block size debate BTCMANAGER

What are the chances a suboptimal result from the block size debate - or damage from the debate itself - could destroy bitcoin?

Is there a worst-case scenario in which the currency dies?
submitted by BingSerious to btc [link] [comments]

What are the chances a suboptimal result from the block size debate - or damage from the debate itself - could destroy bitcoin? /r/btc

What are the chances a suboptimal result from the block size debate - or damage from the debate itself - could destroy bitcoin? /btc submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

The Truth, The Lies.. oh the lies

So there was a big fight in Bitcoin early on, between the idiot asshole anarchists who wanted a drug-currency and the banker types who thought Blockchain would be incredibly useful. And the Anarchists 'won' temporarily because they got to limit the size of the blockchain and make it useless for all the things those banker types wanted to use it for. It's not even a debate that this happened. There's no debate really that the block size was always intended to scale. They just made this stupid argument that the people who invested in the network were 'winning' and that it wouldn't be 'Peer to Peer' anymore if the miners 'took over'. It was total and utter crap then, and it's total and utter crap now.
If you remember, back in the early days of conferences, there'd be a ton of people around from the tech industry who showed up to enthuse over how cool Bitcoin technology was, and that sort of exploded into the crypto industry. But the truth is pretty plain: the Bitcoin blockchain could have grown and grown into something big and useful full of people's data and used in multiple different ways. It would be secured by big big companies with lots to lose who had their own interests invested in the blockchain they were securing.
It didn't happen like that precisely because the cypherpunks tried to hide transactions on chain. It didn't happen because the cypherpunks didn't like the idea of a big public blockchain. Fundamentally, they don't like the internet as it is, because they say they're privacy advocates. The reality is that they like the fact that they can hack and explore the digital world, so the 'privacy advocacy' is really just an excuse.
So what are these people afraid of exactly?
They're basically afraid of an authoritarian future based on the blockchain. But are their fears reasonable or warranted? They don't want to be tracked and traced (especially, they're campaigning for the right to privacy and the right to be forgotten). But truthfully speaking, the blockchain works because it's a public database where transactions are broadcast in public. And the reality of the system may well be that the economics work PRECISELY because of the publishing of the transactions. Public transactions, in economic terms, may well be 'cheaper' than private ones, and probably for a very good reason.
Honest transactions carry less need for privacy, less need for secrecy, so they don't need to be protected so much, as a result so they don't cost as much.
So if you look at it through this lens it becomes MORE THAN CLEAR why they hate Satoshi's Original Vision (now BSV). They hate the public nature of the chain. They want an alternative system to the banking system, and they want it to be hidden, uncensorable, uncontrollable and 'free' in all the worst ways.
submitted by Jo_Bones to bsv [link] [comments]

What is Bitcoin Cash and some exchanges to try out!

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) came about in August 2017 after a hard fork and a split in the Bitcoin blockchain. Bitcoin Cash is a direct result of the constant debates and many opinions about the future of Bitcoin’s scalability and mass adoption.

Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin Cash

Bitcoin’s blockchain has grown exponentially in recent times. This means that many more users are using the cryptocurrency, which is slowing down the network.
The limited Bitcoin block size of 1 MB means that blocks are filling up quickly, resulting in a long queue of unconfirmed transactions. As a result, at peak times, transactions have become slow and expensive.
Bitcoin cash, on the other hand, was initially created with an 8MB block, which was later on increased in size to 32MB. This change allows for more transactions to be processed in each block mined.
Many see this as a step forward in terms of how best to scale the network.
Bitcoin Cash opposers remain adamant that it’s simply a short-term fix that doesn’t solve the problem in the long run. Also, they claim there’s no implementation of ideas such as Segwit to help effectively break transactions down into smaller, more manageable pieces.
Bitcoin Cash (BCH), Sometimes referred to as Bcash, is a fork of Bitcoin (BTC). When a fork occurs on a Blockchain, the currency is basically duplicated.
This means that anyone with Bitcoins in his possession at the time the fork occurred, got credited with the same amount of Bitcoin Cash.

Buying Bitcoin Cash in 3 Simple Steps

Step 1: Get a Bitcoin Cash Wallet

Before you can buy Bitcoin Cash, you’ll need a Bitcoin Cash wallet to store it in. Hardware wallets that support Bitcoin Cash include industry leaders Ledger and TREZOR.
Both Ledger and TREZOR provide functions for you to use Bitcoin Cash as you would any other cryptocurrency. Both have also introduced the ability to claim your funds if you already owned Bitcoin at the time of the Bitcoin Cash hard fork.
Additionally, there are a variety of software wallets you can use to store Bitcoin Cash as well.
Exodus provides a great user experience with a seamless coin exchange service known as Shapeshift built in.
Edge is a mobile wallet for iOS and Android that supports multiple cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin Cash. It also has a variety of features allowing you to buy cryptocurrencies and exchange them from within the app.
Electron Cash is a clone of the awesome Electrum wallet for Bitcoin. If you’re used to Electrum, then you’ll have no problem jumping on board with its sister technology.
Other wallets that support BCH include Keepkey, BTC.com, Bitpay, and Coinomi. You can view all available wallets on the official Bitcoin Cash website.
Once you have your wallet, you will need your Bitcoin Cash address. It’s a long string of letters and numbers that start with either a “1” or a “3” — similar to normal Bitcoin addresses.
Since many people got confused and started sending Bitcoins to Bitcoin Cash wallets and vice versa, a new format was invented for Bitcoin Cash. The format, called “Cash Address” is 42 characters long and starts with a “p” or a “q”. Here’s an example:
qpm2qsznhks23z7629mms6s4cwef74vcwvy22gdx6a
Keep in mind that Cash Addresses are just a representation of original Bitcoin Cash addresses. This means that the same address can be represented in two different ways (normal format or Cash Address format).
Not all wallets support Cash address format.

Step 2: Find a Bitcoin Cash Exchange

Most Bitcoin exchanges will also allow you to buy Bitcoin Cash, here are top ones around.
Buy Bitcoin Cash Through eToro
eToro allows users from around the world to buy and sell Bitcoin Cash with a variety of payment methods.
eToro is more aimed towards investing in BCH for making a profit in fiat currency (i.e. Dollars, Euros, etc.) rather than actually using it. That being said, eToro does give you access to your coins and allows you to send coins from eToro to other people.
If you use eToro for investment only, you don’t actually need a Bitcoin Cash wallet as you won’t be withdrawing the coins.
*75% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money. CFDs are not offered to US users. Cryptoassets are highly volatile unregulated investment products. No EU investor protection.
Buy Bitcoin Cash Through Coinmama
Coinmama, one of the oldest exchanges around, allows you to buy Bitcoin Cash with a credit card, debit card or SEPA transfer. Coinmama accepts users from almost all countries around the world.
Buy Bitcoin Cash Through CEX.io
CEX.IO, based in London, is a trusted, experienced name in the industry, having been around since 2013. You can choose from a selection of cryptocurrencies on the site, including Bitcoin Cash.
The exchange has a brokerage service (easier to use, more expensive) and a trading platform (cheaper but more complex).CEX accepts credit cards, debit cards, wire transfers and SEPA.
Buy Bitcoin Cash Through Coinbase
Coinbase is a reputable Bitcoin exchange that supplies a variety of other services including a wallet, a trading platform (Coinbase Pro) and a Bitcoin debit card.
If you’re a beginner, it’s probably best to use the brokerage service which is a bit more expensive, but easier to use. Advanced users can use Coinbase Pro to buy Bitcoin Cash with lower fees.
Coinbase accepts debit cards and wire transfers.
Buy Bitcoin Cash Through Bitstamp
Bitstamp, the oldest exchange around, supports the trading of BCH to Bitcoin and direct purchases with US dollars or Euros. There’s also an option to buy Bitcoin Cash with your credit card at a higher price.
If you know your way around Bitcoin trading platforms it’s best to use that service and not the credit card service since you’ll save substantially on fees.
Other options to purchase Bitcoin Cash include Bitfinex, Cryptmixer, Kraken, Poloniex, HitBTC, and more (you can view all available exchanges on Bitcoin Cash’s website).

Step 3: Transfer the BCH to your wallet

As usual, I recommend that you never leave money on an exchange.
Once you’ve finished buying your Bitcoin Cash, move it to your own wallet (the one you chose in step 1). You can then follow the status of your transaction using a Bitcoin Cash block explorer.
Once you receive three confirmations for your Bitcoin Cash, you can safely say you’ve completed the process.

Conclusion

It’s apparent that Bitcoin Cash has still not gained full acceptance by large parts of the cryptocurrency community. It still sits firmly in second place to its older brother in terms of both price and usage.
Bitcoin Cash has the advantage of being the first major split that has garnered acceptance. Most forks after it didn’t receive nearly enough attention from the community or the media.
However, with internal conflicts inside its founding team and accelerated Bitcoin development for scalability solutions, I’m not sure if there’s an actual use case for Bitcoin Cash other than price speculation.
submitted by MonishaNuij to MonMonCrypto [link] [comments]

Monero - The Elephant in the Room

The state of financial privacy in 2020
Note: You can read this in a friendlier format with images over on Medium - https://medium.com/@johnfoss/the-elephant-in-the-room-34e061f5912a
The erosion of personal privacy is gaining momentum since the coronavirus pandemic took hold. Worldwide, there have been numerous calls by governments and social commentators to increase the surveillance of citizens in hope of controlling the virus. Corporations such as Google and Apple, along with countries such as Singapore, Germany, Belgium, USA, and South Korea have been utilizing smartphone data in different capacities to monitor the movements of citizens.
Many believe the implementation of new surveillance measures will calcify and become the new norm, setting precedence for further encroachment.
Mainstream media has also begun supporting the notion of increased surveillance to serve social and financial needs. A recent Bloomberg opinion piece discussed the need for increased surveillance, pointing out the financial system we operate within is fractured and inefficient when dealing with wide spread social and economic problems.
Once again, government over-reach of citizens’ privacy is a considered solution to our problems.
Countries such as Sweden (which is expected to go entirely cashless by 2023) have been leading the charge in moving to a cashless world, and in Australia the government is preparing to ban cash transactions over ten thousand dollars in order to increase monitorization.
This road to a cashless society is being sped up by the coronavirus pandemic. There is correlation between countries where ‘cash is king’ and a high number of coronavirus infections. Many retail stores are now too afraid to accept cash due to possible virus transmission, with some outright refusing to transact with cash.
The erosion of privacy, and the gradual transition from cash to digital financial transactions leads us to murky waters. Will we be able to conduct private financial transactions five to ten years from now?
Throughout the past decade, unorthodox individuals turned to Bitcoin in order to transact privately. This led to the inception of popular online darknet markets such as the Silk Road. However, many of the darknet markets proved to be unreliable and short-lived. It soon became apparent to Bitcoin users that Bitcoin is not private, and many of those conducting transactions in relation to darknet markets were identified and prosecuted.
Blockchain analytic companies such as Chainanalysis gained traction and suddenly Bitcoin tumblers were found to be ineffective. Blockchain analytic companies take advantage of Bitcoin’s transparent blockchain, analysing data and tracking transaction outputs. The blockchain analytic company then sells this information to cryptocurrency exchanges and government organisations so they can link Bitcoin addresses to specific users. Many Bitcoin advocates tout Bitcoin can be used privately via the use of newer tumbling technologies, however this is a somewhat arduous process with no guarantee of its effectiveness. In December 2019 Chainanalysis demonstrated how they tracked transactions mixed via Wasabi Wallet that were associated with the PlusToken scam. Tumbling also leads to the possibility of coin taint, whereas certain Bitcoin may be perceived to be less valuable because they can be identified as being associated with nefarious activities, and as a result exchange services may confiscate coins when a user attempts to sell them.
While Bitcoin holds many desirable characteristics of sound money, many prominent figures within the Bitcoin space have repeatedly discussed on the need for default privacy and fungibility. However, as was seen in previous years’ block size dispute, the issue of privacy will come with great lengthy debate as stakeholders attempt to reach a consensus that does not impact upon the characteristics of Bitcoin.
As change within the social and financial landscape continues to accelerate, those seeking financial privacy may turn to Monero.
Monero is the elephant in the room.
Monero is a cryptocurrency similar to Bitcoin and shares many of the same characteristics of sound money, however it also provides default privacy. Unlike other privacy focused cryptocurrencies, privacy isn’t opt-in, so all transactions and wallet amounts are unknown and indistinguishable from one another. Every unit of Monero is valued equally as no matter its history. This allows Monero to be truly fungible, and eradicates any possibility of coin taint. It has proven this in a number of cases. For example, exchanges have been hesitant to list Monero due to KYC/AML compliance issues it raises because it is impossible to determine transaction history.
If Monero provides financial privacy solutions, why is Monero being ignored?
Firstly, while most deem privacy to be important, many are yet to find it necessary to adopt privacy technologies. There are many easy to use privacy solutions such as Signal or DuckDuckGo, however these are not widely used as users opt for convenience instead. As surveillance increases and data collected is harnessed to marginalize or punish users, it is like that privacy technologies will become extremely desirable. Additionally, acquiring Monero can be difficult or inconvenient for some, as cryptocurrency exchanges must comply with laws and regulations, and may perceive it to be a risk listing an untraceable cryptocurrency. This also leads to lower liquidity than other cryptocurrencies.
Monero remains a community driven project. Public figures such as John McAfee and Crypto Vigilante continue to advocate the use of Monero ahead of Bitcoin. Due to its humble and open-source nature, Monero isn’t widely promoted even though it maintains the third largest cryptocurrency community on Reddit after Bitcoin and Ethereum.
In respect to the technology, Monero’s hashrate has steadily been increasing over time, and the number of daily transactions taking place on the Monero blockchain are higher than ever. The Monero Research Lab continues its research in order to improve the protocol. Over the past few years these improvements resulted in reduced transaction fees, and enhanced scalability and privacy.
In just a few years from now, it is extremely likely traditional financial systems will not provide the capacity to transact privately. Banks will be required to ask questions regarding why certain transactions took place, and recorded transaction data will be sold to third parties. As the erosion of our privacy continues to accelerate, it won’t be long until Monero gains the use and recognition it deserves, and price reflects this.
Monero is what people think Bitcoin is.
Feel free to share or publish this article as you wish.
submitted by johnfoss68 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Providing Some Clarity on Bitcoin Unlimited's Financial Decisions

Providing Some Clarity on Bitcoin Unlimited's Financial Decisions

https://preview.redd.it/zjps7jpg7rg41.jpg?width=1601&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=defb61fb45c1a2ad5c7e31fe9200541783ba6478

Introduction

As promised in our previous article, we wanted to provide some extra clarity on Bitcoin Unlimited financial choices. We wanted to do this as there has been a lot of confusion and misinformation within the community as to the reasons behind these choices.
It has been claimed by a small number of influential people in the ecosystem that Bitcoin Unlimited does not support BCH (see the previous article debunking this claim) and that BU’s holdings are supposedly evidence of this. Background Bitcoin Unlimited was founded in 2015, and was set up as a response to the Bitcoin block size debate. More specifically, it was created to provide software that allowed on-chain scaling as originally proposed by Satoshi Nakamoto. As we all know, on-chain scaling is a vital component required for peer-to-peer electronic cash to serve the world’s population. Without it Bitcoin would be limited to serving only a small number of people willing and able to pay exorbitantly high fees. Our organisation was created to make Bitcoin unlimited. This prediction of high fees and limited capacity was played out in the BTC we know today as we predicted.
Bitcoin Unlimited received a large anonymous donation in BTC in 2016 from supporters of the ‘on-chain scaling’ movement. This donation allowed our organisation to remain independent and focussed on building software that allows on-chain scaling.
As you all know, in August of 2017, Bitcoin Cash was created after an unsuccessful multi-year effort to allow Bitcoin (BTC) to scale on-chain. Bitcoin Cash was created with the goal of on-chain scaling to support the world’s population right at its heart and BU has been supporting it since the idea was originally formulated.
Once Bitcoin Cash was created it also meant that all funds Bitcoin Unlimited held (BTC) were forked into two equal sets of coins, BTC and BCH. This put BU into a position where we had to make an important decision on how to handle these funds in a way that was in the interest of both BCH and BU.

Financial Prudence

Any organisation that wants to be effective in its goals must aim to always be financially sustainable. Without money, achieving anything becomes significantly more difficult. Cryptocurrencies only magnify this issue even further. Highly volatile asset values, opaque and dynamic tax and regulatory environments, and the unique properties of cryptocurrencies all contribute towards making the financial operations of an organisation an extreme challenge to say the least. Navigating this challenging landscape is a necessary requirement for the success of any organisation within our industry though.
While Bitcoin Unlimited’s primary goal is to make sure peer-to-peer electronic cash (as set out in the Bitcoin white-paper) becomes a reality, a secondary goal must be to make sure that it has the resources required to make its primary goal achievable, and an important part of these resources are its funds.
After Bitcoin forked into BTC and BCH, Bitcoin Unlimited then held an equal number of both. Although a BUIP was passed to authorize some extra conversion, significant practical obstacles to doing so exist (although this is still being worked on). However, since the overarching reason to convert a significant number of BTC to BCH is to maintain financial prudence based on the reasons outlined below and the poor BCH price performance has heavily skewed our holdings, we do anticipate some rebalancing when these obstacles are resolved.
We will further expand on these reasons below. Historic Volatility It is a fact that BCH has historically been more volatile than BTC. An organisation that wishes to maintain a lower level of risk must aim to hold a majority of funds in assets which will maintain their value over time, i.e. be less volatile in their price. It is unfortunately true that BCH has been a more volatile asset than BCH since its creation. While there has been lots of progress and maturation of the BCH ecosystem, this price volatility is likely due to BCH still being a smaller and less developed ecosystem than BTC. The graphs below show levels of volatility in the two coins compared.

BTC
BCH
This higher volatility in BCH has meant that to significantly increase BU’s holdings of BCH would expose the organisation to a higher level of risk for ideological reasons. BTC is already a high-volatility asset and to expose the organisation funds to even higher volatility and further risk is a decision that should not be taken based on simplistic ideology, but rather with the strategy of maximising the ability for the organisation to achieve its primary goals. This meant making the decision to not take on a higher exposure to price volatility, and instead maintain a more conservative risk profile.

Lack Of Say In The Protocol

One argument that has been put forward to suggest that this decision does not make sense because it is analogous to a CEO of a company holding more shares in their competitor’s company. This analogy does not accurately reflect the current scenario for BU or BCH. In this analogy BU is the CEO and BCH is the company. Ignoring the shareholders, A CEO is able to have the largest impact on a company compared to any other stakeholder. Their actions have a direct impact on operations of the company and therefore its value and the value of the shares.
Unfortunately, Bitcoin Unlimited currently has little to no input on the BCH protocol. It has no way to directly influence the direction or success of BCH. There are two reasons for this. Firstly, BCH has a mining software homogeneity that is as centralised as BTC (i.e. essentially all miners and pools run a single client, BitcoinABC). This means that, all though BU has a slight majority in non-mining and in-consensus nodes, BU has no say in protocol decisions unless a collaborative and decentralised development model were to be used by BitcoinABC. This is an unfortunate situation considering the fact that the community split from BTC for this very reason and is strongly in support of decentralised development. Secondly, BitcoinABC does not take a collaborative approach to development. All decisions and features are dictated by BitcoinABC.
In fact the situation is unfortunately even worse than this. BitcoinABC has decided to take an actively hostile position against Bitcoin Unlimited (and many other valuable participants in the ecosystem) and would rather that it did not exist at all.
While a number of members of BitcoinABC were previously members of BU, they unfortunately used their privilege as members to try (but fortunately failed) to sabotage the organisation.
https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/voting/rendeproposal_vote_result/7eb0ded0487a6593ac3976b63422294e1a84b209be1307c46f373489922212a0
https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/voting/rendeproposal_vote_result/6285fcef8fa44416b8e83f25bfebe79aff502c1446a7b60bfab28ec58c35b609
https://www.bitcoinunlimited.info/voting/rendeproposal_vote_result/b10f54ece2ea3b9001086ebdde0001fbef9dc2fd83729a65ba207c0f1d9dfceb
These three voting records show members of BitcoinABC voting for the purchase of BSV coin, voting for an unfeasibly large block size increase (10TB), and voting for implementation of and miner-activation of BSV features into the BU client. None of these actions were implemented in the ABC client, and the inclusion of BSV features is likely the single biggest criticism certain ABC affiliated people have made against BU, yet members of BitcoinABC voted for it.
While it is important to assume good faith, under no interpretation can this be seen as anything other an act of bad will towards BU. Unfortunately this kind of behaviour is rather the rule than the exception and has likely been a major factor in BCH’s struggle to attract quality developers into the ecosystem.
Regardless of the hard work done by members of BU to create useful software for Bitcoin Cash, and its continued commitment towards peer-to-peer electronic cash for the past 5 years, ABC will unfortunately never allow any of BU’s work to go into the BCH protocol willingly.
If BU were to invest all its funds into BCH it would be making a highly risky bet on BitcoinABC’s leadership, a leadership that has not only been historically unsuccessful (when looking at the price of BCH since its creation, both in dollar terms and BTC/BCH ratio terms), but also actively hostile to our organisation. A more cautious approach that takes these factors into account is to keep the funds held where there has been less volatility.
Regardless of all of this, BU is still 100% committed to supporting Bitcoin Cash.

Game Theory: The Strategy of Betting Against Yourself

Counter intuitively, a strategy where you bet against yourself can provide a beneficial low-risk profile. When you bet against yourself, if you lose you win and if you win you win. With BU’s current asset holdings of BCH and BTC the organisation is financially hedged in a way that it wins if BCH wins, and if BTC wins then BU lives to fight another day for worldwide peer-to-peer electronic cash.
If BTC goes down and BCH goes up then it means BCH is succeeding, and our funds in BCH will sustain us for longer. Not only that, but there would likely be more funds available for BCH development in this scenario. If BTC goes up and BCH goes down then BU will be sustained for longer to continue the fight for BCH and peer-to-peer electronic cash.
This is very similar to the strategy of BCH-supporting miners mining on BTC and then converting the BTC block rewards into BCH in an effort to use BTC gains to support BCH price. BU is similarly using its gains in BTC and converting them to efforts and initiatives in support of BCH. In doing so Bitcoin Unlimited is able to turn any BTC win into a positive for BCH.

Incentives

It has been suggested that the situation created by holding a larger portion of funds in BTC than in BCH creates negative incentives that push BU towards supporting BTC. It is important to keep in mind that Bitcoin Unlimited is not a profit driven organisation. While an increase in value of its assets is of course beneficial to the organisation, our primary goal is to accelerate the global adoption of peer-to-peer electronic cash as described in the Bitcoin white-paper, and the officials, membership and founding articles of Bitcoin Unlimited are the driving force for this.
It is also important to point out that there is no evidence to support the claim that BU is in support of BTC (or BSV). In fact the voting record clearly shows the opposite of this. BU has continually worked in support of peer-to-peer electronic cash, and specifically in support of BCH since it was created. This is thanks to the strong commitment by the BU officials and members, all of whom are long time Bitcoiners and supporters of the ‘on-chain scaling’ movement. The only members who receive any payment from the organisation are those who provide significant value in the form of various skilled services, and all of these are voted on by the membership. The BUIP record also shows that compensated individuals are often compensated at far under market rates for developers of their caliber. Should the price of BTC increase, no member receives any direct benefit from this beyond any appreciation in value of any BTC they privately hold. Therefore there are no strong incentives for BU to drive the price of BTC up and push the price of BCH down as this would be counter to our primary goal.

Has This Strategy Been Successful?

Bitcoin Unlimited and its members, all being long-time Bitcoiners, are acutely aware of the need to play the long game to make sure a globally adopted peer-to-peer electronic cash becomes a reality. BU is the oldest entity within the BCH ecosystem and with good reason. The financial strategy of BU to date has been highly effective in sustaining the organisation over a long period of time, and allowing it to independently support BCH development initiatives. This is made clear by the fact that BU continues to have enough funding to provide value to the BCH ecosystem for the foreseeable future.
Had BU converted all funds to BCH at, or at almost any point after, the time of the BCH/BTC fork in August 2017, then for much of the time since it would have been forced to either scale back operations or shut down support for BCH developers completely. We now see development teams such as BitcoinABC facing the prospect of being unable to fund their development of BCH, and their financial strategy may have contributed to this reality. This is despite the fact that nearly all the funds donated in the recent community funding drive sponsored by bitcoin.com were directed towards BitcoinABC.
Lack of a sustainable funding model also seems to have been a major factor in pushing BitcoinABC to make the highly controversial decision to support a change to the BCH protocol that would divert 12.5% of the block reward to themselves. Being financially prudent and sticking to its principles (as defined in the founding Articles of Federation has allowed Bitcoin Unlimited to steer clear of any conflicts of interest such as this.

Summary

Through its financial strategy Bitcoin Unlimited has been able to maintain its independence and financial sustainability and has therefore remained in a strong position to support Bitcoin Cash. BU’s officials and membership have continually made good decisions that have allowed BU to provide long-term support for the Bitcoin Cash ecosystem.
submitted by BU-BCH to btc [link] [comments]

[UPDATE][M] Ryo Currency 0.5.0.0 "Fermi Paradox"

[UPDATE][M] Ryo Currency 0.5.0.0
https://preview.redd.it/o6o6y8g9rwi41.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fe52faff108d163f476907e004cac1ef47aaa1a9
[M] - Mandatory. The update contains security fixes or contains fork update (wallet will stop working after some height reach).
IMPORTANT: The latest version is 0.5.0.1 (contains minor update after 0.5.0.1)
Meet Ryo Currency 0.5.0.0 update - Fermi Paradox. In this update we will discuss 3 updates and do one announcement in the source code, 2 of them will be the first among any Cryptonote projects:
  • Wallet Scan speedup thanks to ECC and multi-threading library. Increased wallet scan speed when processing blockchain. New Elliptic Curve Cryptography library combined with implemented multi-threading that ustilises user's CPU results in reduced block verification up to 5x times compared with previous modes.
  • Plateau emission curve. Ryo's block reward changes every 6-months following a "Plateau Curve" distribution model. The modification of emission curve was initiated and debated with Ryo community. The following fork will finalise and implement that change.Notice: the difference between previous and this model will take effect at block height 394470.Read more about Ryo plateau emission curve
  • Various code edits, refactoring and minor fixes. There are multiple code fixes and edits that could be considered minor when looked in particular, but when looked in general - result in more than 35.000 lines of code being changed making core code more clean, optimised and bugfixed.Check Ryo Github repository
https://preview.redd.it/qv27xxdarwi41.png?width=2000&format=png&auto=webp&s=34836461eb348619f37f75fbc91e94a58dc065f8
Research and studies of Ryo Dev team showed that current ring signature technology as it is - is obsolete and has too many flaws to be considered as a means for reaching the goal of the second level of of privacy. Therefore we will be replacing ring signatures with second generation ZK-proofs technology in observable future and temporarily downgrade privacy level to 1.
In general, you can consider privacy levels like that:
  • level 0 - everyone can look into your wallet and know your transactions (BTC level)
  • level 1 - nobody can see inside of your wallet, but each note has a serial number (yes, this is real life money level and in CN coins is implemented using stealth addresses)
  • level 2 - notes you have don't have a serial number to a guy that gave you one, and no-one can't know if you spent it later (In CN coins it is implemented using ring signatures - which are the failing ones)
What we are saying is over the past year or two, researches stripped ring signatures of their privacy properties so much, that we think it is no longer fair to say that we (or Monero, which is even worse since it has even smaller ring size compared to Ryo) or any other CN project that uses it - meet the level 2 of privacy.
So, summarising in non-tech words what does it mean - when you are doing a transaction and want to imagine how it looks like in system:
  • bitcoin - "I spent output 10, worth 1 BTC and output 22, worth 0.5 BTC"
  • ring signature (current CN coins) - "I spent output 10, 14, 18 or 20, and output 16, 18, 19, or 22"
  • zk-proof - "I spent something."

Fork is scheduled on block 362000: you can check fork countdown on Ryo Currency website

Please update your wallets before this block, or your previous wallet will stop synchronising after the block 362000:
  • Ryo Wallet Atom: download latest Atom installer when annouced update to version 1.5.0, start it and perform reinstall.
  • Ryo cli binaries: download or compile from source updated binaries from Github version 0.5.0.0 and unzip it, and place your wallet key files in new folder.
  • Pool owners and exchanges are notified about updating their nodes to the latest version before the fork.
Questions you might have regarding the fork:
  • What will happen with mining algorithm - will it change or what does "fork" mean - coin is split on 2? No, "fork" basically means major code update that is being activated on a specified block height. There will be no mining algorithm change or chainsplit.
  • Ryo roadmap indicates that you had in plans reaching 100x ring sizes. In light of future introduction of ZK-proofs does it mean that this is not aplicable? Yes, we eventually will be replacing ring signature technology on ZK-proofs, which is more fundamental change than trying to "beat dead horse" with ring signatures.
  • What about atomic swaps? Ryo roadmap indicates it being planned, is it still possible with introducing ZK-proofs? Yes it is! And we aim to implement this feature after all necessary updates in core code. It is important to have everything implemented and tested before adding that feature.
  • What is a ZK-proof? ZK stands for zero-knowledge. In cryptography, a zero-knowledge proof is a method by which one party (the prover) can prove to another party (the verifier) that they know a value x, without conveying any information apart from the fact that they know the value xYou can read more about zero-knowledge proof (with real life examples) here.
  • Will blockchain grow faster (what about tx size) when moving to ZK-proofs? Overall, transactions and blocks using ZK-proofs will be even smaller in size than pre-fork ring signatures with bulletproofs! Plus it enables transactions to be aggregated together - this is obviously a major scalability gain for Ryo Currency.
  • I heard or as far I understand that ZK-proofs are somewhat less private? Does it mean that you are not privacy-oriented project anymore? No, in short - we decided to do this change to second gen. ZK-proofs, because ring signatures as is are too weak on providing enough for us default level of privacy and overall are considered now as an obsolete technology. So we don't want to say that we have a privacy level of 2, when research shows that it is not.
  • Ok, after 0.5.0.0 fork - will we be using uniform payment ID-s to do transactions on exchanges? Yes. There are no changes regarding usage of payment ID-s and integrated addresses. We will be still using ring signatures, but also are announcing our goal on moving to ZK-proofs.
  • What else is there in plans/ideas you have in development of Ryo? Besides all plans and development ongoing with Ryo (wallets, infrastructure, core code and researches) we also developed and improve Mining platform RagerX. It is a all-in-one mining platform that unites a miner, pplns pool, OS, GUI flasher utillity, pool frontend and has advanced social features as well as 2 level affiliate program. In observable future we will add Cryptonight-GPU mining possibillity.We are implementing RagerX so people can mine CPU coins and Ryo simultaneously. Which means more eyes on Ryo, especially from fresh members.
  • Are the ring signature issues that have been discovered are applicable to other ring signature based coins like Monero? Yes.
https://preview.redd.it/x5jqtb8brwi41.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=06a0de33b10014e0fdf1b847939718475cbe6fbe
submitted by RyocurrencyRu to ryocurrency [link] [comments]

Statement on the Discussion of Shortening Block Time

Discussions on shortening block time have caused widespread concern in the BCH community. On this issue, I think:
Zero confirmation is very important for the development of BCH. We should fully support the technologies that improve zero-confirmation security. However, in some important application cases, such as exchange funding, more than one confirmation is still needed within a few years. At present, the user experience of BCH’s confirmation is very bad, which is very unfavorable for the fierce competition in the cryptocurrency market in recent years. If you do not get enough market share, BCH's long-term advantage will also lose the opportunity to show. Therefore, it is recommended to shorten the block time.
This view represents the opinions of the majority in the Chinese community who have experienced the scaling debate and the hash war. In fact, the Chinese community has been discussing this issue since the end of 2017. After a year and a half, especially after the hash war, supporters have grown and become consensus among senior members, and most of the opponents have turned to BSV because they Believe in CSW, against all kinds of changes. [1]
Even in the Chinese community, many BCH supporters who entered the community after the hash War did not support shortening the block time. They also believed that the 10-minute block was more in line with the original bitcoin. In contrast, the supporters for shortening block time in Chinese community are concern more about market and user needs than nominal orthodoxy.
About half a year ago, I also communicated with the developers on this issue. Combined with the discussion results of the Chinese community and the opinions of the developers, I wrote a proposal to discuss the reasons, possible impacts and some objections for shortening block time. (https://medium.com/@ChangyongLiu/proposal-to-shorten-the-block-time-of-bch-1d7e8e897497)
The main opinions of developers were four points:
  1. The current development focus is on improving zero-confirmation. Security;
  2. shortening block time will affect block size, block reward, time lock, etc., which will be very complicated to deal with;
  3. need more clear case to explain the need to shorten block time;
  4. English community don’t support to shorten block time.
At the same time, another Chinese community member posted the suggestion on btc. I showed my support and linked the article in the post. (https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/ad3uebe_strongly_against_reducing_block_time_from_10/eddvv7m/?context=3)At that time, the English community did not support this proposal. The post were subjected to fierce opposition.
It has been more than a year since the Chinese community discussed this issue to the majority reached the consensus. We don't think we can rush to shorten the block time. We need more time to communicate and think. Therefore, the Chinese community has suspended the promotion of shortening block time for half a year.
Recently, due to price fluctuations and hash fluctuations, the BCH's confirmation waiting time fluctuated greatly, often encountering an acknowledgement waiting time of more than one hour. For users who are waiting for funding in exchanges, the experience is very bad. Moreover, we are often asked: "BCH has not had a new block for an hour, has it been attacked again?" Some senior members of the community are also losing patience. They can’t understand that such urgent improvements have not received enough attention. I am also very worried about this, so I summarized the recent problems and specific cases, and posted on btc again, suggesting to shorten the block time. ( https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/cfu99n/the_block_time_of_bch_should_be_shorten建议缩短bch出块时间/)
After a few days of discussion, I was very happy to see that although some people still regard the proposal as an attack on BCH, there are already more people who can seriously discuss the proposal to shorten the block time. There have also been progresses in the communicate with the developers. Many people have already seen that the cases of one more confirmation are still in existence. The bad experience of confirmation does affect the competitiveness of BCH. Some discussions have gradually delved into the details. This is very gratifying.
However, we also see that there is not enough consensus to shorten the block time. At least the complicated impact of shortening the block time needs to be carefully evaluated and tested. The technical difficulty, workload and the scare of developing resources should also be carefully considered. It is not excluded that the result of the final evaluation is that the shortening of the block time is not feasible, or that zero confirmation of the increase in safety can cause almost all of the cases of confirmation to be replaced by zero confirmation. In this case, giving up the shortening of the block time will become a consensus.
The discussion can reach the current state, recognizing that at least there is still a need to shorten the block time in the near future, and began to seriously discuss, I personally think that I have achieved the purpose of my proposal. What is needed next is more communication and collaboration. In fact, through this discussion, the communication between Chinese and English communities has improved a lot, and more smooth communication channels are being established, which is beneficial to the development of BCH.
In the relevant discussions, some people tried to take the opportunity to split the Chinese and English communities, and even predicted the new division of BCH, and brought me a hat to try to conspiracy to split the community. I think they are either overly sensitive or support core or bsv. I don't want to spend time in more argument about these. There are many positive things that we need to do.
In fact, there has been a consensus among Chinese community members who support the shortening of block time: “Reducing block time is only a suggestion for improvement. The premise of implementation is to form a community consensus and will not lead to any split. If the consensus is not reached, it can be put on hold. And continue to evaluate and discuss."
Among the various cryptocurrencies, the scaling debate and the hash war had leaded the BCH community to be a more mature decentralized community. I think we have the patience to reach consensus, but also very firmly identify all kinds of real attacks, and resolutely fight back, just like we did during the hash war.
I personally specialize in economic and market analysis, not good at technology and development. In this discussion, I have done what I can do. Looking at the current situation, I think it should be put on hold for a while and wait for the community consensus. I also call on more capable community members to do more detailed assessments, analysis or testing. I will also try to make efforts in this regard.

Thank you all.

——————
[1] After the BSV split, I did a small survey on whether to support the shortening of block time in the two most popular WeChat groups in the Chinese community (BCH Bees and BCH 100 Club). Among them, the BCH Bees group with BSV supporters removed, the support rate was 83.8%, and only 2.7% opposed. Among the BCH 100 Club that retained some of the BSV supporters, the support rate was 82%, but the opponents reached 13.7%. Of the two groups, 48.7% and 39.7% were previously opposed to shortening the block time and later turned into support.

In Chinese:

缩短区块时间的讨论已经引起BCH社区的广泛关注。在这个问题上,我认为:
零确认对于BCH的发展非常重要,应该全力支持提高零确认安全性的技术。但是,在一些重要的应用案例中,比如交易所充值,在几年内仍然需要一个以上确认。目前BCH的一确认用户体验非常糟糕,对于近几年激烈的密码货币市场竞争非常不利。如果不能获得足够的市场份额,BCH的长期优势也会失去展示的机会。所以,建议缩短区块时间。
这个观点代表了中文社区中经历了扩容之争和算力大战的多数人的意见。实际上,中文社区从2017年底就开始讨论这个问题,经过一年半的时间,尤其是算力大战后,支持者不断增长,在资深成员中成为共识,而反对者多数转向了BSV,因为他们相信CSW,反对各种改变。[1]
即使在中文社区,算力大战后新进入社区的许多BCH支持者也不支持缩短区块时间,他们也认为10分钟区块才更符合原来的比特币。相比之下,中文社区支持缩短区块时间的人更加重视的是市场和用户需求,而不是名义上的正统。
大概半年前,我跟开发者也进行了沟通,并且结合中文社区的讨论结果和开发者的意见写了一份建议,讨论了缩短的理由,可能的影响和一些反对意见。(https://medium.com/@ChangyongLiu/proposal-to-shorten-the-block-time-of-bch-1d7e8e897497 )开发者主要的意见有四点:1)目前的开发重点在于提高零确认的安全性;2)缩短区块时间会影响区块大小、区块奖励、时间锁等,处理这些会非常复杂;3)需要更加明确的案例说明缩短区块时间的必要性;4)英文社区并不支持缩短时间。
同时,我的文章也在btc发布,当时的情况也的确反映出英文社区对这个建议不支持。其他中文社区成员发布的建议也同样遭到激烈的反对。鉴于中文社区讨论这个问题也经历了一年多的时间。我们认为不能急于推进缩短区块时间,我们需要更多时间沟通和思考。因此,中文社区对缩短区块时间的推动搁置了半年。
最近一段时间,由于价格波动和算力波动,BCH的一确认等待时间波动很大,经常遇到1个小时以上的确认等待时间。对于等待交易所充值的用户而言,体验非常糟糕。并且,我们也经常被问到:“BCH已经一个小时没有新的区块了,它又被攻击了吗?”一些社区资深成员也正在失去耐心,他们认为如此紧迫的改进没有得到足够的重视。对此,我也很担忧,所以总结了最近面临的问题和具体的案例,再次在btc上发帖,建议缩短区块时间。(https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/cfu99n/the\_block\_time\_of\_bch\_should\_be\_shorten建议缩短bch出块时间/)
经过几天的讨论,我很高兴地看到,尽管仍然有人把建议看做是对BCH的攻击,但已经有更多的人能够认真地讨论缩短区块时间的建议了,跟开发者的沟通也有进展,很多人已经看到一确认场景依然大量存在,一确认的糟糕体验的确影响BCH的竞争力。一些讨论也逐渐深入到细节。这是令人欣慰的。
不过,我们也看到,现在还没有形成缩短区块时间的足够共识,至少缩短区块时间带来的复杂影响需要认真评估和测试,开发的技术难度、工作量和人手来源也要认真考虑。不排除最终评估的结果认为缩短区块时间不可行,或者零确认安全性的提高能够让几乎所有的一确认案例都改为零确认。这样的话,放弃缩短区块时间将会成为共识。
讨论能够达到目前的状态,认识到至少近期仍存在缩短区块时间的需求,并开始认真讨论,我个人认为已经达到了我此次建议的目的。接下来需要的是更多的沟通和协作。实际上,通过这次的讨论,中英文社区的沟通改善了很多,更通畅的沟通渠道正在建立,这对于BCH的发展是有利的。
在相关讨论中,也有一些人试图借机分裂中英文社区,甚至预言BCH新的分裂,并且给我带上试图阴谋分裂社区的帽子。我想他们要么是过度敏感,要么是内心支持core或bsv。我不想耗费时间深入追究,有很多积极的事情需要我们去做。
实际上在支持缩短区块时间的中文社区成员中早已经达成共识:“缩短区块时间只是一个改进建议,实施的前提是形成了社区共识,不会导致任何分裂。如果共识没有达成,可以搁置,并继续评估和讨论。”
在各种密码货币中,经过了扩容之争和算力大战BCH社区是更加成熟的去中心化社区,我想我们有耐心争取社区共识,同时也会非常坚定地识别各种真正的攻击,并坚决回击,就像我们在算力大战中所做的。
我个人主要擅长经济和市场分析,不擅长技术和开发。经过这次讨论,我所能做的都尽力做了。就目前的局面看,我认为应该在搁置一段时间,等待必要的社区共识。我也呼吁更多有能力的社区成员能够做更细致的评估、分析或测试。我也会尝试在这方面做出努力。
谢谢大家!
[1] BSV分裂出去之后,我针对是否支持缩短区块时间在中文社区两个最要的微信群(BCH Bees 和 BCH 100 Club)做了个小调查。其中,移除了BSV支持者的BCH Bees群中,支持率为83.8%,只有2.7%的人反对。保留了部分BSV支持者的BCH 100 Club群中,支持率为82%,但反对者达到了13.7%。在两个群中,分别有48.7%和39.7%的人是以前反对缩短区块时间,后来转变为支持的。
submitted by changyong75 to btc [link] [comments]

Lessons learned - Crypto and Divorce - In January I was a millionaire thanks to BTC, then my wife divorces me and now I have $30,000 AMA

Crossreferencing u/nanoissuperior He wrote earlier today: https://www.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/a3n6uw/in_january_i_was_a_millionaire_thanks_to_nano_now/
Title: In January I was a millionaire thanks to Nano, now I have $25,000 AMA

I was replying to his post, but my reply ended up being a bit too large as a reply and steered off-topic, albeit an interesting one. So I decided to make it its own post, because there may be a good lessons to be learned and hoping some will come forward with good information to be shared.
I hope it can help anyone on this sub avoid the costly mistakes that I made. Here it goes: FLAIR: LEGAL (not in the list)
----
u/nanoissuperior are you who I think you are? I won't give out any further identifying clues, but I happen to know someone in the exact same position that could have written that exact same headline. If you read the first paragraph, you'll know if you know me.
The person I know bought Nano really early, based on a tip from a friend. I got in much later. By the time he told me it had already spiked to the $5 range, when I ended up buying. I then sold in the $20's so it was a good buy nonetheless. We were former colleagues at a large, large software company somewhere in the PNW, I left the company to venture out on my own and try to launch some projects I had in mind and relocated overseas for a few years. We lost contact with each other during my time away, but we connected again during the market runup and started exchanging coin information on a daily basis during the big bull run of late 2017. That was a crazy time.... the market trend was a few degrees short of vertical for pretty much all coins!

Hey, guess what? Now that I think about it, I could have written that same headline myself! In January 2018 I was a Millionaire too! Not with Nano, but thanks to purchasing a good chunk of Bitcoin in 2011 at $1.20 each. I ended up a single digit millionaire with what I had left in Bitcoin around January of 2018.
And, just like you, today, from all that wealth, I have about $30.000 left, with little to show for. Can we call that even? Although my disaster was not caused entirely by market fluctuation; Mine is a more complex story and I am going to mention it, because hopefully, it could serve as a lesson to be learned for any crypto holder out there, so they don't make the make mistake I made: Don't trust anyone. Always be skeptical and watch out for your own interests. Anyhow, here it goes:
After 5 years overseas, I had enough and wanted to come back to the States. My wife stated her preference to stay abroad, but eventually, she conceded albeit reluctantly. We chose a small town in CO to settle, and landed in November of 2017. We had plans to settle down and considered purchasing a home with my/our new fortune, based on the market price during that period. At the same time, I was also hesitant about the inherent tax payments due caused by such large liquidation. I was trying to have to pay taxes as far away as possible. So, I decided to wait till New Year's Eve and started liquidating my crypto on January 1st, 2018 right after midnight. This way, I would have 16 months (till April, 2019) to pay any capital gains taxes, and I was confident at the time that the market would give me that for free, especially at the pace that it was going. I have been an early adopter and have since then acquired the high levels of verification and trading limits per week, with many exchanges, but for a large sum like this, I needed several separate transactions, over the course of several weeks, especially wanting to do it with a US-based exchange that was linked to a US bank accounts, to avoid overseas wire transfers, meaning more fees. (Yes, I did look at all OTC options, but for reasons not relevant to the story, I couldn't make it happen, so I had to use the traditional Exchange channels for asset liquidation).
My wife and I, initially had some fundamental disagreements on the gross amount to be spent and the type of property we should be purchasing. I wanted a smaller place, with a denser, younger community, where there'd be kids our son's age for him to play. She insisted that we should go big; we had been traveling for so many years, and we had not been able to call any of our past residences our home. It was time to settle and nest; She convinced me that we should own a property of our own that we would be proud of living in for years. One that we could own outright and would not easily outgrow. We ended up splurging and purchased in cash two luxury cars for ourselves and set our sights on a large dream house in the city's Golf & Country Club, free and clear, for us and our two kids. I don't even play golf, nor do I even like it, but, if it makes her happy and it is within the safe margins of making it happen, I figured, why not? My concerns were largely financial and the numbers were adding up. It was a bit tight against my personal safe margins, but, at the same time, I was imagining to never have to make, or even have to think about, a car or home mortgage payment ever again! Bitcoin is on a roll and there is no sign of it stopping. Fine. Let's do it, before I change my mind.
Now, I admit I was extremely lucky with choosing the time of when to sell the assets. I had no clue the market would take a dive in February, and so it seemed to many that I had timed the market perfectly, selling most of my coins in the first two weeks of January of 2018. Many called me a genius for selling at the very top, as if I had some sort of wisdom to know when it would drop; the truth is much less flattering; it was nothing but dumb luck, based on me wanting to pay taxes in 2018 and defer to 2019. Awesome, well done! Yeah? well, slow down, son, not so fast.
So, I gather the 7-digit lumpsum in January 2018 and we write a check for the full amount at closing in February on the property of her dreams. A property that could easily be showcased on a luxury Real Estate magazine cover. Also, remember we had just moved back to the United States with just a few suitcases each from overseas. We had no furniture, kitchenware, curtains, TV's, bed sheets, winter clothing and so many other essential things that one usually purchases over time, but which we now had to purchase all at once. Not a problem, Bitcoin had dropped slightly but still well above $15k, I believe, at the time. And, earlier, in January, I had diligently taken this expense into account and effortlessly set aside a small fortune for equipping such a large house with everything we would ever need, brand new. It seemed we were protagonists of one of the Home Makeover Shows.
Finally, after working day and night, prepping the house non-stop for days and when every piece of furniture had finally arrived, been unpacked and carried to its corresponding room, it seemed most of the essentials were in place and the hard work was done. I longed for pouring myself a Scotch and to finally sit down and enjoy the fruits of my labor. I head downstairs to the dedicated walk-in, cigar-humidor / wine / Scotch cellar in the basement and grab the better bottle of Whisky of the few bottles of Scotch that I had bought earlier in the week. On my way up, I remember feeling a sense of calm, combined with a glow of excitement and this undescribable profound inner peace, all at once. This was such a rare, natural, non-drug induced high that I had never experienced. It felt so good! This sense of accomplishment of achieving that one thing I had been chasing and longing for my entire life. I had expected I would be chasing this goal for the next 15-20 years, and yet, here it was. No, where I was, was even better than expected! A place where not even my parents, who still have to make their monthly mortgage payments. I had done it! With a smile from ear to ear, I take a deep breath of relief and while looking around the property, I think to myself: "It's perfect, everything is in place and I can finally call this our home. We are so lucky and we are going to live a great life. A life that few can only dream of. So many concerns will be lifted and become redundant. Everything will be better. I'll start a fire in one of our two fireplaces and I am going to begin enjoying my semi-retired life with the first sip of my drink. That will be the official start of our new life".
I head over to the kitchen to get a glass and some ice cubes, while I struggle to find which one is the freezer among the many drawers in the kitchen. It was then when I notice a handwritten note placed front and center on the kitchen counter. It is from my wife and read: "There is no easy way to say this, so I am just going to say it..... I want to legally divorce [ ...]". It continued saying that she had taken our son, and had unequivocally decided to leave me. She had already filed the paperwork for divorce and that I should expect to be served in the morning.
My bliss had lasted less than 5 minutes and in less than two seconds, it turned dark, somber and I saw it all crumbling down in front of me. Like a long-awaited rocket launch, years in preparation, which then unexpectedly explodes on the launch pad during the countdown. My stomach, heart and everything in my body just sank and melted into one ball of poison in my core. I felt like throwing up. I was completely blindsided; she had played the game all along, not giving me the slightest hint of what was being concocted in the background. She had already engaged with her lawyers weeks beforehand. Her mother was already in town from another state to help out with I don't know what. I had been gaslighted and was threatened by her that I needed to see a psychiatrist due to a change in my temper that I had supposedly developed - my temper was awesome: with BTC at that price? Everything was perfect! But I obeyed and went anyhow (this would later fit her story that she had to leave with the child because she feared for her safety due to my supposed temper for which I was under treatment, therefore, I must have this temper problem, see?). Also, the purchase of the overpriced home also seemed clearly premeditated: Price was the main driver of the decision making; not location, demographics, taxes, etc. It was the wrong neighborhood for us (people much older than us, retired, golfers and no kids the same age as our son to play with). Our house happened to also be the most expensive in the neighborhood. I can see it all so clearly now.
See, your crypto coins on the blockchain, are not within the US court's jurisdiction (or, at least, it's quite debatable - a gray area - ask me for the seed and I can tell you that I may have the seed, or that I may not have the seed, I may have the wrong seed, I may have forgotten it, I may have lost it - you can't prove I did not forget, or lost it, etc). However, once it is in FIAT in a bank, or invested in a property, the courts can rule on the asset(s), freeze, disburse or order a sale of the property, etc. It's done all the time.
Also, the coins were technically mine, and by definition private property (not to be divided during the divorce) as they were acquired before the marriage. I could not prove its origins (I bought many of them via direct messaging members on Bitcointalk.org and mining rather than exchanges, so no records, receipts or nothing to prove otherwise: the big exchanges like BitStamp and Coinbase didn't start operations till 2013, if I m not mistaken. Instead, I would talk to one of the forum members offering coins we'd agree on a price, I'd send a check to wherever the individual seller instructed me to (Russia, Bulgaria, Japan, UK. etc) and the coins would be deposited to whatever address I provided. Yes, it was quite crude at the time.
However, once I converted my coins to cash and used that cash to buy a property for the benefit of the family, it became common property and thus she then had rights to a portion of it when divided between the two parties should a divorce occur - which ended up being almost 3/4 of all assets.
I was robbed in broad daylight. By the one person, I trusted with my life. The one you should trust with your life. Your life partner. And while I was in complete denial, trying to bargain, I waited too long to obtain good legal representation. When I finally ended up getting a lawyer, I was quite distraught and I clearly did not do the proper research and this resulted in a less than stellar performance and detrimental to me at many key steps in the process. I had to switch legal representation right before mediation and I can't blame my new lawyer either, as (s)he did not have the required time to catch up on all the details, (s)he did his/her best, but I was ultimately strongarmed into conceding my soon-to-be-ex-wife to let her return to the house, in exchange to obtain 50% of my son's custody, with serious and strict clauses I had to abide by. So, I had to move out, find a hole in the wall in a student apartment, pay my rent and pay our kids pre-school, while she lives grandiose, without monthly payments in the country club, till the house sells, which will likely be in the spring of next year. Nice!
Due to my delay, legal mishandling and somehow every other element in her favor, she inexplicably ended up with around 3/4 of the worth of all assets, free and clear, no taxes due. Mind you, she has never financially contributed, nor made a single $ during our entire marriage. She has never worked and had $0 in her pocket when we married. She didn't even have a checking account, well in her thirties. She is no dummy; she is street smart, knows how to manipulate people, get her way with flirting and charm, while I am more intellectual and book smart. and She beat me hands-down. She is walking away with a sum of, not quite 7 figures, but close.
With what I am left with from the sale of the house, I am responsible to pay for all the capital gains taxes from the liquidation to the IRS, which are due in April 2019. I don't expect there to be more left over than the estimated $30k mentioned above.
Hate the market all you want, I made peace with the market and am keeping busy at hating my ex for a while for putting me in the same situation. She tripped me 1 yard before the finish line and pushed me in the prickly bushes, to cross it by herself. Go figure. When I am done hating her, I'll get back to rebuilding my life again from scratch. I am not worried, I have done it before. Just pissed, I was so close and that I was so naive to not see it coming.
Sorry, I am not meaning to hijack the thread, just wanted you to know that others may have lost more than just "free" money; money we didn't really have to work for. We were the lucky ones. It is what I keep telling myself to stop me from jumping off a bridge.
PS - Woah: Sorry for the wall of text; I was just going to write the first paragraph and ended up venting about my current situation. I know, I should take this issue to /depressed, /exes or /whereisthenearestbridgeIcanjumpfrom.
Hopefully, this can be a lesson to those holding crypto and some can learn what NOT to do. I learned the hard way and was left with nothing. Don't be a nice guy. Don't trust anyone with your crypto. Anyhow, I am sure either our vigilant subreddit bot, or one of the mods will remove my post for not adhering to rule, and if not, I am sure that you fine people will downvote me to hell. Go ahead. Take away from me the little Karma I left too! Thanks!

I learned many lessons, but here are some key ones [IANAL - any crypto-educated AL opinion appreciated here, thanks] :
- Understand the concept of private property - property you acquire before getting married. INAL - this depends on the state legislation, but it is hard to prove with crypto, especially if you obtained your crypto through foreign exchanges, outside of legal jurisdictions, the petitioner might not understand or willing to invest in obtaining subpoenas and requests to businesses operating overseas, as this may result costly.
- Get a lawyer who understands, or is willing to understand crypto, its benefits of being somewhat unreachable and how that can work for you. Don't let them shortchange you with: "well, let's just convert the rest to cash, because that I understand" type of reasoning.
- If you do go to mediation, the above applies as well. This arbitrator or mediator needs to be one that understands the intrinsic details of crypto - for example, during the ATH, I bought 6 digits worth in $USD of Stellar. I used the very first version of the software, supporting Stellar on my hardware device, and put it all in a cold storage wallet somewhere around January. I routinely checked on my coins on the blockchain and they are there. A few months later, I try to access my account and the device returns a different public address, which contains 0 funds. I am still trying to debug this issue with the manufacturer, but the fact is that I was accused of hiding these coins or negligence and was demanded that I paid half of what was lost. or not lost, out of my pocket for money that I didn't have access either. I tried to explain it in the simplest terms, there are risks involved with using first come software. There is no 1800 number, mo tech support. no CEO, no, you can't call the BBB and complain, etc and no one seemed to be able to understand, nor willing to either. It became a huge roadblock for which I had to concede, not cash, but a concession, I was not wanting to concede. The petitioner leaned on the fact that I was either wilfully cheating or stupid enough to lose the coins and managed to create enough doubt in my character and integrity and there was nothing rational I could explain that she, or anyone else in the room would understand. Perhaps mutually contracting a seasoned crypto expert that can offer a neutral view and give his/her opinion might be worth considering. Andreas, where were you when I needed you? :)
- Other examples were some coins I had bought in 2012 and gifted to some of her family's kids. I was holding these, till they would turn 16 for them to pay themselves their college, or so I told them. These coins were demanded back by the petitioner. Ok, I suggested that I would send them, but with a CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY value with a block height of let's say,10 years from now, out of fear that she would spend the coins and the kids would never know (they are toddlers). No one understood what I was talking about, I was made out the crazy one, I gave up, sent her the coins, unlocked and, just as I expected, within 20 minutes of receiving them, she spent $1200 worth of it (for a flight, I think). If you are the only one speaking your language, no one is willing to listen or make an effort to understand you.
- It appears my coins were private property, which means, that I acquired them before the marriage and in case of divorce, if I have not moved them or used them for the common good of the marriage, then they remain mine. However, I liquidated them and cash ended up in my checking account to be used to buy groceries, cars and eventually a house, and it is then that they became common property. Only once they landed in my checking account on which she is named on. It appears that had I taken proper legal precautions with documentation, or a company/trust, where that money would have gone, instead of my checking accounts, elsewhere, I would have still been able to be the legal proprietor of the resulting cash. I can't quite remember the details, but it as something that was explained to me afterward, and I honestly think I just tuned it out, because it made me sick to know I could have held on to my wealth. Perhaps a lawyer can chime in? Again, much of the lack of information and every misstep taken was because of dealing with people that are accustomed to traditional assets and will not deviate from it. Crypto is different and is treated differently. It is so important to know the strengths and weaknesses when going into litigation about something that people don't understand.
- Some more I can think of, but this post is getting way out of hand in size. Feel free to comment/suggest your own and I'll add more to the comments.

Credits to: u/nanoissuperior Thanks for your post, it inspired me to write this one. Anyone, any karma you feels needs to go his way, for providing the source of inspiration, please give to O-OP.

TL;DR: Wife, having contributed $0 during entire marriage, waited until I cashed out all my crypto at the top of the bull market in January 2018, for a nice seven-figure amount, and then immediately divorced me for the money.

Edit: added TL;DR
submitted by mijalis to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Jiangzhuoer: BCH TOP 3 unique advantages - [BitKan 1v1] Craig Wright vs Jiangzhuoer

Jiangzhuoer: BCH TOP 3 unique advantages - [BitKan 1v1] Craig Wright vs Jiangzhuoer
Digest from BitKan 1v1 Debate. Get our APP to find more.

Question1.
What is your main reason for supporting BCH?
What are the top 3 unique advantages as compared to other mainstream cryptocurrencies?

https://reddit.com/link/chkr1q/video/19b9ytx3oec31/player
Jiang Zhuoer: I support BCH because BCH implements Nakamoto's design for Bitcoin. The title of the Bitcoin white paper is "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System", Hence, Bitcoin is designed as electronic cash.
The ultimate goal of Bitcoin is to become a world currency, a currency that everyone in the world can use, to bring monetary freedom to the world, so that the money in our hands is not inflated, not restrict by the border, and not get plundered. To achieve this goal, Bitcoin needs to expand the block to accommodate more and more users.
Nakamoto also made a clear plan to increase the block size.

https://preview.redd.it/721dq9p6oec31.png?width=2521&format=png&auto=webp&s=02ca1e288becc7dbeb84fd2f588ded46c60b000d

https://preview.redd.it/wf5adir7oec31.png?width=944&format=png&auto=webp&s=751c9488c90b3a0789fa827ab15107266d57620c
However, in the expansion competition during 2014, the Core development team has been dissatisfied with the expansion of Sakamoto's plan, and eventually led Bitcoin to split into two currencies, BTC and BCH, in August 2017.
Subsequent developments prove that BCH is correct in the expansion of the dispute, during 2017 bull market, there was a huge congestion on the BTC network, a transaction fee reached a shocking thousand or even thousands of dollars, this conflicts with what Satoshi Nakamoto envisions.
In the following 2018~19, Core claims SW (Isolation Witness) and LN (Lightning Network) that can solve congestion problems proves its inefficiency.
isolation verification has only 1.23MB expansion effect

https://preview.redd.it/n4sm40zboec31.png?width=1114&format=png&auto=webp&s=9ef30f45e23c4fcae4f3d37a138268901eaeedd3
The lightning network is also almost useless. In the price increment during May 2019, the same congestion appeared as in the previous 2017 period has, and the transaction fee percentage has risen significantly.

https://preview.redd.it/0p3msm6woec31.png?width=697&format=png&auto=webp&s=fd23816baabd1019a22d96441af8e41844a15ce3
Transaction fee percentage has risen significantly in two price surges
It can be expected that in the next 2020~21 halving of bull market, BTC will once again experience super-congestion. It is estimated that a transaction fee will reach several thousand yuan or even tens of thousands of yuan. This method is definitely not going to work.
Nakamoto said: I am sure that in 20 years, the number of Bitcoin transactions is either very large or not at all.

https://preview.redd.it/nypdlwuxoec31.png?width=904&format=png&auto=webp&s=99d9e81a6e097f04c509b97200db6b52114e052e

To discuss about BCH TOP 3 unique advantages compare to other mainstream currencies, I think is:
  1. The right direction: decentralized + large block, high number of users
  2. Community spirit: rational and pragmatic
  3. Infrastructure: layered design, main chain trading & side Chain smart contracts, this do not interfere with each other. Let me explain in detail
1) The right direction: decentralized + large block, the most important goal is to have High number of users, even if many Core supporters focus on the stored value function, there is a need to have high user count support, if there are no users, there will be no value. The most typical example is the stamp. The supply of stamp is also limited, just like BTC, but is the stamp market still hot? Is the value of stamp still going up? Why is the limited edition stamp value no longer rising? The main reason is no user, who is still using the stamp Letter now anyway?
So high user numbers are the most important goal of a chain. However, the high number of users cannot be violated the rule of decentralisation. For example, like EOS, there are only 21 super nodes designed, the risk is greater because it is not decentralized and not resistant to censorship. You only have 21 super nodes, 21 companies or individuals operate. When a government sends a policeman to a node, asks to freeze some accounts.do you follow or not to follow?
There is a famous saying in China that “do not do more than you should". For example, people who don’t drink water will be thirsty, but people who drink too much water will lead to water intoxication. Adults should drink 2 liters of water a day, but if they drink, for a short time, 5 liters of water, it will be poisoned by water, produce hyponatremia, eventually lead to death if did not treated in time.
Similarly for block size, if the block is too small, as the BTC is only 1M, a transaction will cost around thousands of dollars during congestion, this definitely not feasible. But if the block is too big, as what BSV claims, a block needs to be expanded to 2G. Then every year, dozens of hard disks will be used for storage. To access the server, it will require very high CPU power, memory and processing power. Bitcoin will become like EOS, only left with dozens or even a few nodes. This method not feasible.
For example, recently the US government announced that it has banned the bitcoin addresses of two Iranians. When the government finds there are dozens of nodes and asks to block the address, should you listen to the government? If you listen, the government further believes that you are limited in speculation and disrupts finance. The government order you to modify the 21 million cap similar to ETH, and you can't listen to it.
Even if the government does not come to you, you only have a few dozens of nodes left. The hacker can launch a DDOS attack. paralize your entire network. You are known as the world currency. As a result, anyone can easily paralize you. Isn’t this a joke? ?
Therefore, BCH is such a moderate size that does not exceed the network hardware carrying capacity is the most suitable solution

2) Community spirit: Rational and pragmatic is very simple, the first is not to make empty promises, such as Core, while saying that to reduce the requirements of each node on the computer, reduce the price of node, so that the Raspberry Pi can also run the whole node. On the one hand, claims that every transaction is expensive, and there are no problems with thousands of dollars per transaction.
Second is to make the goal clear. Just like Deng Xiaoping’s cat theory, no matter black cat or white cat, only the good cat can catch a mouse. The goal of BCH is to become a world currency. As long as it is decentralized, it can improve the number of users. It is a good cat. Therefore, the community has little difference in the direction of development, and an improvement is measured by the ability to increase the number of users. This is an objective indicator, and the community is easy to reach an agreement.

3) Infrastructure: layered design, main chain trading & side chain smart contracts, do not interfere with each other
The original infrastructure design by Nakamoto is advanced, and it can reach very high transaction performance. For example, ETH now has a block size of less than 1M every 10 minutes. It is easy for a personal computer to run BTC's 1M block, but now a PC cannot run an ETH full nodes, thanks to the Bitcoin is based on UTXO design mechanism which is better than ETH's account mechanism.
Based on Bitcoin protocol, BCH use layered design. The main chain runs transactions with storing side chain data, so the requirement for the nodes is very low. The side chain nodes only run the smart contract data that they are interested in. If they don’t use, they don't have to run smart contract, unlike ETH, each node has to run all the smart contracts, so the requirement for side chain nodes in BCH also very low.
Therefore, the capacity of the BCH is larger than ETH. ETH is now congested and BTC is also congested. BCH can carry this part users who can’t stand congestion of BTC and ETH, and gradually accumulate its own users to meet a healthy cycle.

Digest from BitKan 1v1 Debate. Get our APP to find more.
submitted by BitKan to btc [link] [comments]

Jiangzhuoer: CSW's Three Extreme Claims - [BitKan 1v1] Craig Wright vs Jiangzhuoer

Jiangzhuoer: CSW's Three Extreme Claims - [BitKan 1v1] Craig Wright vs Jiangzhuoer
Digest from [BitKan 1v1] debate.
bitkan.pro aggregates all trading depth of Binance Huobi and OKEx. or Try our APP!
https://preview.redd.it/ohaz6a5lkoc31.png?width=1058&format=png&auto=webp&s=826957a79fe4fa6e66f2565cbe265cc5e7c3b772
Question 2: During the BCH fork to BSV hash war, why do you support BCH? What do you think of the differences between BSV and BCH?
Jiang: First of all, we have to figure out how did some of the key propositions of BSV came about. CSW seems to be the leader of the BSV community, but in fact CSW is just a chess piece. For example, CSW is in name the chief scientist of Nchain, but CSW has no shares in a series of BSV related companies such as Nchain, Coingeek etc. The true boss of BSV and the main backer behind CSW is Calvin Ayre, the casino tycoon.
Zhao Nan wrote two articles, which made the cause and effect of CA's capital layout clear:
"The capital layout of the casino tycoon Calvin Ayre" >>(Chinese)
"The ins and outs of the Calvin Ayre team" >>(Chinese)
Therefore, the ultimate goal of Calvin Ayre is to make money from the Canadian stock market through Coingeek. Coingeek develops its own mining machine, mines itself, controls the chain of BSV, and has the "CSW" as the gimmick, to tell us the story of BSV.

So BCH forks the BSV, which is a step in the entire capital layout of Calvin Ayre. It is not because there is any irreconcilable development direction, but because Coingeek needs to control the BCH. If it cannot be controlled, it will split into a chain that Coingeek can control completely. The whole thing is planned in advance, for example, bitcoinsv.org registration date is July 2, 2018, bitcoinsv.io is August 16, long before CSW began firing shots at ABC team.
CSW’s goal is to split the BSV from the BCH, so he must overstate many of his claims in order to create a split. If he puts forward a reasonable claim and BCH is a rational and pragmatic community, then he can't split. It is important to mention some very extreme claims that the BCH community can't accept, and then incite some community members through extremist claims, just like the Nazis do extreme propaganda and incitement, in order to split from the BCH.

CSW's extreme claims, such as:
1 Super block: BCH advocates large block expansion. What about CSW? He demands to upgrade the oversized block in a short time. The BCH 32MB block is sufficient and does not exceed the network load. CSW exerts that he will upgrade 128MB now. He will not wait till next year, and he intends to upgrade to 2g as well in 2019.
But the result? Don't even talk about 2G, the 100M block has exceeded the current network carrying capacity. After the BSV, because the block is too large, it is too late to spread across the entire network. There have been many deep rollbacks, April 18, 2019. At that time, the 578640 height 128M block resulted in 6 confirmed rollbacks, making the 6 confirmations unreliable.
On April 18, 2019, Beijing time, from 21:00 to 22:00, the deep recombination of up to six blocks occurred in the cobwebs of BSV (block height 578640-578645)

https://preview.redd.it/7winlisnkoc31.png?width=1124&format=png&auto=webp&s=1c766e14d6360f869006b918b3e7d2a25b9b5fe4
According to BitMEX Research, the BSV chain was rolled back by two blocks in the week. One of the orphaned blocks was about 62.6MB in size. This large block may be the cause of the roll back. In addition, BSV plans to launch an upgraded network called Quasar on July 24. The only change to this upgrade is to increase the default block size limit. It is reported that the expansion of block capacity will increase the probability of block reorganization: the large block has not yet been packaged, and multiple small blocks have made the block height overtaking, which will lead to block reorganization or even fork.

2 Lock-up agreement: A chain must stabilize the agreement. The agreement is greatly changed every time. It definitely affects the above development. If CSW proposes a stable agreement, then everyone agrees that he can't split it. What should he do? CSW is even more extreme, and I am going to set the protocol and lock it, even back to the original version of Bitcoin, which is ridiculous.
The environment has changed, and the agreement must change. For example, if the 0.1 version of Bitcoin is perfect, and the 14-day difficulty adjustment is not a defect, the BSV will not remove the BCH “not original” DDA difficulty adjustment algorithm, and switch back to 14 Day difficulty adjustment? Because once the BSV removes the BCH DDA difficulty adjustment algorithm, it will be directly cut and killed by the big calculation.

3 Computing power determines everything: Why does CW have the power to decide everything? Because the extremes did not dominate the community at the time, but CA's coingeek deployed a lot of mining machines to mine, which is very computationally intensive, so he advocated Force to decide everything, of course, he did not know that my calculations were more than him. I will talk about this later.
Because these claims are created for splitting, not natural development, so these claims will be internal contradictions. For example, CSW said that the agreement is to be locked, and that the computing power determines everything. Even decided to increase the total amount of 21 million, then who has the final say?

Why don't I support the development path of BSV? Because these extreme claims of CSW are all for the purpose of splitting, purposefully proposed, whether it is a large block, lock-up agreement, power calculation determines everything, in fact, it can not be implemented, of course, Will not support these extreme claims that can't actually fall.
In addition, these extreme claims will become a heavy liability for the development of BSV in the future. It is necessary to develop according to these extreme claims. In fact, we cannot do this. We must revise these extreme claims. The members of the community who were incited by these extreme claims will definitely not do it. Then, how do you say that BSV is still developing?

Digest from [BitKan 1v1] debate.
bitkan.pro aggregates all trading depth of Binance Huobi and OKEx. or Try our APP!
submitted by BitKan to btc [link] [comments]

r/BitcoinCash Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

What is BitcoinCash ?
The BitcoinCash subreddit is a forum dedicated to discussing the cryptocurrency Bitcoin Cash (BCH). The aim of this subreddit is to cultivate a space for constructive discussion about Bitcoin Cash. Intentionally disruptive behaviour and heavily off-topic discussion will be moderated accordingly. Please refer to the sidebar for the subreddit rules.

What is Bitcoin Cash?
Bitcoin Cash is a peer-to-peer electronic cash system. It's a permissionless, decentralised cryptocurrency that requires no trusted third parties and no central bank. With Bitcoin Cash you can safely and securely send money anywhere in the world, nearly for free.
For more information about Bitcoin Cash, please visit bitcoincash.org.

Is Bitcoin Cash different from “Bitcoin”?
Yes! In 2017, the Bitcoin project and its community split into two. Perhaps the least controversial way to refer to each side is simply by their respective ticker symbols, BTC and BCH. While exchanges commonly refer to BTC as simply “Bitcoin”, Bitcoin Cash, usually represented by the BCH ticker symbol, is considered by its supporters to be a legitimate continuation of the Bitcoin project, and the version with the best chance of creating a globally adopted peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

Why was it necessary to create Bitcoin Cash?
The legacy Bitcoin code had a maximum limit of 1MB of data per block, or about 4 transactions per second. There was also a common sentiment among Bitcoin Core developers that non-backwards compatible upgrades, commonly known as “hard forks”, should be avoided at all cost. This mindset severely limited the potential to introduce beneficial changes to Bitcoin, which were needed to prepare the protocol for mass adoption.
Although technically simple, the Bitcoin community could not reach a consensus on raising the block size limit, even after years of debate. In 2017, capacity hit the 1MB-imposed wall, fees skyrocketed, and Bitcoin became unreliable, with some users unable to get their transactions confirmed even after days of waiting. An average transaction fee of $50 took place in December 2017. As a result, Bitcoin stopped growing, and companies such as Steam and Microsoft began dropping Bitcoin, because it was no longer a cheap and reliable payment method.
In August 2017, a subset of the Bitcoin community decided to move forward with a proposed protocol upgrade, forking Bitcoin, and creating Bitcoin Cash by lifting the block size limit as a step towards massive on-chain scaling. There is now ample capacity for everyone's transactions on the Bitcoin Cash blockchain; low fees and fast confirmations are standard, and the network has been allowed to grow again.

Isn’t btc “the Bitcoin Cash subreddit”?
It is worth noting that the btc subreddit came into use before Bitcoin Cash existed. It was originally created as a forum for open discussion about Bitcoin. After August 2015, btc gained a large user-base when the bitcoin subreddit began censoring discussion about raising Bitcoin’s block size limit. After the Bitcoin community split over the Bitcoin Cash fork in August 2017, the btc Bitcoin community naturally became the Bitcoin Cash community, as that’s where its proponents already resided, having been ousted from bitcoin by censorship.
To this day, btc continues to offer a place for open and censorship-free discussion about all Bitcoin forks, with minimal interference by moderators.

So how does BitcoinCash differ from btc ?
In July 2019, the BitcoinCash subreddit introduced a stricter moderation policy, following requests from the Bitcoin Cash community for an alternative and specific forum for discussing Bitcoin Cash. The intention is to offer a space that is more focused on specifically discussing Bitcoin Cash, as well as one that is free of the ongoing low-effort trolling that frequently takes advantage of btc’s principled commitment to free speech.
This subreddit now offers all users a choice about the kind of forum that they wish to participate in. The hope is that, without the distractions that threaten to derail discussion on btc, BitcoinCash may be able to foster a more focused, inclusive, and involved conversation.
The moderation logs for BitcoinCash are public.
submitted by CatatonicAdenosine to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? A analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). [Part 2]

Part 1
It's been a bit of time since the first post during which I believe things have crystallised further as to the intentions of the three primary bitcoin variants. I was going to go on a long winded journey to try to weave together the various bits and pieces to let the reader discern from themselves but there's simply too much material that needs to be covered and the effort that it would require is not something that I can invest right now.
Firstly we must define what bitcoin actually is. Many people think of bitcoin as a unit of a digital currency like a dollar in your bank but without a physical substrate. That's kind of correct as a way to explain its likeness to something many people are familiar with but instead it's a bit more nuanced than that. If we look at a wallet from 2011 that has never moved any coins, we can find that there are now multiple "bitcoins" on multiple different blockchains. This post will discuss the main three variants which are Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. In this respect many people are still hotly debating which is the REAL bitcoin variant and which bitcoins you want to be "investing" in.
The genius of bitcoin was not in defining a class of non physical objects to send around. Why bitcoin was so revolutionary is that it combined cryptography, economics, law, computer science, networking, mathematics, etc. and created a protocol which was basically a rule set to be followed which creates a game of incentives that provides security to a p2p network to prevent double spends. The game theory is extremely important to understand. When a transaction is made on the bitcoin network your wallet essentially generates a string of characters which includes your public cryptographic key, a signature which is derived from the private key:pub key pair, the hash of the previous block and an address derived from a public key of the person you want to send the coins to. Because each transaction includes the hash of the previous block (a hash is something that will always generate the same 64 character string result from EXACTLY the same data inputs) the blocks are literally chained together. Bitcoin and the blockchain are thus defined in the technical white paper which accompanied the release client as a chain of digital signatures.
The miners validate transactions on the network and compete with one another to detect double spends on the network. If a miner finds the correct solution to the current block (and in doing so is the one who writes all the transactions that have elapsed since the last block was found, in to the next block) says that a transaction is confirmed but then the rest of the network disagree that the transactions occurred in the order that this miner says (for double spends), then the network will reject the version of the blockchain that that miner is working on. In that respect the miners are incentivised to check each other's work and ensure the majority are working on the correct version of the chain. The miners are thus bound by the game theoretical design of NAKAMOTO CONSENSUS and the ENFORCES of the rule set. It is important to note the term ENFORCER rather than RULE CREATOR as this is defined in the white paper which is a document copyrighted by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009.

Now if we look at the three primary variants of bitcoin understanding these important defining characteristics of what the bitcoin protocol actually is we can make an argument that the variants that changed some of these defining attributes as no longer being bitcoin rather than trying to argue based off market appraisal which is essentially defining bitcoin as a social media consensus rather than a set in stone rule set.
BITCOIN CORE: On first examination Bitcoin Core appears to be the incumbent bitcoin that many are being lead to believe is the "true" bitcoin and the others are knock off scams. The outward stated rationale behind the bitcoin core variant is that computational resources, bandwidth, storage are scarce and that before increasing the size of each block to allow for more transactions we should be increasing the efficiency with which the data being fed in to a block is stored. In order to achieve this one of the first suggested implementations was a process known as SegWit (segregating the witness data). This means that when you construct a bitcoin transaction, in the header of the tx, instead of the inputs being public key and a signature + Hash + address(to), the signature data is moved outside of header as this can save space within the header and allow more transactions to fill the block. More of the history of the proposal can be read about here (bearing in mind that article is published by the bitcoinmagazine which is founded by ethereum devs Vitalik and Mihai and can't necessarily be trusted to give an unbiased record of events). The idea of a segwit like solution was proposed as early as 2012 by the likes of Greg Maxwell and Luke Dash Jnr and Peter Todd in an apparent effort to "FIX" transaction malleability and enable side chains. Those familiar with the motto "problem reaction solution" may understand here that the problem being presented may not always be an authentic problem and it may actually just be necessary preparation for implementing a desired solution.
The real technical arguments as to whether moving signature data outside of the transaction in the header actually invalidates the definition of bitcoin as being a chain of digital signatures is outside my realm of expertise but instead we can examine the character of the individuals and groups involved in endorsing such a solution. Greg Maxwell is a hard to know individual that has been involved with bitcoin since its very early days but in some articles he portrays himself as portrays himself as one of bitcoins harshest earliest critics. Before that he worked with Mozilla and Wikipedia and a few mentions of him can be found on some old linux sites or such. He has no entry on wikipedia other than a non hyperlinked listing as the CTO of Blockstream. Blockstream was a company founded by Greg Maxwell and Adam Back, but in business registration documents only Adam Back is listed as the business contact but registered by James Murdock as the agent. They received funding from a number of VC firms but also Joi Ito and Reid Hoffman and there are suggestions that MIT media labs and the Digital Currency Initiative. For those paying attention Joi Ito and Reid Hoffman have links to Jeffrey Epstein and his offsider Ghislaine Maxwell.

Ghislaine is the daughter of publishing tycoon and fraudster Robert Maxwell (Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch, a yiddish orthodox czech). It is emerging that the Maxwells are implicated with Mossad and involved in many different psyops throughout the last decades. Greg Maxwell is verified as nullc but a few months ago was outed using sock puppets as another reddit user contrarian__ who also admits to being Jewish in one of his comments as the former. Greg has had a colourful history with his roll as a bitcoin core developer successfully ousting two of the developers put there by Satoshi (Gavin Andreson and Mike Hearn) and being referred to by Andreson as a toxic troll with counterpart Samon Mow. At this point rather than crafting the narrative around Greg, I will provide a few links for the reader to assess on their own time:
  1. https://coinspice.io/news/btc-dev-gregory-maxwell-fake-social-media-account-accusations-nonsense/
  2. https://www.trustnodes.com/2017/06/06/making-gregory-maxwell-bitcoin-core-committer-huge-mistake-says-gavin-andresen
  3. https://www.ccn.com/gavin-andresen-samson-mow-and-greg-maxwell-toxic-trolls//
  4. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/business/dealbook/the-bitcoin-believer-who-gave-up.html
  5. https://www.coindesk.com/mozilla-accepting-bitcoin-donations
  6. https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup
  7. https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/68pusp/gavin_andresen_on_twitter_im_looking_for_beta/dh1cmfl/
  8. https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/d14qee/can_someone_post_the_details_of_the_relationships/?ref=tokendaily
  9. https://www.coindesk.com/court-docs-detail-sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-bitcoin-consultant-peter-todd
  10. https://coinspice.io/news/billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-btc-maximalist-bitcoin-is-a-store-of-value-not-a-currency/
  11. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7579851/More-300-paedophiles-arrested-worldwide-massive-child-abuse-website-taken-down.html
  12. https://news.bitcoin.com/risks-segregated-witness-opening-door-mining-cartels-undermine-bitcoin-network/
  13. https://micky.com.au/craig-wrights-crackpot-bitcoin-theory-covered-by-uks-financial-times/
  14. https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/74se80/wikipedia_admins_gregory_maxwell_of_blockstream/

Now I could just go on dumping more and more articles but that doesn't really weave it all together. Essentially it is very well possible that the 'FIX' of bitcoin proposed with SegWit was done by those who are moral reprobates who have been rubbing shoulders money launderers and human traffickers. Gregory Maxwell was removed from wikipedia, worked with Mozilla who donated a quarter of a million to MIT media labs and had relationship with Joi Ito, the company he founded received funding from people associated with Epstein who have demonstrated their poor character and dishonesty and attempted to wage toxic wars against those early bitcoin developers who wished to scale bitcoin as per the white paper and without changing consensus rules or signature structures.
The argument that BTC is bitcoin because the exchanges and the market have chosen is not necessarily a logical supposition when the vast majority of the money that has flown in to inflate the price of BTC comes from a cryptographic USD token that was created by Brock Pierce (Might Ducks child stahollywood pedo scandal Digital Entertainment Network) who attended Jeffrey Epstein's Island for conferences. The group Tether who issues the USDT has been getting nailed by the New York Attorney General office with claims of $1.4 trillion in damages from their dodgey practices. Brock Pierce has since distanced himself from Tether but Blockstream still works closely with them and they are now exploring issuing tether on the ethereum network. Tether lost it's US banking partner in early 2017 before the monstrous run up for bitcoin prices. Afterwards they alleged they had full reserves of USD however, they were never audited and were printing hundreds of millions of dollars of tether each week during peak mania which was used to buy bitcoin (which was then used as collateral to issue more tether against the bitcoin they bought at a value they inflated). Around $30m in USDT is crossing between China to Russia daily and when some of the groups also related to USDT/Tether were raided they found them in possession of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of counterfeit physical US bills.
Because of all this it then becomes important to reassess the arguments that were made for the implementation of pegged sidechains, segregated witnesses and other second layer solutions. If preventing the bitcoin blockchain from bloating was the main argument for second layer solutions, what was the plan for scaling the data related to the records of transactions that occur on the second layer. You will then need to rely on less robust ways of securing the second layer than Proof Of Work but still have the same amount of data to contend with, unless there was plans all along for second layer solutions to enable records to be deleted /pruned to facilitate money laundering and violation of laws put in place to prevent banking secrecy etc.
There's much more to it as well and I encourage anyone interested to go digging on their own in to this murky cesspit. Although I know very well what sort of stuff Epstein has been up to I have been out of the loop and haven't familiarised myself with everyone involved in his network that is coming to light.
Stay tuned for part 3 which will be an analysis of the shit show that is the Bitcoin Cash variant...
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

Hard coded UTXO checkpoints are the way to go. They're safe. They're necessary.

Update 3:
Pieter convinced me in the comments of his Stack Exchange answer that these checkpoints don't give any material improvement over assumevalid and assumeutxo. He made me realize why my Case IV below would not actually cause a huge disruption for assumevalid users. So I rescind my call for UTXO checkpoints.
However, I maintain that UTXO checkpoints done properly (with checkpoints sufficiently in the past) are not a security model change and would not meaningfully alter consensus. It sounded like Pieter agreed with me on that point as well.
I think UTXO checkpoints might still be a useful tool
I will call for Assume UTXO tho. It plus assumevalid adds pretty much much all the same benefits as my proposal.
OP:
Luke Jr has been proposing lowering the maximum block size to 300mb in order to limit how long it takes a new node to sync up. He makes the good point that if processor power is growing at only 17%/year, that's how much we can grow the number of transactions a new node needs to verify on initial sync.
But limiting the blocksize is not the only way to do it. As I'm sure you can foresee from the title, I believe the best way to do it is a hardcoded checkpoint built into the software (eg bitcoin core). This is safe, this is secure, and it is a scalability improvement that has no downsides.
So what is a hardcoded checkpoint? This would consist of a couple pieces of data being hardcoded into the source code of any bitcoin full-node software. The data would be a blockheight, block hash, and UTXO hash. With those three pieces of information, a new client can download the block at that height and the UTXO set built up to that height, and then it can verify that the block and UTXO set are correct because they both have the correct hashes.
This way, a new node can start syncing from that height rather than from the first block ever mined. What does this improve?
While not strictly necessary, its likely that the UTXO data would come from the same source as the software, since otherwise full nodes would have to store UTXO sets at multiple block heights just in case someone asks for it as part of their checkpoint. Also, full-nodes should store block information going back historically significantly further than their checkpoint, so they have data to pass to clients that have an earlier checkpoint. So perhaps if a client is configured for a checkpoint 6 months ago, it should probably still store block data from up to 2 years ago (tho it wouldn't need to verify all that data - or rather, verifying it would be far simpler because the header chain connecting to their checkpoint block would all that needs to be validated).
To be perfectly clear, I'm absolutely not suggesting a live checkpoint beacon that updates the software on-the-fly from a remote source. That is completely unsafe and insecure, because it forces you to trust that one source. At any time, whoever controls the live source could disrupt millions of people by broadcasting an invalid block or a block on a malicious chain. So I'm NOT suggesting having a central source, or even any distributed set of sources, that automatically send checkpoint information to clients that connect to it. That would 100% be unsafe. What I'm suggesting is a checkpoint hardcoded into the software, which can be safely audited.
So is a hardcoded checkpoint safe and secure? Yes it is. Bitcoin software already needs to be audited. That's why you should never use bitcoin software that isn't open source. So by including the three pieces of data described above, all you're doing is adding a couple more things that need to be audited. If you're downloading a bitcoin software binary without auditing it yourself, then you already take on the risk of trusting the distributor of that binary, and adding hardcoded checkpoints does not increase that risk at all.
However, most people can't even audit the bitcoin software if they wanted to. Most people aren't programmers and can't feasibly understand the code. Not so for the checkpoints. The checkpoints could easily be audited by anyone who runs a full node, or anyone who can check block hashes and UTXO hashes from multiple sources they trust. Auditing the hardcoded checkpoint would be so easy we could sell T shirts that say "I helped audit Bitcoin source code!"
The security profile of a piece of bitcoin node software with hardcoded checkpoints or without hardcoded checkpoints is identical. Not similar. Not almost. Actually identical. There is no downside.
Imagine this twice-a-year software release process:
Month 0: After the last release, development on the next release start (or rather, continues).
Month 3: The next candidate version of the software is finalized, including a checkpoint from some non-contentious distance ago, say 1 month ago.
Month 6: After 3 months of auditing and bug fixing, the software is released. At this point, the checkpoint would be 4 months old.
In this process, downloading the latest version of bitcoin software would mean the maximum months of blocks you have to sync is 10 months (if you download and run the software the day before the next release happens). This process is safe, its secure, its auditable, and it saves tons of processing time and harddrive space. This also means that it would allow bitcoin full nodes to be run by lower-power computers, and would allow more people to run full nodes. I think everyone can agree that outcome would be a good one.
So why do we need this change? Because 300kb blocks is the alternative. That's not enough space, even with the lightning network. I'm redacting the previous because I don't have the data to support it and I don't think its necessary to argue that we need this change.
So why do we need this change? This change represents a substantial scalability improvement from O(n) to O(Δn). It removes a major bottleneck to increasing on-chain transaction throughput, reducing fees, increasing user security as well as network-wide security (through more full nodes), or a combination of those.
What does everyone think?
Update:
I think its useful to think of 4 different types of users relevant in the hypothetical scenario where Bitcoin adopts this kind of proposal:
  1. Upfront Auditors - Early warnings
  2. After-the-fact Auditors - Late warnings
  3. Non-full-auditors - Late warnings
  4. Non full nodes - No warnings
Upfront auditors look at the source code of the software they use, the keep up to date with changes, and they make sure that what they're running looks good to them. They're almost definitely building directly from source code - no binaries for them. They'll alert people to a problem potentially before buggy or malicious software is even released. In this scenario, their security is obviously unchanged because they're not taking advantage of the check-pointing feature. We want to encourage as many people as possible to do this and to make it as easy as possible to do.
After-the-fact Auditors want to start a new node and start using Bitcoin immediately. They want to audit, but are ok with a period of time where they're trusting the code to be connecting the chain they want. They take on a slight amount of personal risk here, but once they back-validate the chain, they can sound the alert if there is a validation problem.
Non-full-auditors are simply content to trust that the software is good. They'll run the node without looking at most or any of the code. They take on more risk than After-the-fact Auditors, but their risk is not actually much worse than After-the-fact Auditors. Why? Because as soon as you're sure you're on the right chain (ie you do a few monetary transactions with people who accept your bitcoin), you're golden for as long as you use that node and the part of the chain it validated. The can also still help the network to pretty much the same degree as After-the-fact Auditors, because if there are a problem with their transactions, they can sound the alarm about a problem with that software.
Non full nodes obviously have less security and they don't help the network.
So why did I bother to talk about these different types of users?
Well, we obviously want as many Upfront auditors as possible. However, doing that out of the starting gate is time consuming. It takes time to audit the code and time to sync the blockchain. Its costly. For this reason, for better or worse, most people simply won't do it.
Without checkpoints, we don't have type 2 or type 3 users. The only alternative to being an Upfront Auditor is to be an SPV node that doesn't help the network and is less secure. With checkpoints, we could potentially change many of those people who would just use SPV to doing something much more helpful for the network.
One of the huge benefits of After-the-fact Auditors and Non-full-auditors is that once they're on the network, they can act like Upfront Auditors in the next release. Maybe they're not auditing the source code, but they can sure audit the checkpoint very easily. That means they can also sound the alarm before malicious or broken software is released, just like Upfront Auditors. Why? Because they now have a chain they believe to be the true one (with an incredibly high degree of confidence).
What this means is that Upfront Auditors, After-the-fact Auditors, and Non-full-auditors help the network to a very similar degree. If software that doesn't sync to the right chain, they will find out about it and alert others. Type 2 and 3 take on personal risk, but they don't put the network at greater risk, like SPV nodes do.
If we can convert most Non-full nodes into Type 2 or Type 3 users, that would be massive gain for the security of Bitcoin. Luke Jr said it himself, making nodes that support the network as easy as possible to run is critical. This is one good way to do that.
Update 2: Comparison to -assumevalid and why using checkpoints upgrades scalability
The -assumevalid option allows nodes to skip validation of blocks before the hardcoded golden block hash. This is similar to my proposal, but has a critical difference. A node with -assumevalid on (which I've heard is the default now) will still validate the whole chain in the case that a longer chain is floating around. Because of this, -assumevalid can be an optimization that works as long as there's no other longer chain also claiming to be bitcoin floating around the network.
The important points brought up by the people that wrote and discussed adding this feature was that:
A. Its not a change in security model, and
B. Its not a change in consensus rules.
This meant that it was a pure implementation detail that would never and could never change what chain your node follows.
The checkpoints I'm describing are different. On point A, some have said that checkpoints are a security model change, and I've addressed that above. I'd like to add that there is no way for bitcoin to be 100% trustless. That is impossible. Bitcoin at the deepest level is a specified protocol many people have agreed to use together. In order to join that group even on the most fundamental level, you need to find the spec people are agreeing to use. You have to trust that the person or people that gave you a copy of that spec gave you the right one. If different people claim that different specs are "bitcoin", you have to choose which people to trust. The same is true of checkpoints. New entrants want to join the network that the people they care about interacting with believe is Bitcoin, and those are the people they will trust to get the spec, or the source code, or the hash of the UTXO set. This is why I say the security profile of Bitcoin with checkpoints is identical to Bitcoin without checkpoints. The amount of trust you have to put in your social network is not materially different.
While its not a security model change, as I've supported above, using checkpoints is consensus rules change. Every new checkpoint would change the consensus rules. However, I would argue this isn't a problem as long as those checkpoints are at a non-contentious number of blocks ago. While it would change consensus rules, it should not change consensus at all. There are 4 scenarios to consider:
I. There's no contention.
II. There's a long-range reorg from before the checkpoint.
III. There exists a contentious public chain that branched before the checkpoint would usually be taken.
IV. There exists an invalid chain that's longer than the valid chain.
In case I, none of it matters, and checkpoints have pretty much exactly the same result as -assumevalid.
In case II, Bitcoin has much bigger problems. Its simply unacceptable for Bitcoin to allow for long-range reorgs, so this case must be prevented entirely. The downsides of a long-range reorg for bitcoin without checkpoints is MUCH MUCH larger than the additional downsides with checkpoints.
In case III, the obvious solution is to checkpoint from an earlier non-contentious blockheight, so nodes validate both chains.
Case IV is where things really differ between checkpoints and -assumevalid. In this case, nodes using a checkpoint will only validate blocks after the checkpoint. However, nodes using -assumevalid will be forced to validate both chains back to their branch-point.
I don't believe there are other relevant cases, but as long as checkpoints are chosen from non-contentious heights and have time to be audited, there is no possibility that honestly-run bitcoin software would in any way affect the consensus for what chain is the right chain.
This brings me back to why checkpoints upgrades scalability, and -assumevalid does not. Case IV is the case that prevents -assumevalid from being a scalability improvement. You want new nodes to be able to sync to the network relatively quickly, so say the 90th percentile of machines should be able to do it in less than a week (or maybe we want to ensure sync happens within a day - that's up for debate). With checkpoints, invalid chains branched before the checkpoint will not disrupt new entrants to the network. With -assumevalid, those invalid change will disrupt new entrants. Since an invalid chain can have branched arbitrarily far in the past, this disruption could be arbitrarily large.
One way to deal with this is to ensure that most machines can handle validating not only the whole valid chain, but the whole invalid chain as well. The other way to deal with this is checkpoints.
So back to scalability, with checkpoints all we need to ensure is that the lowest power machines we want to support can sync in a timely manner back to the checkpoint.
submitted by fresheneesz to BitcoinDiscussion [link] [comments]

Your Guide to Monero, and Why It Has Great Potential

/////Your Guide to Monero, and Why It Has Great Potential/////

Marketing.
It's a dirty word for most members of the Monero community.
It is also one of the most divisive words in the Monero community. Yet, the lack of marketing is one of the most frustrating things for many newcomers.
This is what makes this an unusual post from a member of the Monero community.
This post is an unabashed and unsolicited analyzation of why I believe Monero to have great potential.
Below I have attempted to outline different reasons why Monero has great potential, beginning with upcoming developments and use cases, to broader economic motives, speculation, and key issues for it to overcome.
I encourage you to discuss and criticise my musings, commenting below if you feel necessary to do so.

///Upcoming Developments///

Bulletproofs - A Reduction in Transaction Sizes and Fees
Since the introduction of Ring Confidential Transactions (Ring CT), transaction amounts have been hidden in Monero, albeit at the cost of increased transaction fees and sizes. In order to mitigate this issue, Bulletproofs will soon be added to reduce both fees and transaction size by 80% to 90%. This is great news for those transacting smaller USD amounts as people commonly complained Monero's fees were too high! Not any longer though! More information can be found here. Bulletproofs are already working on the Monero testnet, and developers were aiming to introduce them in March 2018, however it could be delayed in order to ensure everything is tried and tested.
Multisig
Multisig has recently been merged! Mulitsig, also called multisignature, is the requirement for a transaction to have two or more signatures before it can be executed. Multisig transactions and addresses are indistinguishable from normal transactions and addresses in Monero, and provide more security than single-signature transactions. It is believed this will lead to additional marketplaces and exchanges to supporting Monero.
Kovri
Kovri is an implementation of the Invisible Internet Project (I2P) network. Kovri uses both garlic encryption and garlic routing to create a private, protected overlay-network across the internet. This overlay-network provides users with the ability to effectively hide their geographical location and internet IP address. The good news is Kovri is under heavy development and will be available soon. Unlike other coins' false privacy claims, Kovri is a game changer as it will further elevate Monero as the king of privacy.
Mobile Wallets
There is already a working Android Wallet called Monerujo available in the Google Play Store. X Wallet is an IOS mobile wallet. One of the X Wallet developers recently announced they are very, very close to being listed in the Apple App Store, however are having some issues with getting it approved. The official Monero IOS and Android wallets, along with the MyMonero IOS and Android wallets, are also almost ready to be released, and can be expected very soon.
Hardware Wallets
Hardware wallets are currently being developed and nearing completion. Because Monero is based on the CryptoNote protocol, it means it requires unique development in order to allow hardware wallet integration. The Ledger Nano S will be adding Monero support by the end of Q1 2018. There is a recent update here too. Even better, for the first time ever in cryptocurrency history, the Monero community banded together to fund the development of an exclusive Monero Hardware Wallet, and will be available in Q2 2018, costing only about $20! In addition, the CEO of Trezor has offered a 10BTC bounty to whoever can provide the software to allow Monero integration. Someone can be seen to already be working on that here.
TAILS Operating System Integration
Monero is in the progress of being packaged in order for it to be integrated into TAILS and ready to use upon install. TAILS is the operating system popularised by Edward Snowden and is commonly used by those requiring privacy such as journalists wanting to protect themselves and sources, human-right defenders organizing in repressive contexts, citizens facing national emergencies, domestic violence survivors escaping from their abusers, and consequently, darknet market users.
In the meantime, for those users who wish to use TAILS with Monero, u/Electric_sheep01 has provided Sheep's Noob guide to Monero GUI in Tails 3.2, which is a step-by-step guide with screenshots explaining how to setup Monero in TAILS, and is very easy to follow.
Mandatory Hardforks
Unlike other coins, Monero receives a protocol upgrade every 6 months in March and September. Think of it as a Consensus Protocol Update. Monero's hard forks ensure quality development takes place, while preventing political or ideological issues from hindering progress. When a hardfork occurs, you simply download and use the new daemon version, and your existing wallet files and copy of the blockchain remain compatible. This reddit post provides more information.
Dynamic fees
Many cryptocurrencies have an arbitrary block size limit. Although Monero has a limit, it is adaptive based on the past 100 blocks. Similarly, fees change based on transaction volume. As more transactions are processed on the Monero network, the block size limit slowly increases and the fees slowly decrease. The opposite effect also holds true. This means that the more transactions that take place, the cheaper the fees!
Tail Emission and Inflation
There will be around 18.4 million Monero mined at the end of May 2022. However, tail emission will kick in after that which is 0.6 XMR, so it has no fixed limit. Gundamlancer explains that Monero's "main emission curve will issue about 18.4 million coins to be mined in approximately 8 years. (more precisely 18.132 Million coins by ca. end of May 2022) After that, a constant "tail emission" of 0.6 XMR per 2-minutes block (modified from initially equivalent 0.3 XMR per 1-minute block) will create a sub-1% perpetual inflatio starting with 0.87% yearly inflation around May 2022) to prevent the lack of incentives for miners once a currency is not mineable anymore.
Monero Research Lab
Monero has a group of anonymous/pseudo-anonymous university academics actively researching, developing, and publishing academic papers in order to improve Monero. See here and here. The Monero Research Lab are acquainted with other members of cryptocurrency academic community to ensure when new research or technology is uncovered, it can be reviewed and decided upon whether it would be beneficial to Monero. This ensures Monero will always remain a leading cryptocurrency. A recent end of 2017 update from a MRL researcher can be found here.

///Monero's Technology - Rising Above The Rest///

Monero Has Already Proven Itself To Be Private, Secure, Untraceable, and Trustless
Monero is the only private, untraceable, trustless, secure and fungible cryptocurrency. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are TRACEABLE through the use of blockchain analytics, and has lead to the prosecution of numerous individuals, such as the alleged Alphabay administrator Alexandre Cazes. In the Forfeiture Complaint which detailed the asset seizure of Alexandre Cazes, the anonymity capabilities of Monero were self-demonstrated by the following statement of the officials after the AlphaBay shutdown: "In total, from CAZES' wallets and computer agents took control of approximately $8,800,000 in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Monero and Zcash, broken down as follows: 1,605.0503851 Bitcoin, 8,309.271639 Ethereum, 3,691.98 Zcash, and an unknown amount of Monero".
Privacy CANNOT BE OPTIONAL and must be at a PROTOCOL LEVEL. With Monero, privacy is mandatory, so that everyone gets the benefits of privacy without any transactions standing out as suspicious. This is the reason Darknet Market places are moving to Monero, and will never use Verge, Zcash, Dash, Pivx, Sumo, Spectre, Hush or any other coins that lack good privacy. Peter Todd (who was involved in the Zcash trusted setup ceremony) recently reiterated his concerns of optional privacy after Jeffrey Quesnelle published his recent paper stating 31.5% of Zcash transactions may be traceable, and that only ~1% of the transactions are pure privacy transactions (i.e., z -> z transactions). When the attempted private transactions stand out like a sore thumb there is no privacy, hence why privacy cannot be optional. In addition, in order for a cryptocurrency to truly be private, it must not be controlled by a centralised body, such as a company or organisation, because it opens it up to government control and restrictions. This is no joke, but Zcash is supported by DARPA and the Israeli government!.
Monero provides a stark contrast compared to other supposed privacy coins, in that Monero does not have a rich list! With all other coins, you can view wallet balances on the blockexplorers. You can view Monero's non-existent rich list here to see for yourself.
I will reiterate here that Monero is TRUSTLESS. You don't need to rely on anyone else to protect your privacy, or worry about others colluding to learn more about you. No one can censor your transaction or decide to intervene. Monero is immutable, unlike Zcash, in which the lead developer Zooko publicly tweeted the possibility of providing a backdoor for authorities to trace transactions. To Zcash's demise, Zooko famously tweeted:
" And by the way, I think we can successfully make Zcash too traceable for criminals like WannaCry, but still completely private & fungible. …"
Ethereum's track record of immutability is also poor. Ethereum was supposed to be an immutable blockchain ledger, however after the DAO hack this proved to not be the case. A 2016 article on Saintly Law summarised the problematic nature of Ethereum's leadership and blockchain intervention:
" Many ethereum and blockchain advocates believe that the intervention was the wrong move to make in this situation. Smart contracts are meant to be self-executing, immutable and free from disturbance by organisations and intermediaries. Yet the building block of all smart contracts, the code, is inherently imperfect. This means that the technology is vulnerable to the same malicious hackers that are targeting businesses and governments. It is also clear that the large scale intervention after the DAO hack could not and would not likely be taken in smaller transactions, as they greatly undermine the viability of the cryptocurrency and the technology."
Monero provides Fungibility and Privacy in a Cashless World
As outlined on GetMonero.org, fungibility is the property of a currency whereby two units can be substituted in place of one another. Fungibility means that two units of a currency can be mutually substituted and the substituted currency is equal to another unit of the same size. For example, two $10 bills can be exchanged and they are functionally identical to any other $10 bill in circulation (although $10 bills have unique ID numbers and are therefore not completely fungible). Gold is probably a closer example of true fungibility, where any 1 oz. of gold of the same grade is worth the same as another 1 oz. of gold. Monero is fungible due to the nature of the currency which provides no way to link transactions together nor trace the history of any particular XMR. 1 XMR is functionally identical to any other 1 XMR. Fungibility is an advantage Monero has over Bitcoin and almost every other cryptocurrency, due to the privacy inherent in the Monero blockchain and the permanently traceable nature of the Bitcoin blockchain. With Bitcoin, any BTC can be tracked by anyone back to its creation coinbase transaction. Therefore, if a coin has been used for an illegal purpose in the past, this history will be contained in the blockchain in perpetuity.
A great example of Bitcoin's lack of fungibility was reposted by u/ViolentlyPeaceful:
"Imagine you sell cupcakes and receive Bitcoin as payment. It turns out that someone who owned that Bitcoin before you was involved in criminal activity. Now you are worried that you have become a suspect in a criminal case, because the movement of funds to you is a matter of public record. You are also worried that certain Bitcoins that you thought you owned will be considered ‘tainted’ and that others will refuse to accept them as payment."
This lack of fungibility means that certain businesses will be obligated to avoid accepting BTC that have been previously used for purposes which are illegal, or simply run afoul of their Terms of Service. Currently some large Bitcoin companies are blocking, suspending, or closing accounts that have received Bitcoin used in online gambling or other purposes deemed unsavory by said companies. Monero has been built specifically to address the problem of traceability and non-fungibility inherent in other cryptocurrencies. By having completely private transactions Monero is truly fungible and there can be no blacklisting of certain XMR, while at the same time providing all the benefits of a secure, decentralized, permanent blockchain.
The world is moving cashless. Fact. The ramifications of this are enormous as we move into a cashless world in which transactions will be tracked and there is a potential for data to be used by third parties for adverse purposes. While most new cryptocurrency investors speculate upon vaporware ICO tokens in the hope of generating wealth, Monero provides salvation for those in which financial privacy is paramount. Too often people equate Monero's features with criminal endeavors. Privacy is not a crime, and is necessary for good money. Transparency in Monero is possible OFF-CHAIN, which offers greater transparency and flexibility. For example, a Monero user may share their Private View Key with their accountant for tax purposes.
Monero aims to be adopted by more than just those with nefarious use cases. For example, if you lived in an oppressive religious regime and wanted to buy a certain item, using Monero would allow you to exchange value privately and across borders if needed. Another example is that if everybody can see how much cryptocurrency you have in your wallet, then a certain service might decide to charge you more, and bad actors could even use knowledge of your wallet balance to target you for extortion purposes. For example, a Russian cryptocurrency blogger was recently beaten and robbed of $425k. This is why FUNGIBILITY IS ESSENTIAL. To summarise this in a nutshell:
"A lack of fungibility means that when sending or receiving funds, if the other person personally knows you during a transaction, or can get any sort of information on you, or if you provide a residential address for shipping etc. – you could quite potentially have them use this against you for personal gain"
For those that wish to seek more information about why Monero is a superior form of money, read The Merits of Monero: Why Monero Vs Bitcoin over on the Monero.how website.
Monero's Humble Origins
Something that still rings true today despite the great influx of money into cryptocurrencies was outlined in Nick Tomaino's early 2016 opinion piece. The author claimed that "one of the most interesting aspects of Monero is that the project has gained traction without a crowd sale pre-launch, without VC funding and any company or well-known investors and without a pre-mine. Like Bitcoin in the early days, Monero has been a purely grassroots movement that was bootstrapped by the creator and adopted organically without any institutional buy-in. The creator and most of the core developers serve the community pseudonymously and the project was launched on a message board (similar to the way Bitcoin was launched on an email newsletter)."
The Organic Growth of the Monero Community
The Monero community over at monero is exponentially growing. You can view the Monero reddit metrics here and see that the Monero subreddit currently gains more than 10,000 (yes, ten thousand!) new subscribers every 10 days! Compare this to most of the other coins out there, and it proves to be one of the only projects with real organic growth. In addition to this, the community subreddits are specifically divided to ensure the main subreddit remains unbiased, tech focused, with no shilling or hype. All trading talk is designated to xmrtrader, and all memes at moonero.
Forum Funding System
While most contributors have gratefully volunteered their time to the project, Monero also has a Forum Funding System in which money is donated by community members to ensure it attracts and retains the brightest minds and most skilled developers. Unlike ICOs and other cryptocurrencies, Monero never had a premine, and does not have a developer tax. If ANYONE requires funding for a Monero related project, then they can simply request funding from the community, and if the community sees it as beneficial, they will donate. Types of projects range from Monero funding for local meet ups, to paying developers for their work.
Monero For Goods, Services, and Market Places
There is a growing number of online goods and services that you can now pay for with Monero. Globee is a service that allows online merchants to accept payments through credit cards and a host of cryptocurrencies, while being settled in Bitcoin, Monero or fiat currency. Merchants can reach a wider variety of customers, while not needing to invest in additional hardware to run cryptocurrency wallets or accept the current instability of the cryptocurrency market. Globee uses all of the open source API's that BitPay does making integrations much easier!
Project Coral Reef is a service which allows you to shop and pay for popular music band products and services using Monero.
Linux, Veracrypt, and a whole array of VPNs now accept Monero.
There is a new Monero only marketplace called Annularis currently being developed which has been created for those who value financial privacy and economic freedom, and there are rumours Open Bazaar is likely to support Monero once Multisig is implemented.
In addition, Monero is also supported by The Living Room of Satoshi so you can pay bills or credit cards directly using Monero.
Monero can be found on a growing number of cryptocurrency exchange services such as Bittrex, Poloniex, Cryptopia, Shapeshift, Changelly, Bitfinex, Kraken, Bisq, Tux, and many others.
For those wishing to purchase Monero anonymously, there are services such as LocalMonero.co and Moneroforcash.com.
With XMR.TO you can pay Bitcoin addresses directly with Monero. There are no other fees than the miner ones. All user records are purged after 48 hours. XMR.TO has also been added as an embedded feature into the Monerujo android wallet.
Coinhive Browser-Based Mining
Unlike Bitcoin, Monero can be mined using CPUs and GPUs. Not only does this encourage decentralisation, it also opens the door to browser based mining. Enter side of stage, Coinhive browser-based mining. As described by Hon Lau on the Symnatec Blog Browser-based mining, as its name suggests, is a method of cryptocurrency mining that happens inside a browser and is implemented using Javascript. Coinhive is marketed as an alternative to browser ad revenue. The motivation behind this is simple: users pay for the content indirectly by coin mining when they visit the site and website owners don't have to bother users with sites laden with ads, trackers, and all the associated paraphern. This is great, provided that the websites are transparent with site visitors and notify users of the mining that will be taking place, or better still, offer users a way to opt in, although this hasn't always been the case thus far.
Skepticism Sunday
The main Monero subreddit has weekly Skepticism Sundays which was created with the purpose of installing "a culture of being scientific, skeptical, and rational". This is used to have open, critical discussions about monero as a technology, it's economics, and so on.

///Speculation///

Major Investors And Crypto Figureheads Are Interested
Ari Paul is the co-founder and CIO of BlockTower Capital. He was previously a portfolio manager for the University of Chicago's $8 billion endowment, and a derivatives market maker and proprietary trader for Susquehanna International Group. Paul was interviewed on CNBC on the 26th of December and when asked what was his favourite coin was, he stated "One that has real fundamental value besides from Bitcoin is Monero" and said it has "very strong engineering". In addition, when he was asked if that was the one used by criminals, he replied "Everything is used by criminals including the US dollar and the Euro". Paul later supported these claims on Twitter, recommending only Bitcoin and Monero as long-term investments.
There are reports that "Roger Ver, earlier known as 'Bitcoin Jesus' for his evangelical support of the Bitcoin during its early years, said his investment in Monero is 'substantial' and his biggest in any virtual currency since Bitcoin.
Charlie Lee, the creator of Litecoin, has publicly stated his appreciation of Monero. In a September 2017 tweet directed to Edward Snowden explaining why Monero is superior to Zcash, Charlie Lee tweeted:
All private transactions, More tested privacy tech, No tax on miners to pay investors, No high inflation... better investment.
John McAfee, arguably cryptocurrency's most controversial character at the moment, has publicly supported Monero numerous times over the last twelve months(before he started shilling ICOs), and has even claimed it will overtake Bitcoin.
Playboy instagram celebrity Dan Bilzerian is a Monero investor, with 15% of his portfolio made up of Monero.
Finally, while he may not be considered a major investor or figurehead, Erik Finman, a young early Bitcoin investor and multimillionaire, recently appeared in a CNBC Crypto video interview, explaining why he isn't entirely sold on Bitcoin anymore, and expresses his interest in Monero, stating:
"Monero is a really good one. Monero is an incredible currency, it's completely private."
There is a common belief that most of the money in cryptocurrency is still chasing the quick pump and dumps, however as the market matures, more money will flow into legitimate projects such as Monero. Monero's organic growth in price is evidence smart money is aware of Monero and gradually filtering in.
The Bitcoin Flaw
A relatively unknown blogger named CryptoIzzy posted three poignant pieces regarding Monero and its place in the world. The Bitcoin Flaw: Monero Rising provides an intellectual comparison of Monero to other cryptocurrencies, and Valuing Cryptocurrencies: An Approach outlines methods of valuing different coins.
CryptoIzzy's most recent blog published only yesterday titled Monero Valuation - Update and Refocus is a highly recommended read. It touches on why Monero is much more than just a coin for the Darknet Markets, and provides a calculated future price of Monero.
CryptoIzzy also published The Power of Money: A Case for Bitcoin, which is an exploration of our monetary system, and the impact decentralised cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Monero will have on the world. In the epilogue the author also provides a positive and detailed future valuation based on empirical evidence. CryptoIzzy predicts Monero to easily progress well into the four figure range.
Monero Has a Relatively Small Marketcap
Recently we have witnessed many newcomers to cryptocurrency neglecting to take into account coins' marketcap and circulating supply, blindly throwing money at coins under $5 with inflated marketcaps and large circulating supplies, and then believing it's possible for them to reach $100 because someone posted about it on Facebook or Reddit.
Compared to other cryptocurrencies, Monero still has a low marketcap, which means there is great potential for the price to multiply. At the time of writing, according to CoinMarketCap, Monero's marketcap is only a little over $5 billion, with a circulating supply of 15.6 million Monero, at a price of $322 per coin.
For this reason, I would argue that this is evidence Monero is grossly undervalued. Just a few billion dollars of new money invested in Monero can cause significant price increases. Monero's marketcap only needs to increase to ~$16 billion and the price will triple to over $1000. If Monero's marketcap simply reached ~$35 billion (just over half of Ripple's $55 billion marketcap), Monero's price will increase 600% to over $2000 per coin.
Another way of looking at this is Monero's marketcap only requires ~$30 billion of new investor money to see the price per Monero reach $2000, while for Ethereum to reach $2000, Ethereum's marketcap requires a whopping ~$100 billion of new investor money.
Technical Analysis
There are numerous Monero technical analysts, however none more eerily on point than the crowd-pleasing Ero23. Ero23's charts and analysis can be found on Trading View. Ero23 gained notoriety for his long-term Bitcoin bull chart published in February, which is still in play today. Head over to his Trading View page to see his chart: Monero's dwindling supply. $10k in 2019 scenario, in which Ero23 predicts Monero to reach $10,000 in 2019. There is also this chart which appears to be freakishly accurate and is tracking along perfectly today.
Coinbase Rumours
Over the past 12 months there have been ongoing rumours that Monero will be one of the next cryptocurrencies to be added to Coinbase. In January 2017, Monero Core team member Riccardo 'Fluffypony' Spagni presented a talk at Coinbase HQ. In addition, in November 2017 GDAX announced the GDAX Digit Asset Framework outlining specific parameters cryptocurrencies must meet in order to be added to the exchange. There is speculation that when Monero has numerous mobile and hardware wallets available, and multisig is working, then it will be added. This would enable public accessibility to Monero to increase dramatically as Coinbase had in excess of 13 million users as of December, and is only going to grow as demand for cryptocurrencies increases. Many users argue that due to KYC/AML regulations, Coinbase will never be able to add Monero, however the Kraken exchange already operates in the US and has XMfiat pairs, so this is unlikely to be the reason Coinbase is yet to implement XMfiat trading.
Monero Is Not an ICO Scam
It is likely most of the ICOs which newcomers invest in, hoping to get rich quick, won't even be in the Top 100 cryptocurrencies next year. A large portion are most likely to be pumps and dumps, and we have already seen numerous instances of ICO exit scams. Once an ICO raises millions of dollars, the developers or CEO of the company have little incentive to bother rolling out their product or service when they can just cash out and leave. The majority of people who create a company to provide a service or product, do so in order to generate wealth. Unless these developers and CEOs are committed and believed in their product or service, it's likely that the funds raised during the ICO will far exceed any revenue generated from real world use cases.
Monero is a Working Currency, Today
Monero is a working currency, here today.
The majority of so called cryptocurrencies that exist today are not true currencies, and do not aim to be. They are a token of exchange. They are like a share in a start-up company hoping to use blockchain technology to succeed in business. A crypto-assest is a more accurate name for coins such as Ethereum, Neo, Cardano, Vechain, etc.
Monero isn't just a vaporware ICO token that promises to provide a blockchain service in the future. It is not a platform for apps. It is not a pump and dump coin.
Monero is the only coin with all the necessary properties to be called true money.
Monero is private internet money.
Some even describe Monero as an online Swiss Bank Account or Bitcoin 2.0, and it is here to continue on from Bitcoin's legacy.
Monero is alleviating the public from the grips of banks, and protests the monetary system forced upon us.
Monero only achieved this because it is the heart and soul, and blood, sweat, and tears of the contributors to this project. Monero supporters are passionate, and Monero has gotten to where it is today thanks to its contributors and users.

///Key Issues for Monero to Overcome///

Scalability
While Bulletproofs are soon to be implemented in order to improve Monero's transaction sizes and fees, scalability is an issue for Monero that is continuously being assessed by Monero's researchers and developers to find the most appropriate solution. Ricardo 'Fluffypony' Spagni recently appeared on CNBC's Crypto Trader, and when asked whether Monero is scalable as it stands today, Spagni stated that presently, Monero's on-chain scaling is horrible and transactions are larger than Bitcoin's (because of Monero's privacy features), so side-chain scaling may be more efficient. Spagni elaborated that the Monero team is, and will always be, looking for solutions to an array of different on-chain and off-chain scaling options, such as developing a Mimblewimble side-chain, exploring the possibility of Lightning Network so atomic swaps can be performed, and Tumblebit.
In a post on the Monero subreddit from roughly a month ago, monero moderator u/dEBRUYNE_1 supports Spagni's statements. dEBRUYNE_1 clarifies the issue of scalability:
"In Bitcoin, the main chain is constrained and fees are ludicrous. This results in users being pushed to second layer stuff (e.g. sidechains, lightning network). Users do not have optionality in Bitcoin. In Monero, the goal is to make the main-chain accessible to everyone by keeping fees reasonable. We want users to have optionality, i.e., let them choose whether they'd like to use the main chain or second layer stuff. We don't want to take that optionality away from them."
When the Spagni CNBC video was recently linked to the Monero subreddit, it was met with lengthy debate and discussion from both users and developers. u/ferretinjapan summarised the issue explaining:
"Monero has all the mechanisms it needs to find the balance between transaction load, and offsetting the costs of miner infrastructure/profits, while making sure the network is useful for users. But like the interviewer said, the question is directed at "right now", and Fluffys right to a certain extent, Monero's transactions are huge, and compromises in blockchain security will help facilitate less burdensome transactional activity in the future. But to compare Monero to Bitcoin's transaction sizes is somewhat silly as Bitcoin is nowhere near as useful as monero, and utility will facilitate infrastructure building that may eventually utterly dwarf Bitcoin. And to equate scaling based on a node being run on a desktop being the only option for what classifies as "scalable" is also an incredibly narrow interpretation of the network being able to scale, or not. Given the extremely narrow definition of scaling people love to (incorrectly) use, I consider that a pretty crap question to put to Fluffy in the first place, but... ¯_(ツ)_/¯"
u/xmrusher also contributed to the discussion, comparing Bitcoin to Monero using this analogous description:
"While John is much heavier than Henry, he's still able to run faster, because, unlike Henry, he didn't chop off his own legs just so the local wheelchair manufacturer can make money. While Morono has much larger transactions then Bitcoin, it still scales better, because, unlike Bitcoin, it hasn't limited itself to a cripplingly tiny blocksize just to allow Blockstream to make money."
Setting up a wallet can still be time consuming
It's time consuming and can be somewhat difficult for new cryptocurrency users to set up their own wallet using the GUI wallet or the Command Line Wallet. In order to strengthen and further decentralize the Monero network, users are encouraged to run a full node for their wallet, however this can be an issue because it can take up to 24-48 hours for some users depending on their hard-drive and internet speeds. To mitigate this issue, users can run a remote node, meaning they can remotely connect their wallet to another node in order to perform transactions, and in the meantime continue to sync the daemon so in the future they can then use their own node.
For users that do run into wallet setup issues, or any other problems for that matter, there is an extremely helpful troubleshooting thread on the Monero subreddit which can be found here. And not only that, unlike some other cryptocurrency subreddits, if you ask a question, there is always a friendly community member who will happily assist you. Monero.how is a fantastic resource too!
Despite still being difficult to use, the user-base and price may increase dramatically once it is easier to use. In addition, others believe that when hardware wallets are available more users will shift to Monero.

///Conclusion///

I actually still feel a little shameful for promoting Monero here, but feel a sense of duty to do so.
Monero is transitioning into an unstoppable altruistic beast. This year offers the implementation of many great developments, accompanied by the likelihood of a dramatic increase in price.
I request you discuss this post, point out any errors I have made, or any information I may have neglected to include. Also, if you believe in the Monero project, I encourage you to join your local Facebook or Reddit cryptocurrency group and spread the word of Monero. You could even link this post there to bring awareness to new cryptocurrency users and investors.
I will leave you with an old on-going joke within the Monero community - Don't buy Monero - unless you have a use case for it of course :-) Just think to yourself though - Do I have a use case for Monero in our unpredictable Huxleyan society? Hint: The answer is ?
Edit: Added in the Tail Emission section, and noted Dan Bilzerian as a Monero investor. Also added information regarding the XMR.TO payment service. Added info about hardfork
submitted by johnfoss69 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Ethereum's Fork & Bitcoin's Block Size: Different Dramas ... Drama um #BitcoinETF?  Block Size Debatte  Wochenrückblick KW 10 Bitcoin blocksize debate - An overview of both sides arguments Bitcoin Block Size: Larger or smaller blocks? Future Value of Bitcoin: The Block Size Debate

Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is hard forked to a 32MB block size on May 15 despite having 99 percent of block size unutilized. Liquidity issues have seen the cryptocurrency, delisted from two crypto exchanges in recent months. Does BCH Really Need 32MB Blocks? One of the most significant challenges that... Read more . Australian City Brisbane to Host a Debate Between Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash ... Which companies are supporting BIP 100 or BIP 101? We've tracked down the answers. He stewarded the project until 2014 when he stepped back to focus on the longer term vision for Bitcoin. Discussion and debate of the block size would linger as background noise until Gavin posted ... Bitcoin befindet sich derzeit in einer interessanten, wenn nicht gar entscheidenden Phase. In Anbetracht des Referendums in Großbritannien und dem Austritt der UK aus der EU sind viele große Medien auf den Zug aufgesprungen Bitcoin als sogenannten „Safe Haven“ für Investoren zu betiteln.Investoren wie Daniel Masters sprechen angesichts der Marktkapitalisierung von mehr als 10 Mrd US ... Seit 2015 kocht immer wieder die Blocksize Debatte um die Frage auf, wie man Bitcoin skalieren kann. Diese erlebt aktuell ein Revival.

[index] [42823] [3715] [36415] [28754] [1913] [20987] [20047] [34296] [4432] [33481]

Ethereum's Fork & Bitcoin's Block Size: Different Dramas ...

Whether the block size should be increased to 20MB has created more controversy than any other question in Bitcoin's recent history. For some, it is an urgent and necessary step in Bitcoin's ... Stephanie, Andreas and Adam speak first with Bitcoin Foundation Chief Scientist Gavin Andresen about the Bitcoin Block Size debate, where it came from, why it matters and what he thinks we should ... What is Bitcoin? Follow Evander Smart, Bitcoin journalist, author and video producer on a journey into Bitcoin, "The Future of Money" In these videos, learn Bitcoin facts, tips, lessons, and the ... In this talk in Berlin, Andreas looks at the inner structure of bitcoin and how high-level financial and trust applications are composed from smaller element... A talk on the Bitcoin block size debate and a discussion of arguments for both larger and smaller block sizes give by Leonhard Weese on 18 November, 2015 at Tuspark's Causeway Bay location in Hong ...

#