporters of Bitcoin Cash; a tactic which appears to be quite effective as demonstrated in this interview. To be fair to Roger Ver, Carvahlo did seem a bit unprofessional by not trying to avoid calling Bitcoin Cash Bcash or by getting equally as heated as Roger Ver, but it’s a free market and there are no rules or laws that prevent him from doing as he pleases. On one side we have Roger Ver, vehemently defending the honour of Bitcoin Cash as the truest form of the white paper created by Satoshi Nakamoto. On the other hand we have John Carvahlo who seems to use the term Bcash to delegitimize the claim that Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin, to avoid confusion between the two coins for any newcomers to the crypto currency space and to annoy Roger Ver. Through out the rest of the interview, between overlapping rebuttals, some bits of information are dropped that reveal a lot about the true intention of one party in particular. For starters Roger Ver claims that Bitcoin is a peer-to-peer electronic cash system to which Carvahlo disagrees as the presence of nodes on the network suggests otherwise. And I have to agree with John Carvahlo. Nothing on the Internet is truly peer-to-peer. The Internet itself suffers from forms of centralization between Internet Service Providers and the regional nodes they get the Internet from. The Internet in 2017 is void of any direct communication between peers; there are always middlemen in between. This brings up another topic discussed during the interview, whether or not Bitcoin as a network is truly decentralized. For starters, Roger Ver claims that varying degrees of centralization are acceptable within the network and he expects the network to become more and more centralized as the growth of Bitcoin continues. To which I half agree. I think anarchy as governance is flawed; some political structure is necessary, such as Athenian democracy. Yes the Internet’s structure as well as that of the Bitcoin network, with the nodes and the ever-increasing difficulty of mining, can both guarantee that the Bitcoin network will never be truly decentralized and peer-to-peer. But what is worrying is what degree of centralization Roger Ver is ok with; and that is the heart of the scaling debate. Yes at times the Bitcoin network suffers from slow transaction times and high fees. Yes scaling is a problem with a desperate need for a solution. No, increasing the block size is not the answer. First, lets dissect Roger Ver’s position on bigger blocks. He claims that over the last 7 to 8 years, the Bitcoin blocks have scaled successfully and that empirically, it is a proven scaling solution that will lower transaction fees and times. The problem with that is his premise that Bitcoin has been scaling since the beginning is completely wrong and paints his cause in a preferred light. Bitcoin has not been scaling since 2009. When Bitcoin was created, within the code a block size limit was written. The block size limit has to be defined for blockchain to work because that would be a coding error. It would cause network stalls during periods of high traffic where a block could in theory never fill if enough transactions are being sent to the network at once. This is what is known as a Sybil attack. So from a certain point in time early in Bitcoin’s development, a block size limit of 1MB was coded into Bitcoin. Roger Ver claims that over the years, the block size grew from 1 KB to 2KB, so on and so forth until it reached the 1MB block size but that is wrong. The blocks always had room for 1MB but were very small due to the amount of transactions present in the mempool. That’s like saying my 100 mL cup that is half filled is actually a 50 mL cup because only half of it is being used. It’s still a 100 mL cup. And this is important because it proves that bigger blocks as a scaling solution has not been empirically tested. Which is why an “altcoin with a smaller market cap is being used to test new features”; it’s called Bitcoin Cash. Another point that was not talked about during the interview is how bigger blocks cause greater miner centralization, the most critical flaw of the bigger blocks approach. With ASIC’s and ASIC Boost, it has become incredibly difficult for any individual to start mining Bitcoin for a profit. A large upfront investment into specialized mining hardware is required in order to generate a profit. This means that mining or the process of validating transactions is becoming more and more reserved to wealthy individuals. And this is apparently, arguably bad; at least Roger Ver seems to be ok with varying degrees of centralization. Except the whole point of crypto currencies is that no individual or no individual group should be able to control the network for their own self interest; we have fiat currency for that. So then when increasing the block size, yes more transactions are able to be processed in one block which does reduce fees and settling times except that bigger blocks are harder to mine, pushing the mining process further into centralization. It’s also a temporary solution because with the growing number of Bitcoin users, a bigger block size limit will be reached requiring another hard fork to increase the block size limit. This is like adding lanes to a highway because too many drivers are present on the road; it’s a bandaid solution that avoids the root of the problem. This interview is important because between the well-rehearsed lines and the pressing questions, within his off-script bouts of rage, the true Roger Ver shines bright. Roger Ver talks about Bitcoin as if it’s a company. He criticizes the Core development team because since their arrival into the space, he claims that the market cap of Bitcoin has been “bleeding out” and that it’s losing its market share to altcoins, pointing to its drop in market dominance as proof. He might be right, or perhaps more and more people are looking at the wealth of early Bitcoin adopters and are trying to get rich from altcoins that could see similar growth. Or maybe it’s because altcoins aren’t direct competitors to Bitcoin and are using blockchain to solve real world problems and people are seeing their value. Regardless, he also argues that not anybody is able to contribute code to Bitcoin. And all of this is a twisted version of reality that pushes his agenda. Anybody today can write code for Bitcoin, and through community consensus can have it implemented. Roger Ver did not have the opportunity to defend his claim during the interview, but I think it’s apparent that because block size increases have been repeatedly shut down by the community, he claims that nobody outside Core can contribute code to Bitcoin. That’s just not true. Segwit, a Bitcoin feature added through node consensus, is allowing for the lightning network, a layer 2 scaling solution, to be independently developed by passionate members of the Bitcoin community. The very idea of a BIP (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal) was proposed and implemented by a community member. Roger Ver also often refers to permissions on the GitHub repository as “the keys” as if any one person can own the network like a house. This is false. The reason why the core developers code is widely accepted is because the community supports the work they’re doing. Roger Ver says it himself: he believes we need to let the market decide what coin is the true Bitcoin. Except that it already has. If people wanted bigger blocks, Bitcoin Cash would be called Bitcoin. It is also worth noting that the market has decided multiple times that it does not want to increase the block size as other Bitcoin forks that Roger Ver has supported in the past, namely Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited, have failed. Roger Ver claims that people who call Bitcoin Cash, Bcash have been brainwashed by its opponents. He believes that Segwit is adopted by brainwashed individuals. As if nobody in the Bitcoin community can think for themselves; we’re all just sheep waiting for a shepherd like Roger Ver to tell us what’s right. Except that by purposefully misleading newcomers to the crypto space by calling his website that supports Bitcoin Cash, bitcoin.com, by misleading the newcomers by not clearly explaining the differences between Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin on the wallet app his website sponsors and by also calling Bitcoin, Bitcoin Core or Bitcoin Segwit, he’t not only being a hypocrite for criticizing Carvahlo for name calling, he’s also issuing his own brand of brainwashing instead of letting new users decide for themselves which coin is the real Bitcoin. If his claims that Core and Core supporters are brainwashing people were true, Roger Ver would be just as guilty of doing this. A final point I would like to make is how both camps view Bitcoin philosophically. The Bitcoin supporters mostly view Bitcoin as a store of value while Bitcoin Cashers view Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer digital cash. And I want to point out that Bitcoin fails tremendously in its current state at being a dollar killer, a digital cash. Bitcoin as a store of value has succeeded tremendously. People all over the world are using Bitcoin to have value traverse borders with ease, to send value to loved ones without going through Western Union or as an investment vehicle. In that sense, Bitcoin is truly like digital gold. As a currency, it has seen some success in terms of adoption. Many merchants accept Bitcoin as a form of payment. You can even buy airline tickets with Baltic Airlines via Bitcoin. But, in my opinion, neither Bitcoin nor Bitcoin Cash could today successfully replace fiat currency. If today either coin were adopted globally, both coins in their current state would face tremendous scaling issues, causing insanely high transaction fees and slow confirmation times. The lightning network is showing more promise than bigger blocks as it doesn’t push miner centralization, it actually decreases the amount of transactions on chain but it has yet to be seen if this solution will work. Without scaling as an issue, both coins also suffer from a deflationary problem, which many economists argue disqualifies most crypto currencies as a good fiat replacement. That however, is a different topic. The scaling debate should not be a debate anymore. The community has been offered a currency with larger blocks, lower fees and faster settling times, time and time again. It had Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Cash and Segwit 2X to decide and the answer has been an astounding no. If users truly desired a coin that fit this description, Litecoin would lead the crypto currency market, or any other crypto currency like it. But the fact is Bitcoin in its flawed state leads the pack and nobody today uses Bitcoin as a digital cash as Satoshi Nakamoto intended. Just like nobody avoids eating shrimp and other crustaceans because the Bible said it was a great sin. I believe the topic on crypto forums should no longer be scaling as Segwit is being adopted through consensus and the Lightning Network is imminent. If it fails to scale Bitcoin, then we’ll go back to the drawing board. I think the true debate should be whether the community wants Bitcoin to truly be a replacement for fiat currencies or if it should remain a store of value like gold. Either way, this interview gives the crypto community a glimpse at the real Roger Ver, a used-car-salesmen type who rehearses his lines and changes definitions to paint his cause in the proper light. A guy who is ok with Bitcoin becoming centralized. A guy who likes to flash his cash and likes to belittle others for making less money than him and for operating legitimate businesses within the sex industry. A guy who disagrees with the decisions the Bitcoin community has made over the years so instead of creating his own currency and leaving the Bitcoin brand alone, he constantly pushes a skewed narrative of Core and Bitcoin and how it’s flawed. How Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin. He acts like a paternal figure, knowing what’s best for the community despite it’s previous choices and loses his temper when it’s evident he doesn’t have control; like an abusive lover. If his intentions were honest, why would he try to steal the Bitcoin brand? Why would he try to tarnish the name of the thing that gave him a large part of his wealth in the first place? Personally, it seems to me like he’s that kid at the playground, the one that nobody wanted to play games by his rules. Instead of finding someone else to play with, he tries to manipulate others, takes fits when he doesn’t get his way and ultimately decides for everyone that if he can’t have his way, then nobody should.
Motivation BIP 100 proposes a limit determined by super-majority miner vote, up to a maximum explicit limit of 32 MB. Specifically, the preferred block size limit of a miner is expressed in the Coinbase transaction, and the minimum block size limit value of the middle 60 percent of the values of the last 12,000 blocks becomes the new limit, with a maximum change of 2x in either direction. The original draft of BIP 100 did not contain the explicit 32 MB limit, but this restriction was added due to concern about the potential for the mining network to decide to increase the limit to levels detrimental to network decentralization. While eliminating one risk, the addition of the 32 MB limit introduced a new one: a future hard fork to raise the 32 MB limit. As has been witnessed over the last year in the debate over replacing the 1 MB limit, hard forks that deal with the block size limit are highly contentious, due to their far-reaching consequences. This contention makes such hard forks risky, as it increases the risk of a hard fork without full consensus occurring, which would carry with it a significant risk of Bitcoin splitting into two distinct and non-interoperable networks and blockchains. The Bitcoin userbase and development community will undoubtedly be significantly larger, with more diversity of views, and less cohesion amongst the various stakeholders in the Bitcoin economy, when conditions require executing a hard fork to raise the 32 MB limit, and therefore the risks associated with the hard fork will likely be much greater than the already considerable risks associated with the hard fork to replace the static 1 MB limit. For these reasons, it would be preferable to modify BIP 100 to remove the explicit 32 MB limit, and find an alternate means of mitigating the risks to network decentralization from allowing miner preference to set the block size limit. Proposal The proposed solution is to create a predefined schedule of growing upper and lower bounds for the block size limit value, within which miner preference determines the exact value using the same mechanism as proposed in BIP 100, but which cannot be escaped through miner vote. Specifications Two variations of the bounded solution are offered, a 'simple bounded hash power mediated limit', and an 'enhanced bounded hashpower mediated limit'. Simple bounded hash power mediated limit (SBHML): The 'minimum block size limit' increases by 10 percent a year, and the 'maximum block size limit' increases by 40 percent a year, for 30 years. After 30 years, the minimum block size limit increases by 0 percent a year, and the maximum block size limit is increased by 30 percent a year. Enhanced bounded hash power mediated limit (EBHML): At every block, a base block size limit, B, is calculated from the central moving average of the block size limit 262500 blocks (approx 5 years) in the past, with the mean calculated from the 52,500 blocks on each side of the central block, plus the central block. The minimum block size limit of a given block is 1.61051 (10 percent annual growth for five years) times B, for 30 years. The maximum block size limit of a given block is 5.37824 (40 percent annual growth for five years) times B, for 30 years. The annual growth factor changes to 0 and 30 percent, for the minimum and maximum block size limit, respectively, after 30 years. Comparison between EBHML and SBHML At the cost of greater complexity, the EBHML proposal reduces the range of possible block size limit values over nearer-term time-scales, thus increasing the predictability of the block size limit, and reducing, in proportion to how near-term the time frame, the maximum size of swings in the block size limit. The difference between the minimum and maximum block size limit, and by extension, the maximum potential size of the swings in the miner defined block size limit, grows with time in the SBHML proposal, increasing the risks posed by irresponsible stewardship of the block size limit by the mining majority, while the EBHML lacks this negative quality. EBHML is therefore recommended over SBHML. Rationale By having an automatically increasing upper and lower bound for the block size limit, the risk that BIP 100 contains that another hard fork will be needed in the future to accommodate the need for larger blocks is significantly reduced. The dynamic limit also provides the same function as the explicit 32 MB limit in the BIP 100 proposal, in limiting the potential damage done to decentralization from the mining network choosing a too-high limit. The choice of 10 and 40 percent per year growth for the minimum and maximum block size limit, respectively, for the first 30 years is premised on projected minimum and maximum growth in broadband cost-performance. These figures are reduced to 0 and 30 percent per year after 30 years because of the assumed likelihood of investments in broadband growth eventually seeing diminishing returns as low hanging fruit for cost-performance gains become increasingly scarce.
Yes, Bitcoin was always supposed to be gold 2.0: digital gold that you could use like cash, so you could spend it anywhere without needing banks and gold notes to make it useful. So why is Core trying to turn it back into gold 1.0? (112 points, 85 comments)
In October 2010 Satoshi proposed a hard fork block size upgrade. This proposed upgrade was a fundamental factor in many people's decision to invest, myself included. BCH implemented this upgrade. BTC did not. (74 points, 41 comments)
what do the following have in common: Australia, Canada, USA, Hong Kong, Jamaica, Liberia, Namibia, New Zealand, Singapore, Taiwan, Caribbean Netherlands, East Timor, Ecuador, El Salvador, the Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Palau, Zimbabwe (47 points, 20 comments)
BCH is victim to one of the biggest manipulation campaigns in social media: Any mention of BCH triggered users instantly to spam "BCASH".. until BSV which is a BCH fork and almost identical to it pre-November fork popped out of nowhere and suddenly social media is spammed with pro-BSV posts. (131 points, 138 comments)
LocalBitcoins just banned cash. It really only goes to show everything in the BTC ecosystem is compromised. (122 points, 42 comments)
The new narrative of the shills who moved to promoting bsv: Bitcoin was meant to be government-friendly (33 points, 138 comments)
PSA: The economical model of the Lightning Network is unsound. The LN will support different coins which will be interconnected and since the LN tokens will be transacted instead of the base coins backing them up their value will be eroded over time. (14 points, 8 comments)
94 points: ThomasZander's comment in "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow."
87 points: tjonak's comment in A Reminder Why You Shouldn’t Use Google.
86 points: money78's comment in Tone Vays: "So I will admit, I did terrible in the Malta Debate vs @rogerkver [...]"
83 points: discoltk's comment in "Not a huge @rogerkver fan and never really used $BCH. But he wiped up the floor with @ToneVays in Malta, and even if you happen to despise BCH, it’s foolish and shortsighted not to take these criticisms seriously. $BTC is very expensive and very slow."
79 points: jessquit's comment in Ways to trigger a Shitcoin influencer Part 1: Remind them that’s it’s very likely they got paid to shill fake Bitcoin to Noobs
Schlagwort-Archive: BIP 100 Aktuelles, Presseschau. Bitcoin-Presseschau #76. 6. September 2015 Friedemann Brenneis. Die Bitcoin-Presseschau fasst jeden Sonntag die wichtigsten Informationen, Entwicklungen und Links aus dem Bereich Bitcoin und digitales Geld zusammen. Für die Woche vom 31. August bis 6. September 2015 mit folgenden Themen: Neues vom Kurs; Thema der Woche: Bitcoin und ... Making small investments is a great way to start and learn about how to interact with wallets without overexposing yourself to the market’s volatility. If you’re looking to invest in cryptocurrencies in general, choosing Bitcoin should be your first option. Its robustness is unparalleled in the industry and is one of its greatest, if not its cardinal, strength. The general narrative around ... Bitcoininvestment.pw (BIP) is a trusted and genuine bitcoin investment site that is aimed at helping individuals earn bitcoin and achieve financial independence the right and legit way. Bitcoininvestment.pw is a bitcoin investment site located in Estonia, who’s mission is to help empower individual investors to earn bitcoin the right and legit way. Our team is made up of writers, bitcoin ... Reply from Bitcoin Investment (BIP) Hello! Sorry for the distress caused! Your funds are not lost, If you have proof, please contact our support and all issues will be fixed. Send an email to [email protected] barnard james 2 reviews. JO. In case. In case, it gets to that level that you'd need someone to safe you from the snares of their fraudulent moves. "Recovery Aid" via Skype would ... The “Bitcoin Rich List” shows over 70 percent of wallets have less than $100 worth of bitcoin (equivalent to $200 at bitcoin’s 2017 peak). It ... On top of that, most mainstream financial investments have lost their yields or gained new risks (sometimes, both). At what point do money managers decide their fiduciary duties compel them to put some money into the best performing asset of ...
Bitcoin To Invest Or Not To Invest? Bitcoin Satellites And Bitcoin Vs PayPal - 042 by The Modern Investor. 13:11 ... Bitcoin In Japan, BIP 91 Finally Activated + Bitcoin Hardfork And Price ... Best of YouTube This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Queue Close. This video is unavailable. Visit my website at http://rchrisford.com for more information on bitcoin