The Basic Correlation between the Blockchain and Bitcoin ...

Doing the Math on the S4E10 eCoin Transaction...

In this week's Mr Robot episode, Darlene sits on a park bench with Dom, and distributes the money she stole from the Deus Group to everybody, evenly. I timed the transaction as it happened in the show. It was 24 seconds, between her hitting return and seeing the following message on her screen: "*Transfers Complete. All Wallets Updated*" This processing time includes a message that says, "cleaning coins through crypto tumbler". It took 1 minute and 16 seconds for the transaction to tumble, process, and for the recipients to begin to get notices that they received money in their accounts.
If you have worked with bitcoin, you know that cryptocurrency does not work like this. Transferring money is a slow and sometimes expensive process, as transaction fees eat into every transaction. I know that eCoin isn't necissarily bitcoin, because it's controlled by eCorp, but it's fun to think about what happens if eCoin works like bitcoin does today...
How much money was transferred?
According to Forbes, the most wealthy people in the world are worth a combined $8.7 trillion, or $2.7 trillion. It depends on which Forbes list you are looking at. On the actual Forbes web site, they say the richest people in the world are worth $8.7 trillion, but they do not state how many of the richest people in the world are worth that much. If you look at sites like Victor Media, they publish a table of the 100 most wealthy people, and say they got the list from Forbes. They probably did purchase the list from Forbes. If I put the Victor Media list into excel, and add all the values in the net worth column, that number comes out to $2.7 trillion. So Forbes might be talking about a list that is more than the top 100 people, and sell the top 100 people list to sites like Victor Media? I don't know.
Either way, we are talking about somewhere between $2.7 and $8.7 trillion.
How many people did the money go to?
That's complicated. There was no global montage showing people celebrating all over the world (which I found a little surprising, even though I still love how this episode was shot). The only indication of a truly global transfer, to every individual in the world, is a TV screen in the airport saying that, "Global eCoin Payout... Deus group collapses as wealth spreads around the world." So Darlene could have sent the money to every individual with an eCoin wallet in the world, or she could be sending them to every American, or to everybody in the developed world. I doubt the average rice farmer in Indonesia is really using eCoin, but it's possible. If she only sent it to every American, our wealth tends to spread around the globe pretty fast, so that's possible, too.
Lets work with World Bank population numbers for all three of these possibilities...
World Population: 7.6 billion people
Global North (AKA the developed world): 1.24 billion people
United States: 327 million people
So we have 6 possibilities for how much money was sent to each person...
People Total Money Money Per Capita Satoshis
7.6 billion $2.7 trillion $355.53 4,739,471
1.21 billion $2.7 trillion $2230.82 29,741,808
327 million $2.7 trillion $8252.65 110,079,512
7.6 billion $8.7 trillion $1145.60 15,279,332
1.21 billion $8.7 trillion $7188.22 95,883,716
327 million $8.7 trillion $26591.89 355,275,242
How much would this transaction cost with bitcoin?
Aside from the fact that eCoin probably functions differently than bitcoin, this is a very complex question. I'm definitely not as sure about these numbers as the other numbers I have, but I'll do my best to come up with useful, realistic numbers. If you are more familiar with the block chain than me, please correct me.
The coins were taken from 100 different Deus Group accounts. Lets say each transaction launders through a bitcoin tumbler 1,000 times. I'm going to ignore transaction fees for the tumbling process, because I don't fully understand the details of tumbling, but 1,000 times seems reasonable to me.
That means that there are 100 x 1,000 = 10,000 inputs in any transaction that spends all the money from the Deus group.
For outputs... for simplicity's sake, I will make the conservative assumption that everybody has one eCoin wallet. That means somewhere between 327 million and 7.6 billion outputs. Accounting for everybody having multiple wallets would make the transaction even bigger, but this is a good starting point to get a feel for what this transaction would look like, in the real world.
How long will this transaction take to process?
There is a bidding process and a bit of politics involved in processing a cryptocurrency transaction. For simplicity, I'll assume we bid enough that this transaction gets priority treatment from the bitcoin miners.
According to blockchain.com, transactions happen on the block chain at a rate of roughly 3.5 transactions per second. At that rate, the tumbling would take roughly 48 minutes, rather than the few seconds it took for Darlene to tumble this money.
According to buybitcoinworldwide.com's fee calculator, here are the transaction sizes, the transaction fees involved (in US Dollars), and the time it would take at 3.5 transactions per second...
Inputs Outputs Size Cost Time
10,000 7.6 billion 240.4737 Gb $38,884,280.55 68.85 years
10,000 1.21 billion 38.32587 Gb $6,192,571.09 10.96 years
10,000 327 million 10.35582 Gb $1,673,260.46 2.96 years
So this transaction would take years to go through, and it pays Evil Corp somewhere between $1.6 and $38 million. In the real world, most of that money would go to Chinese bitcoin miners.
What would the impact be?
A one time windfall of $327 per capita would probably not trigger hyperinflation in America. The largest payout we calculated was $26.5k, and I doubt that would cause hyperinflation, either. Regular inflation? Yes. Hyperinflation? Probably not.
It might lead to hyperinflation in other countries, though, because of differences in purchasing power.
Purchasing power parity is a number that describes the differences in the cost of goods and services around the world. $5 in America will buy you a big mac, but if you go to, say, Indonesia, you can buy a lot more with that $5, because Indonesia is full of people who make something like 25 cents a week.
OECD.org publishes PPP (purchasing power parity) numbers for countries all around the world. If you want to know how far your dollar will stretch, on average, in a foreign country, consult this list. If you have $100 in America, you can expect it to be worth $100 worth of American goods and services, so on the OECD table, it has a PPP of 1.0. If you take that $100 to, say, the UK, where the PPP is 0.7, you can expect that $100 to be worth $70 worth of goods and services. If you take that $100 to Australia, where the PPP is 1.48, you can expect that $100 to buy roughly $148 worth of goods and services.
If Elliot and Darlene were genius economists, I might expect them to account for PPP in their payout. They would have to be geniuses, to predict what PPP is doing after events like the 5/9 hack, because their best data would be out of date, so they would have to use all kinds of fancy regressions and tricks to figure out how that would work in such a volatile world economy. They definitely aren't economists, though, so I'll assume they sent the same nominal amount to everybody.
So what's the range on how much purchasing power this transaction gives people around the world? In 2018, the highest PPP number on the OECD list is Indonesia, with a PPP of 4,245.613140. The lowest PPP on the list is Lithuania, with a PPP of 0.457582. Lets see how this shakes out in each of these countries...
$ Per Capita Lithuania (0.46) Indonesia (4,245.61)
$355.53 $162.68 $1,509,442.84
$2,230.82 $1,020.78 $9,471,198.70
$8,252.65 $3,776.26 $35,037,559.28
$1,145.60 $524.20 $4,863,774.41
$7,188.22 $3,289.20 $30,518,401.29
$26,591.89 $12,167.97 $112,898,877.60
What would this cause? People might predict a lot of different things. The Yang gang people probably strong opinions on this. I have a bachelor's degree in economics, so I believe I can predict that most mainstream economists would predict the following...
In Lithuania, when they get a few hundred to a few thousand dollars, they probably raise a pint to F Society, then put the rest towards a house or car payment, or buy themselves something nice. Minor inflation would happen, probably starting at the pubs, and that would worry financial types, but it would not cause any kind of major economic catastrophe.
In Indonesia, where everybody becomes an asset millionaire overnight, they will probably have hyperinflation, mass social upheaval, and violence.
In conclusion...
TL;DR: What Darlene did last night with eCoin isn't actually possible with bitcoin, and the impact in America might not be as great as you think, but the impact would be much bigger in poorer parts of the world.
submitted by bubblesort to MrRobot [link] [comments]

[Weekly Report] BSV Ecosystem Grows Rapidly

[Weekly Report] BSV Ecosystem Grows Rapidly
Dear friends of LivesOne,
Recently, BSV ecosystem has rapidly grown. LivesOne's main work in the short term is the community integration, which enables more BSV community members and partners to pay attention to LivesOne and agree with our vision and let more LivesOne community members fully understand and support our choice. We hope BSV's ecosystem can help us make better.

More businesses choose BSV
BSV’s enterprise-friendly approach makes it easy to attract sensible Bitcoin businesses. EHR data Inc put billions of health data on the BSV blockchain. Unisot has developed seafoodchain, the world's first BSV supply chain for tracking seafood.
Twetch is an ad-free social media application, similar to Twitter, developed based on BSV. You can profit from content creation and own your data.Twetch provides users with the opportunity to own their data on the blockchain. Instead of creating content for social media platforms and profited by large technology companies, creators retain their ownership of their content and data.On Twetch, users cannot interact for free, but they can consume and earn BSV by liking and sharing posts. Twetch shows the future of social media, which can only be made possible by the large-scale expansion of BSV blockchain. It not only created opportunities for Twetch's new business model, but also created a brand new economic model for social media users.

https://preview.redd.it/ozmheb9gqjr41.png?width=594&format=png&auto=webp&s=cbd6b693e1cfb502c85e08c854b008a70d2a2cc5

The BSV ecosystem grows rapidly
The BSV ecosystem has rapidly grown approximately 400 ventures and projects around the world. BSV development spans the globe, with especially strong presence in the United States, Asia, Australia and Europe. Bitcoin SV projects also encompass diverse industry sectors, with ventures already making BSV blockchain use cases involving media & entertainment, social media, casino gaming, online games, supply chain, digital advertising, data marketplaces, distributed network intelligence, Internet of Things, banking and, of course, payments. Multi-purpose protocols and tools are also offered for tokenization and smart contracts on BSV.
Bitcoin Satoshi Vision (BSV) is the only project that adheres to Satoshi Nakamoto’s original protocol, design and massive scaling vision for Bitcoin to become a peer-to-peer electronic cash system and global data ledger for enterprise. The BSV blockchain has seen application development explode globally as developers and businesses make use of BSV’s greater scaling, data and micropayments capacities. Growing usage has led BSV’s network transactions and average block size block counts to regularly surpass BTC and even surpass the Ethereum network on some days.

https://preview.redd.it/tagvq78hqjr41.png?width=942&format=png&auto=webp&s=bde9b99d136869afaa531e40e77cc59217caeee3
BSV promises a stable protocol, so enterprises and users can rely on it completely! As the famous economist George Gilder said, a stable protocol can greatly stimulate the economy. BSV is the digital asset with the highest scalability. In addition, it is also important that transaction-fees on the BSV blockchain are very cheap.
LivesOne and BSV promote each other. LivesOne is a member of the BSV ecosystem. Similarly, the BSV ecosystem is also a valuable asset for the subsequent development of LivesOne. We look forward to continued cooperation to make a better future.

Symbiosism Economy Foundation
Apr 8, 2020
submitted by LivesoneToken to LivesOne [link] [comments]

[Weekly Report] BSV UK Conference-Community Integration Accelerator

[Weekly Report] BSV UK Conference-Community Integration Accelerator
On February 20-21, the "BSV UK Conference" was held in London. Jeff , the promoter of the LivesOne community, was invited to attend the conference and gave an important speech on his ideas at the conference.
BSV future can be expected
https://preview.redd.it/x4wg8rbl2mk41.png?width=730&format=png&auto=webp&s=ea7f6d1509ac17fcde3ccdfba0a1996f4e3c06dc
It took a year for the BSV to implement and bring bitcoin into Genesis.The Genesis protocol upgrade activates key protocol changes, including removing the default block size limit. Genesis has increased the carrying capacity of the Bitcoin network for transactions. BSV next goal is Teranode. Teranode will significantly bring a large number of enterprise users to the BSV ecosystem.
At this conference, Dr. Craig S. Wright introduced the Bitcoin layered network. He divided it into three layers, the first layer is miners, the second layer is service providers, and the third layer and above are related to users. He introduced the concept of a community, which could be based on service-level agreements or MAN (metropolitan area network), which will be managed through miner ID and electronic certificate. He also mentioned the working principles of SPV and smart contract topology networks, and guided the developers of blockchain applications in the BSV ecosystem.
At the same time, Dr. Craig S. Wright also explained "The Correct Understanding of Bitcoin" as follows.
  1. Electronic signatures cannot be anonymous; they require identifying information. The signatories need to know each other's identities, which may not be disclosed to the public.
  2. A trusted third party is an intermediary who provides intermediary services to stop money laundering and fraud. A trusted third party is not only an intermediary, but also a legal one. For example,banks are trusted third parties in modern society,provided that relevant information must be disclosed.
  3. Peer-to-Peer means that individual gets along with other individual. Bitcoin should not be used for poisonous transactions.
  4. Bitcoin is not only a micro payment. Bitcoin can implement more complex functions through scripts. The small payment service fee of the existing business model is too expensive.
  5. Decentralization is the biggest lie in the field of cryptography. Decentralization should be the decentralization of rights. Code is the law is stupid. Bitcoin does not represent anarchism. Bitcoin is not politicized.
George Gilder, a famous economist and futurist, believes that Internet Security and global currency are the double scandals of the Internet, while Bitcoin BSV is the cure for them. This makes users more confident in BSV.

The cooperation between LivesOne and BSV is in progress
https://preview.redd.it/fdjd85af2mk41.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=d3b89ee39cb5253c9fd031ebcb66768b8b653ad8
During the conference, dozens of technology and business leaders delivered speeches that made people feel the infinite potential of Bitcoin and blockchain.Jeff also delivered an important speech in the morning of February 21. As an excellent product manager, he is experienced and innovative. He continues to be optimistic about the direction of the blockchain, saying that the LivesOne team will remain firmly focused on the development of blockchain products and build a new Internet service with new rules on the blockchain to optimize the user experience.
Jeff believes that the development direction of BSV is correct, and Bitcoin will probably make the Internet a part of it in the future.
During this trip to the UK, LivesOne and BSV continued to deepen their cooperation and reached consensus in many fields and product forms.In addition, the main advocates of the two communities also had in-depth discussions on each other's development concepts. Liveone's product concept was generally accepted by members of the BSV community, and they expressed their willingness to join the LivesOne community to promote the common development of BSV and LivesOne.On the support of BSV community members, "million BSV exchange event " aunched by LivesOne is an accelerator for members of both communities to exchange tokens and promote community integration.
It is learned that as of 00:00 on March 1st, more than ten thousand friends have participated in the exchange event. The exchange event is still in full swing and it is expected to end on March 5. Don't miss time if you are interested.
We look forward to deepening cooperation in the future.
Symbiosism Economy Foundation
Mar4, 2020
submitted by LivesoneToken to LivesOne [link] [comments]

Can Any Current Crypto Commodity Ever Be Used As A General Currency?

“In the long run, we are all dead. Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is long past the ocean will be flat again.” - John Maynard Keynes

Cryptocurrency Supply Algorithms And The Equation Of Exchange

Although I am a proponent for Bitcoin and view it as a good store-of-value, my belief is that all of the algorithms for cryptocurrency supply models that I have seen to date are not amenable to creating a cryptocurrency useful as a general currency. That is as a means for exchange-of-value as opposed to store-of-value. The following is my brief description of the models that I am aware of, followed by an explanation of why I believe they are not useful for as general currencies. At the bottom, I make a concluding remark on what I believe is a missing feature needed to realize a general currency.

Coin Supply Algorithms

N+1
In an N+1 algorithm, each time a block is produced, a constant incentive reward is added to the supply of coins. This means explicitly that the size of the coin supply will grow forever, unlimited. This sounds pretty good on the surface. If you are a miner, you are guaranteed that there will always be an incentive reward available for mining.
If we look at this from a total coin supply viewpoint, and a little high school math, the normalized change in supply is:
N+1/N
We then want to ask the question, how fast is the coin supply changing, as N goes to infinity since we are assuming that blocks are produced forever. This is:
Lim N->∞ N+1/N
Where N is the number of blocks produced. By L’Hôpital’s rule for those that remember a little highschool calculus (I had to look it up), we can take the derivatives of the numerator and denominator which results in 1/1 = 1. In the limit at infinity, the coin supply is a constant value, even though theoretically it grows forever.
Since infinity is only theoretical, what does this look like for blockchain use cases:
To give a feel for it, imagine that we are at the following 4 stages: 10 blocks have been produced; 100 blocks have been produced; 1000 blocks have been produced, and 10000 blocks have been produced. Adding one reward at each stage gives the following percent change in coin supply:
1 — (10 + 1)/10 = 10%
1 — (100+1)/100 = 1%
1 — (1000+1)/1000 = .1%
1 — (10000+1)/10000 = .01%
This demonstrates that the change in coin supply quickly dwindles to an insignificant amount, even though it continues to grow forever. To put this another way, the addition of each new incentive reward quickly becomes a very small fraction of the total coin supply. The coin supply can be thought of as relatively constant.
N + M*N/2T or N(1+M/2T)
T is units of time in discrete steps, and M is the number of blocks produced at each step. This is essentially the Bitcoin model. To make this clearer let’s assume that there is only 1 block produced at each step. This becomes N + N/2T or N(1+1/2T).
If we replace 2T with a new variable K, then this becomes:
N(1+1/K)
Where K increases forever. The summation of 1/K is the harmonic series and increases forever. Therefore, just like N+1 above, N(1+1/K) or N+N/K also increases forever. As with N+1, the rate of increase of the coin supply is then:
(N(1+1/K))/N
This is more simply 1 + 1/K. Thus, as K grows, we can see that the rate of increase tends towards zero as well. Further, since 1/K becomes a smaller and smaller fraction, eventually representing this as a value in a computer becomes impossible. For example, Bitcoin’s smallest fraction is 1 satoshi. When 1/K becomes smaller than 1 satoshi it will no longer be possible to have an incentive reward for a single block produced.
Given that both coin supply algorithms tend towards a relatively constant supply, in terms of use as a currency, we can view both as essentially equivalent. The only difference is how fast the supply tends towards a constant value, where the Bitcoin model is faster.
N
A third coin supply algorithm is a simple constant amount created in the genesis block. The coins are usually distributed using an airdrop or similar model. Since coins are not being created, the coin supply is by definition constant. If the distribution model used is an incentive reward model to distribute from the pool of coins, it is indistinguishable from one of the above 2 models. If the distribution model is a one-time event, such that all the coins are distributed then there is no incentive reward model.
From a viewpoint of use of currency all 3 models described above can be thought of as equivalent, given enough blocks have been produced for the first 2 models.

Marked To External Asset

There is the fourth model for coin supply which is intended to mark the value of the coin to an external index of some kind. This may be a physical asset like an ounce of gold, or another commodity. In this model, the coin can explicitly represent a unit of the external asset such as an ounce of gold. Regardless of whether the coin can be exchanged for the underlying asset or not, given that supply of commodities such as gold are constantly following the same mining algorithms as above, the marked to asset model is a constant coin supply model. If the distribution model used is an incentive reward model, then it is similar to the third model.

Marked To Value Of External Asset

There is a fifth model for coin supply where the value of the coin is marked to the value of an external asset like the USD, instead of the supply of the external asset, as was the case for marking to a commodity. In this model, the coin supply is changed to reflect the exchange rate of the coin against the value of the external asset. The objective is to keep the exchange rate constant on average over time. For example: assuming the objective is a 1-to-1 exchange between the coin and the USD, then if the coin’s value increases above the objective, more coins are printed, and vice-versa. That is, if the value of the coin decreases, given some means (i.e. burning), the coin supply is decreased to bring the exchange rate towards the objective.
In this model, the coin supply is not fixed but varies with the exchange rate. To the extent that the value of the external asset is relatively constant, and the value of the coin is relatively constant the coin supply will be relatively constant.
Although marking to the USD would seem to be a good idea, given that it is called a “reserve currency”, the USD is intentionally subject to inflation, theoretically, the coin to USD exchange will continue to decrease, requiring the coin supply to be decreased to maintain the objective of a constant exchange rate. Over time, this model can be viewed as decreasing the coin supply if marked to the inflationary external asset value.

Comparing Coin Supply Models

In summary, of the five models described above, four of them are essentially variations on a constant coin supply using various means to distribute the coin, while the fifth tries to keep the value of the coin constant against an external asset value, by managing the supply of the coin.
The equation of exchange: M * V = P * Y[1] tells us that if the amount of money supply, M, (i.e. the coin supply) is constant, and the velocity of money is relatively constant, then an increase in demands for goods (Y), will cause a decrease in the price (P), price deflation. That is, with a fixed coin supply the price of goods is expected to drop, thus increasing the value of the coin. Bitcoin’s increase in value is an example of this. (The Bitcoin ledger does not have the means to determine either prices (P) or goods (Y). Instead, I am inferring from the increase in the value of bitcoins that an increase in demand for Y is occurring. There are possible other explanations.)
However, it should be noted that in order for the equation of exchange to be valid, the assumption of the velocity of money is relatively constant must hold. If holders of the coin stop using it as a currency for the exchange of value, then the M * V = M * 0 = 0. There is no price in that coin for any goods or services. That is, the value of the coin collapses.
Conversely, if the velocity of the coin were to increase significantly, then this creates effectively more available coin, resulting in the price (P) of the goods and services (Y) to increase. This causes price inflation, which encourages coin holders to spend their coin as fast as possible to avoid losing value in the coin. As the price of goods becomes excessive, people shift from the coin to other forms of currency. As this happens, once more a collapse happens.
At an equilibrium point, the coin supply is constant, the velocity is constant, the demand for goods and services is constant, and therefore the price would be constant. At such an equilibrium point, a constant coin supply would be ideal. However, we can observe throughout history that such an equilibrium point is never reached.
Given any sort of constant coin supply, the value of the coin is expected to vary unpredictably and often wildly. Of the 5 models, the first 4 will always be subject to this. Although this may be interesting for speculators, usefulness for general currency is questionable.
The fifth model is to manage the coin supply against an external asset value. In essence, this is a substitution of the coin for the asset. Provided that the coin supply can be managed to reflect the objective exchange rate, the value of the coin should be stable relative to the stability of the external asset value.
However, in my opinion, this marking of value does not take into account exchanges that are wholly internal to the coin and its blockchain. The transfer of a coin balance from one account to another implies an exchange of value, thus the equation of exchange applies internally to the blockchain. This exchange of value is independent of the exchange rate of the coin value versus the external asset value. Thus, the coin supply can be seen as independent of the exchange of value on the blockchain.
Given this assumption, we can make the simplifying assumption that the coin supply is relatively constant with respect to the exchange of value on the blockchain. As a result, one would expect that even though the coin supply is managed against the exchange rate with an external asset, its value can still fluctuate wildly, beyond the ability of coin supply management to compensate. This, in turn, will impact the exchange rate, destroying the intended objective.
As a natural consequence, even with the approach of marking the value of the coin to external asset value, such as the USD, the expected volatility limits the usefulness of the coin as a currency.

Towards A General Currency

As stated in the introduction, I believe that none of the cryptocurrency models described are viable for use as general currencies. In my opinion, my brief non-rigorous analysis above demonstrates this likely to be true. The question remains, what else is needed to create a cryptocurrency that is viable as a general currency.
The equation of exchange shows us what is missing directly: In the equation M * V = P * Y, we can say that on every blockchain we can know the values of M and V directly. The account ledger explicitly shows us this, (ignoring encrypted exchanges). What we do not know is the other side of the equation. We do not know either price (P) or goods and services (Y) for any exchanges that are internal to the blockchain, that is between accounts on the blockchain.
If we compare cryptocurrencies with national fiat currencies, and cryptocurrency exchanges with foreign exchanges, we can see that the foreign exchanges relate the difference in prices in related economies. In comparison, the cryptocurrency exchanges appear to only relate the difference in demand for the cryptocurrencies themselves. This demand only manifests itself during the exchange of cryptocurrencies for each other and between fiat and cryptocurrencies and vice-versa.
It is my position that because the internal use of cryptocurrencies on their own blockchains is currently hidden, none of the above coin supply models will create a currency stable enough to be useful as a general currency. If/when a cryptocurrency model is created that takes into account the currently hidden internal exchange of value, then we will have realized a general currency.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equation_of_exchange
submitted by PrasagaOfficial to u/PrasagaOfficial [link] [comments]

Is segwit2x the REAL Banker takeover?

DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
  1. MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
  2. Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistance in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
EDIT: Let's not forget that Blockstream is also beholden to the same investors, DCG.
Link to Part 2:
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/75s14n/is_segwit2x_the_real_banker_takeover_part_two/
submitted by poorbrokebastard to btc [link] [comments]

Why the debate about blocksize is irrelevent, and the next phase of Bitcoin

This is my first post here, but I'm well known and hated on BTC (I got banned from Bitcoin for calling that Bashco guy a fucking idiot, which he is). Anyways, since this is supposedly a market based Bitcoin sub, I thought maybe there's some people who appreciate cutting all the bullshit politics out of the Bitcoin conversation.
To summarize my position, it would be thus:
So, with that out of the way, here's why all this current debate about scalability is pointless.
The growth of Bitcoin up until now has been overwhelmingly been powered by crypto-tech geeks (the hobbyists, the coders, the anarcho capitalists, the ideologists etc). For these people, the underlying technology has been what's most important to them. For them, things like block size and scalability are of the utmost importance. These people often think that Bitcoin is going to replace fiat currency, or replace the entire global financial system (it isn't. It's going to become a significant part OF the global financial system, but to think it will replace it is extremely naive and amateurish thinking that massively underestimates the enourmous complexity of the financial system, as well as the huge amount of inertia built into it). These are the people who brought Bitcoin from a weirdo techie project to a major $100 billion market. That's an impressive achievement, but that phase of Bitcoins growth is now coming to an end. We are now entering the next phase, where the primary drivers of growth will not be tech people, but finance people. The Big Boys. The institutional dollars that move all major markets (whether it be stocks, bonds, fx, commodities etc); the hedge funds, the pension funds, the mutual funds, ETF's, high net worth individuals etc. We're still in the very beginning stages of this second phase. Bitcoin is still too risky for most of this money (which is inherently conservative), but the more risk adverse members of this group (mostly the higher risk hedge funds and risk taking HNW individuals) are just now starting to dip their toes in. As the market becomes bigger and more liquid, the volatility will greatly go down and the percieved risk will go down as well, and eventually the more risk averse members of this group will take the plunge. That will take several years probably. The problem for the first group (the tech centric folks) is the finance boys have way, way, way more money then them, and it's THEIR money that's going to guide the development of Bitcoin. Everything follows price eventually, from miners to devs, to investments to infrastructure. And so unfortunately for the cryptoanarchists who thought that Bitcoin was going to bring down the System, it will be the System that determines what Bitcoin will be.
Which brings me to my main point: If you want to make money, you have to think about what each group values. Sure, for the tech group, perhaps things like block size or the minuatae of which SegWit is better is the most important factors in which coin you should invest in. But that group is no longer in control. The finance guys are. And so you need to ask yourself, what does THIS money value? I can promise you it isn't block size, or what's in the White Paper. For these guys, the most important thing for them is being able to get their money out if/when they need it. And for that, they need market size/liquidity. Of course, the underlying coin has to actually work (which Bitcoin clearly does). But it's far more important to these guys to be invested in the most liquid market then try to suss out the incremental tech improvements in each coin.
That's what the pro BCH crowd doesn't get. They may be ABSOLUTELY RIGHT about their tech argument (that bigger blocks are better) and yet still get crushed, because the thing THEY are valuing is not what the market values. And I believe BTC's current size advantage gives it an insurmountable advantage. I say insurmountable because I believe it's too late for any other coin to catch up, as BTC's first move advantage has given it a positive feedback loop that will continue to power it further and further ahead.
It works like this: There's trillions of dolalrs poised to enter cryptos over the next few years. The vast majority of this money values market size/liquidity over all else, and so will naturally gravitate to the biggest/most liquid market (BTC). In turn, the very act of all this money flowing into BTC will make BTC even BIGGER and more liquid then it's competitors. In turn, this makes BTC even MORE attractive to the next round of money coming in, which means it gets bigger and eve more liquid still. Which in turn makes it even MORE attractive.....etc etc....
Think about it. If you have, say, $1 billion to put into crypto (an entirely reasonable sum for the types of ppl we're talking about. Bill Ackman put several billion on an Herbalife short ffs) are you going to put it into the $100 billion BTC market? Or the $5 billion BCH market jsut because you like big blocks? Of COURSE you're not going to put a stake equivalent to 20% of the entire market. The very act of buying would cause price to explode several hundred % only to crash back down when you, as the primary buyer, are finished. And after your hedge fund is fully invested, let's say you take heavy losses on your stock portfolio and you need to get your money out quickly. Try removing $1 billion quickly from a $5-$6 billion market and you're going to crash it. So you've bought in at extreme highs and sold out at extreme lows. This is how newbs trade, not multi billion dollar hedge funds.
So many people waste so much time and energy debating the shit that doesn't matter that they totally ignore the factors that do. It'd be like buying Apple shares based on which executives get the best parking spaces, rather then how many iPhones you expect them to sell this year.
This dynamic (BTC as the biggest market outperforming all other coins significantly) has been in effect since the Aug 1 fork, and I believe it's for the exact reason I state above. And we should expect this dynamic to be the driving force behind the crypto markets for the next few years going forward.
submitted by BTCrob to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

How Adoption Will Look Next Year and Beyond

How Adoption Will Look Next Year and Beyond
One prediction was that banks and financial institutions would become increasingly interested in blockchain-based solutions, particularly for cross-border payments. This was borne out by the adoption or trialling of blockchain-based cross-border payments systems by, among others, HSBC, Wells Fargo, Standard Chartered, Mastercard, 60 banks in Latin America, Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank, the Bank of Thailand, the National Bank of Cambodia, and by Deutsche Bank and other banks joining JPMorgan's Interbank Information Network.
Another prediction was that security tokens would rise in prominence. This has been proven true to some extent, insofar as there have been more security token offerings (STOs) in 2019 than there were in 2018, with the total for the first half of the year (55) outnumbering the total for all of its predecessor (35).
Lastly, one other big prediction was that many of the big initial coin offerings (ICOs) of 2018 (and 2017) would actually begin launching their products in 2019, something which would usher in greater adoption. Once again, this has only been partly true: the mainnets of Filecoin and Hdac (two of the five biggest ICOs of 2017) are still waiting to be launched next year, while Sirin Labs (another of the 2017 big five) ended up axing 25% of its staff after disappointing sales of its Finney smartphone.
2020: halving, DeFi, payments and gaming
So what is likely to be big, or at least get bigger, in 2020? Well, perhaps the biggest milestone on the horizon is the Bitcoin mining reward halving due to take place in May, something which experts believe will increase demand for the cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin analyst Simon Dingle tells Cryptonews.com, "This will further restrict supply, and I expect demand for Bitcoin to continue increasing throughout the year."
One other potential winner is decentralized finance (DeFi). This sub-sector has already witnessed some gains in 2019, but crypto analyst Lou Kerner thinks one particular event taking place towards the end of November will set it up for a very good 2020.
"I think Multi-Collateral Dai, coming out November 18th, will be a major milestone in DeFi," he tells Cryptonews.com. "New features include the Dai Savings Rate (DSR), which establishes an entirely new dimension for innovative Maker protocol integrations on the backend of DeFi dapps (decentralized apps)."
Blockchain-based payment networks and platforms are also likely to see more use, with other companies likely to follow Facebook's lead in announcing their own versions of Libra, which itself is scheduled to be launched next year (conditions permitting).
"We believe that there will be substantial growth in payment related blockchain projects and payment-oriented cryptocurrencies in 2020," says Filipe Castro, the CIO at crypto payments service Utrust.
"This expected growth is due to multiple factors including the expansion and diversification of stablecoin models, new private and government-led central bank digital currency initiatives (Libra, e-Yuan) and sheer market size."
(Learn more: Payments is the Main Battleground for Banks Amid Bitcoin Rise)
Charles Phan of crypto exchange Interdax believes that two slightly less hyped up areas will grow in 2020."Gaming is another area of crypto that is gaining traction," he tells Cryptonews.com.
"With the roll-out of the Lightning Network we have seen Lightnite, a Fortnite-inspired game where players can earn a small amount of bitcoins. Recently, the venture arm of Blockchain (one of the biggest cryptocurrency companies in the world) invested in the blockchain game technology firm Enjin which shows that they think the crypto-gaming play is likely to be profitable."
Phan also thinks that cryptocurrencies belonging to exchanges, such as Binance Coin and Huobi Token, will grow. "Exchange tokens are likely to continue to display strength in 2020 as more traders enter the crypto ecosystem and exchanges continue to innovate," he adds. "These tokens incentivise traders to provide liquidity to the platform and reward them with lower trading fees."
https://preview.redd.it/0bptjfrwltx31.png?width=550&format=png&auto=webp&s=98e1f5cb3f384b9849e3cc2517f6b16b767e0e4d

Beyond 2020: central coins and global recession fueled adoption

Looking further into the future, one more element of the crypto ecosystem is likely to enjoy wider adoption over the next decade.
"Central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) will gain traction as an idea and we may even see one launch, with China and Switzerland the most likely to take the lead in this regard," predicts Vaibhav Kadikar, the founder and CEO of decentralized prediction market platform CloseCross.
But as Charles Phan explains, this will take more than one year, due to the cumbersome and cautious nature of central banks and governments.
"We are looking at a timescale of five years according to IBM and the Official Monetary Institutions Forum, while ING’s chief economist predicted that we’ll see a CBDC from a G20 country in the next 2-3 years," he says.
And more generally, coming years could speed up cryptocurrency ownership, particularly if regional and/or global recessions occur.
"I don't know when, but eventually we will have to pay the price for central banks printing money on overdrive, while debt has escalated to unimaginable levels," says Simon Dingle. "A massive global recession is on the cards, and when it arrives we should see a whole new appreciation for deflationary and decentralized cryptocurrency."
submitted by dwoinik to u/dwoinik [link] [comments]

Transcript of the community Q&A with Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly of the Bitcoin SV development team. We talk about the path to big blocks, new opcodes, selfish mining, malleability, and why November will lead to a divergence in consensus rules. (Cont in comments)

We've gone through the painstaking process of transcribing the linked interview with Steve Shadders and Daniell Connolly of the Bitcoin SV team. There is an amazing amount of information in this interview that we feel is important for businesses and miners to hear, so we believe it was important to get this is a written form. To avoid any bias, the transcript is taken almost word for word from the video, with just a few changes made for easier reading. If you see any corrections that need to be made, please let us know.
Each question is in bold, and each question and response is timestamped accordingly. You can follow along with the video here:
https://youtu.be/tPImTXFb_U8

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT:

Connor: 02:19.68,0:02:45.10
Alright so thank You Daniel and Steve for joining us. We're joined by Steve Shadders and Daniel Connolly from nChain and also the lead developers of the Satoshi’s Vision client. So Daniel and Steve do you guys just want to introduce yourselves before we kind of get started here - who are you guys and how did you get started?
Steve: 0,0:02:38.83,0:03:30.61
So I'm Steve Shadders and at nChain I am the director of solutions in engineering and specifically for Bitcoin SV I am the technical director of the project which means that I'm a bit less hands-on than Daniel but I handle a lot of the liaison with the miners - that's the conditional project.
Daniel:
Hi I’m Daniel I’m the lead developer for Bitcoin SV. As the team's grown that means that I do less actual coding myself but more organizing the team and organizing what we’re working on.
Connor 03:23.07,0:04:15.98
Great so we took some questions - we asked on Reddit to have people come and post their questions. We tried to take as many of those as we could and eliminate some of the duplicates, so we're gonna kind of go through each question one by one. We added some questions of our own in and we'll try and get through most of these if we can. So I think we just wanted to start out and ask, you know, Bitcoin Cash is a little bit over a year old now. Bitcoin itself is ten years old but in the past a little over a year now what has the process been like for you guys working with the multiple development teams and, you know, why is it important that the Satoshi’s vision client exists today?
Steve: 0:04:17.66,0:06:03.46
I mean yes well we’ve been in touch with the developer teams for quite some time - I think a bi-weekly meeting of Bitcoin Cash developers across all implementations started around November last year. I myself joined those in January or February of this year and Daniel a few months later. So we communicate with all of those teams and I think, you know, it's not been without its challenges. It's well known that there's a lot of disagreements around it, but some what I do look forward to in the near future is a day when the consensus issues themselves are all rather settled, and if we get to that point then there's not going to be much reason for the different developer teams to disagree on stuff. They might disagree on non-consensus related stuff but that's not the end of the world because, you know, Bitcoin Unlimited is free to go and implement whatever they want in the back end of a Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin SV is free to do whatever they want in the backend, and if they interoperate on a non-consensus level great. If they don't not such a big problem there will obviously be bridges between the two, so, yeah I think going forward the complications of having so many personalities with wildly different ideas are going to get less and less.
Cory: 0:06:00.59,0:06:19.59
I guess moving forward now another question about the testnet - a lot of people on Reddit have been asking what the testing process for Bitcoin SV has been like, and if you guys plan on releasing any of those results from the testing?
Daniel: 0:06:19.59,0:07:55.55
Sure yeah so our release will be concentrated on the stability, right, with the first release of Bitcoin SV and that involved doing a large amount of additional testing particularly not so much at the unit test level but at the more system test so setting up test networks, performing tests, and making sure that the software behaved as we expected, right. Confirming the changes we made, making sure that there aren’t any other side effects. Because of, you know, it was quite a rush to release the first version so we've got our test results documented, but not in a way that we can really release them. We're thinking about doing that but we’re not there yet.
Steve: 0:07:50.25,0:09:50.87
Just to tidy that up - we've spent a lot of our time developing really robust test processes and the reporting is something that we can read on our internal systems easily, but we need to tidy that up to give it out for public release. The priority for us was making sure that the software was safe to use. We've established a test framework that involves a progression of code changes through multiple test environments - I think it's five different test environments before it gets the QA stamp of approval - and as for the question about the testnet, yeah, we've got four of them. We've got Testnet One and Testnet Two. A slightly different numbering scheme to the testnet three that everyone's probably used to – that’s just how we reference them internally. They're [1 and 2] both forks of Testnet Three. [Testnet] One we used for activation testing, so we would test things before and after activation - that one’s set to reset every couple of days. The other one [Testnet Two] was set to post activation so that we can test all of the consensus changes. The third one was a performance test network which I think most people have probably have heard us refer to before as Gigablock Testnet. I get my tongue tied every time I try to say that word so I've started calling it the Performance test network and I think we're planning on having two of those: one that we can just do our own stuff with and experiment without having to worry about external unknown factors going on and having other people joining it and doing stuff that we don't know about that affects our ability to baseline performance tests, but the other one (which I think might still be a work in progress so Daniel might be able to answer that one) is one of them where basically everyone will be able to join and they can try and mess stuff up as bad as they want.
Daniel: 0:09:45.02,0:10:20.93
Yeah, so we so we recently shared the details of Testnet One and Two with the with the other BCH developer groups. The Gigablock test network we've shared up with one group so far but yeah we're building it as Steve pointed out to be publicly accessible.
Connor: 0:10:18.88,0:10:44.00
I think that was my next question I saw that you posted on Twitter about the revived Gigablock testnet initiative and so it looked like blocks bigger than 32 megabytes were being mined and propagated there, but maybe the block explorers themselves were coming down - what does that revived Gigablock test initiative look like?
Daniel: 0:10:41.62,0:11:58.34
That's what did the Gigablock test network is. So the Gigablock test network was first set up by Bitcoin Unlimited with nChain’s help and they did some great work on that, and we wanted to revive it. So we wanted to bring it back and do some large-scale testing on it. It's a flexible network - at one point we had we had eight different large nodes spread across the globe, sort of mirroring the old one. Right now we scaled back because we're not using it at the moment so they'll notice I think three. We have produced some large blocks there and it's helped us a lot in our research and into the scaling capabilities of Bitcoin SV, so it's guided the work that the team’s been doing for the last month or two on the improvements that we need for scalability.
Steve: 0:11:56.48,0:13:34.25
I think that's actually a good point to kind of frame where our priorities have been in kind of two separate stages. I think, as Daniel mentioned before, because of the time constraints we kept the change set for the October 15 release as minimal as possible - it was just the consensus changes. We didn't do any work on performance at all and we put all our focus and energy into establishing the QA process and making sure that that change was safe and that was a good process for us to go through. It highlighted what we were missing in our team – we got our recruiters very busy recruiting of a Test Manager and more QA people. The second stage after that is performance related work which, as Daniel mentioned, the results of our performance testing fed into what tasks we were gonna start working on for the performance related stuff. Now that work is still in progress - some of the items that we identified the code is done and that's going through the QA process but it’s not quite there yet. That's basically the two-stage process that we've been through so far. We have a roadmap that goes further into the future that outlines more stuff, but primarily it’s been QA first, performance second. The performance enhancements are close and on the horizon but some of that work should be ongoing for quite some time.
Daniel: 0:13:37.49,0:14:35.14
Some of the changes we need for the performance are really quite large and really get down into the base level view of the software. There's kind of two groups of them mainly. One that are internal to the software – to Bitcoin SV itself - improving the way it works inside. And then there's other ones that interface it with the outside world. One of those in particular we're working closely with another group to make a compatible change - it's not consensus changing or anything like that - but having the same interface on multiple different implementations will be very helpful right, so we're working closely with them to make improvements for scalability.
Connor: 0:14:32.60,0:15:26.45
Obviously for Bitcoin SV one of the main things that you guys wanted to do that that some of the other developer groups weren't willing to do right now is to increase the maximum default block size to 128 megabytes. I kind of wanted to pick your brains a little bit about - a lot of the objection to either removing the box size entirely or increasing it on a larger scale is this idea of like the infinite block attack right and that kind of came through in a lot of the questions. What are your thoughts on the “infinite block attack” and is it is it something that that really exists, is it something that miners themselves should be more proactive on preventing, or I guess what are your thoughts on that attack that everyone says will happen if you uncap the block size?
Steve: 0:15:23.45,0:18:28.56
I'm often quoted on Twitter and Reddit - I've said before the infinite block attack is bullshit. Now, that's a statement that I suppose is easy to take out of context, but I think the 128 MB limit is something where there’s probably two schools of thought about. There are some people who think that you shouldn't increase the limit to 128 MB until the software can handle it, and there are others who think that it's fine to do it now so that the limit is increased when the software can handle it and you don’t run into the limit when this when the software improves and can handle it. Obviously we’re from the latter school of thought. As I said before we've got a bunch of performance increases, performance enhancements, in the pipeline. If we wait till May to increase the block size limit to 128 MB then those performance enhancements will go in, but we won't be able to actually demonstrate it on mainnet. As for the infinitive block attack itself, I mean there are a number of mitigations that you can put in place. I mean firstly, you know, going down to a bit of the tech detail - when you send a block message or send any peer to peer message there's a header which has the size of the message. If someone says they're sending you a 30MB message and you're receiving it and it gets to 33MB then obviously you know something's wrong so you can drop the connection. If someone sends you a message that's 129 MB and you know the block size limit is 128 you know it’s kind of pointless to download that message. So I mean these are just some of the mitigations that you can put in place. When I say the attack is bullshit, I mean I mean it is bullshit from the sense that it's really quite trivial to prevent it from happening. I think there is a bit of a school of thought in the Bitcoin world that if it's not in the software right now then it kind of doesn't exist. I disagree with that, because there are small changes that can be made to work around problems like this. One other aspect of the infinite block attack, and let’s not call it the infinite block attack, let's just call it the large block attack - it takes a lot of time to validate that we gotten around by having parallel pipelines for blocks to come in, so you've got a block that's coming in it's got a unknown stuck on it for two hours or whatever downloading and validating it. At some point another block is going to get mined b someone else and as long as those two blocks aren't stuck in a serial pipeline then you know the problem kind of goes away.
Cory: 0:18:26.55,0:18:48.27
Are there any concerns with the propagation of those larger blocks? Because there's a lot of questions around you know what the practical size of scaling right now Bitcoin SV could do and the concerns around propagating those blocks across the whole network.
Steve 0:18:45.84,0:21:37.73
Yes, there have been concerns raised about it. I think what people forget is that compact blocks and xThin exist, so if a 32MB block is not send 32MB of data in most cases, almost all cases. The concern here that I think I do find legitimate is the Great Firewall of China. Very early on in Bitcoin SV we started talking with miners on the other side of the firewall and that was one of their primary concerns. We had anecdotal reports of people who were having trouble getting a stable connection any faster than 200 kilobits per second and even with compact blocks you still need to get the transactions across the firewall. So we've done a lot of research into that - we tested our own links across the firewall, rather CoinGeeks links across the firewall as they’ve given us access to some of their servers so that we can play around, and we were able to get sustained rates of 50 to 90 megabits per second which pushes that problem quite a long way down the road into the future. I don't know the maths off the top of my head, but the size of the blocks that can sustain is pretty large. So we're looking at a couple of options - it may well be the chattiness of the peer-to-peer protocol causes some of these issues with the Great Firewall, so we have someone building a bridge concept/tool where you basically just have one kind of TX vacuum on either side of the firewall that collects them all up and sends them off every one or two seconds as a single big chunk to eliminate some of that chattiness. The other is we're looking at building a multiplexer that will sit and send stuff up to the peer-to-peer network on one side and send it over splitters, to send it over multiple links, reassemble it on the other side so we can sort of transition the great Firewall without too much trouble, but I mean getting back to the core of your question - yes there is a theoretical limit to block size propagation time and that's kind of where Moore's Law comes in. Putting faster links and you kick that can further down the road and you just keep on putting in faster links. I don't think 128 main blocks are going to be an issue though with the speed of the internet that we have nowadays.
Connor: 0:21:34.99,0:22:17.84
One of the other changes that you guys are introducing is increasing the max script size so I think right now it’s going from 201 to 500 [opcodes]. So I guess a few of the questions we got was I guess #1 like why not uncap it entirely - I think you guys said you ran into some concerns while testing that - and then #2 also specifically we had a question about how certain are you that there are no remaining n squared bugs or vulnerabilities left in script execution?
Steve: 0:22:15.50,0:25:36.79
It's interesting the decision - we were initially planning on removing that cap altogether and the next cap that comes into play after that (next effective cap is a 10,000 byte limit on the size of the script). We took a more conservative route and decided to wind that back to 500 - it's interesting that we got some criticism for that when the primary criticism I think that was leveled against us was it’s dangerous to increase that limit to unlimited. We did that because we’re being conservative. We did some research into these log n squared bugs, sorry – attacks, that people have referred to. We identified a few of them and we had a hard think about it and thought - look if we can find this many in a short time we can fix them all (the whack-a-mole approach) but it does suggest that there may well be more unknown ones. So we thought about putting, you know, taking the whack-a-mole approach, but that doesn't really give us any certainty. We will fix all of those individually but a more global approach is to make sure that if anyone does discover one of these scripts it doesn't bring the node to a screaming halt, so the problem here is because the Bitcoin node is essentially single-threaded, if you get one of these scripts that locks up the script engine for a long time everything that's behind it in the queue has to stop and wait. So what we wanted to do, and this is something we've got an engineer actively working on right now, is once that script validation goad path is properly paralyzed (parts of it already are), then we’ll basically assign a few threads for well-known transaction templates, and a few threads for any any type of script. So if you get a few scripts that are nasty and lock up a thread for a while that's not going to stop the node from working because you've got these other kind of lanes of the highway that are exclusively reserved for well-known script templates and they'll just keep on passing through. Once you've got that in place, and I think we're in a much better position to get rid of that limit entirely because the worst that's going to happen is your non-standard script pipelines get clogged up but everything else will keep keep ticking along - there are other mitigations for this as well I mean I know you could always put a time limit on script execution if they wanted to, and that would be something that would be up to individual miners. Bitcoin SV's job I think is to provide the tools for the miners and the miners can then choose, you know, how to make use of them - if they want to set time limits on script execution then that's a choice for them.
Daniel: 0:25:34.82,0:26:15.85
Yeah, I'd like to point out that a node here, when it receives a transaction through the peer to peer network, it doesn't have to accept that transaction, you can reject it. If it looks suspicious to the node it can just say you know we're not going to deal with that, or if it takes more than five minutes to execute, or more than a minute even, it can just abort and discard that transaction, right. The only time we can’t do that is when it's in a block already, but then it could decide to reject the block as well. It's all possibilities there could be in the software.
Steve: 0:26:13.08,0:26:20.64
Yeah, and if it's in a block already it means someone else was able to validate it so…
Cory: 0,0:26:21.21,0:26:43.60
There’s a lot of discussions about the re-enabled opcodes coming – OP_MUL, OP_INVERT, OP_LSHIFT, and OP_RSHIFT up invert op l shift and op r shift you maybe explain the significance of those op codes being re-enabled?
Steve: 0:26:42.01,0:28:17.01
Well I mean one of one of the most significant things is other than two, which are minor variants of DUP and MUL, they represent almost the complete set of original op codes. I think that's not necessarily a technical issue, but it's an important milestone. MUL is one that's that I've heard some interesting comments about. People ask me why are you putting OP_MUL back in if you're planning on changing them to big number operations instead of the 32-bit limit that they're currently imposed upon. The simple answer to that question is that we currently have all of the other arithmetic operations except for OP_MUL. We’ve got add divide, subtract, modulo – it’s odd to have a script system that's got all the mathematical primitives except for multiplication. The other answer to that question is that they're useful - we've talked about a Rabin signature solution that basically replicates the function of DATASIGVERIFY. That's just one example of a use case for this - most cryptographic primitive operations require mathematical operations and bit shifts are useful for a whole ton of things. So it's really just about completing that work and completing the script engine, or rather not completing it, but putting it back the way that it was it was meant to be.
Connor 0:28:20.42,0:29:22.62
Big Num vs 32 Bit. I've seen Daniel - I think I saw you answer this on Reddit a little while ago, but the new op codes using logical shifts and Satoshi’s version use arithmetic shifts - the general question that I think a lot of people keep bringing up is, maybe in a rhetorical way but they say why not restore it back to the way Satoshi had it exactly - what are the benefits of changing it now to operate a little bit differently?
Daniel: 0:29:18.75,0:31:12.15
Yeah there's two parts there - the big number one and the L shift being a logical shift instead of arithmetic. so when we re-enabled these opcodes we've looked at them carefully and have adjusted them slightly as we did in the past with OP_SPLIT. So the new LSHIFT and RSHIFT are bitwise operators. They can be used to implement arithmetic based shifts - I think I've posted a short script that did that, but we can't do it the other way around, right. You couldn't use an arithmetic shift operator to implement a bitwise one. It's because of the ordering of the bytes in the arithmetic values, so the values that represent numbers. The little endian which means they're swapped around to what many other systems - what I've considered normal - or big-endian. And if you start shifting that properly as a number then then shifting sequence in the bytes is a bit strange, so it couldn't go the other way around - you couldn't implement bitwise shift with arithmetic, so we chose to make them bitwise operators - that's what we proposed.
Steve: 0:31:10.57,0:31:51.51
That was essentially a decision that was actually made in May, or rather a consequence of decisions that were made in May. So in May we reintroduced OP_AND, OP_OR, and OP_XOR, and that was also another decision to replace three different string operators with OP_SPLIT was also made. So that was not a decision that we've made unilaterally, it was a decision that was made collectively with all of the BCH developers - well not all of them were actually in all of the meetings, but they were all invited.
Daniel: 0:31:48.24,0:32:23.13
Another example of that is that we originally proposed OP_2DIV and OP_2MUL was it, I think, and this is a single operator that multiplies the value by two, right, but it was pointed out that that can very easily be achieved by just doing multiply by two instead of having a separate operator for it, so we scrapped those, we took them back out, because we wanted to keep the number of operators minimum yeah.
Steve: 0:32:17.59,0:33:47.20
There was an appetite around for keeping the operators minimal. I mean the decision about the idea to replace OP_SUBSTR, OP_LEFT, OP_RIGHT with OP_SPLIT operator actually came from Gavin Andresen. He made a brief appearance in the Telegram workgroups while we were working out what to do with May opcodes and obviously Gavin's word kind of carries a lot of weight and we listen to him. But because we had chosen to implement the May opcodes (the bitwise opcodes) and treat the data as big-endian data streams (well, sorry big-endian not really applicable just plain data strings) it would have been completely inconsistent to implement LSHIFT and RSHIFT as integer operators because then you would have had a set of bitwise operators that operated on two different kinds of data, which would have just been nonsensical and very difficult for anyone to work with, so yeah. I mean it's a bit like P2SH - it wasn't a part of the original Satoshi protocol that once some things are done they're done and you know if you want to want to make forward progress you've got to work within that that framework that exists.
Daniel: 0:33:45.85,0:34:48.97
When we get to the big number ones then it gets really complicated, you know, number implementations because then you can't change the behavior of the existing opcodes, and I don't mean OP_MUL, I mean the other ones that have been there for a while. You can't suddenly make them big number ones without seriously looking at what scripts there might be out there and the impact of that change on those existing scripts, right. The other the other point is you don't know what scripts are out there because of P2SH - there could be scripts that you don't know the content of and you don't know what effect changing the behavior of these operators would mean. The big number thing is tricky, so another option might be, yeah, I don't know what the options for though it needs some serious thought.
Steve: 0:34:43.27,0:35:24.23
That’s something we've reached out to the other implementation teams about - actually really would like their input on the best ways to go about restoring big number operations. It has to be done extremely carefully and I don't know if we'll get there by May next year, or when, but we’re certainly willing to put a lot of resources into it and we're more than happy to work with BU or XT or whoever wants to work with us on getting that done and getting it done safely.
Connor: 0:35:19.30,0:35:57.49
Kind of along this similar vein, you know, Bitcoin Core introduced this concept of standard scripts, right - standard and non-standard scripts. I had pretty interesting conversation with Clemens Ley about use cases for “non-standard scripts” as they're called. I know at least one developer on Bitcoin ABC is very hesitant, or kind of pushed back on him about doing that and so what are your thoughts about non-standard scripts and the entirety of like an IsStandard check?
Steve: 0:35:58.31,0:37:35.73
I’d actually like to repurpose the concept. I think I mentioned before multi-threaded script validation and having some dedicated well-known script templates - when you say the word well-known script template there’s already a check in Bitcoin that kind of tells you if it's well-known or not and that's IsStandard. I'm generally in favor of getting rid of the notion of standard transactions, but it's actually a decision for miners, and it's really more of a behavioral change than it is a technical change. There's a whole bunch of configuration options that miners can set that affect what they do what they consider to be standard and not standard, but the reality is not too many miners are using those configuration options. So I mean standard transactions as a concept is meaningful to an arbitrary degree I suppose, but yeah I would like to make it easier for people to get non-standard scripts into Bitcoin so that they can experiment, and from discussions of I’ve had with CoinGeek they’re quite keen on making their miners accept, you know, at least initially a wider variety of transactions eventually.
Daniel: 0:37:32.85,0:38:07.95
So I think IsStandard will remain important within the implementation itself for efficiency purposes, right - you want to streamline base use case of cash payments through them and prioritizing. That's where it will remain important but on the interfaces from the node to the rest of the network, yeah I could easily see it being removed.
Cory: 0,0:38:06.24,0:38:35.46
*Connor mentioned that there's some people that disagree with Bitcoin SV and what they're doing - a lot of questions around, you know, why November? Why implement these changes in November - they think that maybe the six-month delay might not cause a split. Well, first off what do you think about the ideas of a potential split and I guess what is the urgency for November?
Steve: 0:38:33.30,0:40:42.42
Well in November there's going to be a divergence of consensus rules regardless of whether we implement these new op codes or not. Bitcoin ABC released their spec for the November Hard fork change I think on August 16th or 17th something like that and their client as well and it included CTOR and it included DSV. Now for the miners that commissioned the SV project, CTOR and DSV are controversial changes and once they're in they're in. They can't be reversed - I mean CTOR maybe you could reverse it at a later date, but DSV once someone's put a P2SH transaction into the project or even a non P2SH transaction in the blockchain using that opcode it's irreversible. So it's interesting that some people refer to the Bitcoin SV project as causing a split - we're not proposing to do anything that anyone disagrees with - there might be some contention about changing the opcode limit but what we're doing, I mean Bitcoin ABC already published their spec for May and it is our spec for the new opcodes, so in terms of urgency - should we wait? Well the fact is that we can't - come November you know it's bit like Segwit - once Segwit was in, yes you arguably could get it out by spending everyone's anyone can spend transactions but in reality it's never going to be that easy and it's going to cause a lot of economic disruption, so yeah that's it. We're putting out changes in because it's not gonna make a difference either way in terms of whether there's going to be a divergence of consensus rules - there's going to be a divergence whether whatever our changes are. Our changes are not controversial at all.
Daniel: 0:40:39.79,0:41:03.08
If we didn't include these changes in the November upgrade we'd be pushing ahead with a no-change, right, but the November upgrade is there so we should use it while we can. Adding these non-controversial changes to it.
Connor: 0:41:01.55,0:41:35.61
Can you talk about DATASIGVERIFY? What are your concerns with it? The general concept that's been kind of floated around because of Ryan Charles is the idea that it's a subsidy, right - that it takes a whole megabyte and kind of crunches that down and the computation time stays the same but maybe the cost is lesser - do you kind of share his view on that or what are your concerns with it?
Daniel: 0:41:34.01,0:43:38.41
Can I say one or two things about this – there’s different ways to look at that, right. I'm an engineer - my specialization is software, so the economics of it I hear different opinions. I trust some more than others but I am NOT an economist. I kind of agree with the ones with my limited expertise on that it's a subsidy it looks very much like it to me, but yeah that's not my area. What I can talk about is the software - so adding DSV adds really quite a lot of complexity to the code right, and it's a big change to add that. And what are we going to do - every time someone comes up with an idea we’re going to add a new opcode? How many opcodes are we going to add? I saw reports that Jihan was talking about hundreds of opcodes or something like that and it's like how big is this client going to become - how big is this node - is it going to have to handle every kind of weird opcode that that's out there? The software is just going to get unmanageable and DSV - that was my main consideration at the beginning was the, you know, if you can implement it in script you should do it, because that way it keeps the node software simple, it keeps it stable, and you know it's easier to test that it works properly and correctly. It's almost like adding (?) code from a microprocessor you know why would you do that if you can if you can implement it already in the script that is there.
Steve: 0:43:36.16,0:46:09.71
It’s actually an interesting inconsistency because when we were talking about adding the opcodes in May, the philosophy that seemed to drive the decisions that we were able to form a consensus around was to simplify and keep the opcodes as minimal as possible (ie where you could replicate a function by using a couple of primitive opcodes in combination, that was preferable to adding a new opcode that replaced) OP_SUBSTR is an interesting example - it's a combination of SPLIT, and SWAP and DROP opcodes to achieve it. So at really primitive script level we've got this philosophy of let's keep it minimal and at this sort of (?) philosophy it’s all let's just add a new opcode for every primitive function and Daniel's right - it's a question of opening the floodgates. Where does it end? If we're just going to go down this road, it almost opens up the argument why have a scripting language at all? Why not just add a hard code all of these functions in one at a time? You know, pay to public key hash is a well-known construct (?) and not bother executing a script at all but once we've done that we take away with all of the flexibility for people to innovate, so it's a philosophical difference, I think, but I think it's one where the position of keeping it simple does make sense. All of the primitives are there to do what people need to do. The things that people don't feel like they can't do are because of the limits that exist. If we had no opcode limit at all, if you could make a gigabyte transaction so a gigabyte script, then you can do any kind of crypto that you wanted even with 32-bit integer operations, Once you get rid of the 32-bit limit of course, a lot of those a lot of those scripts come up a lot smaller, so a Rabin signature script shrinks from 100MB to a couple hundred bytes.
Daniel: 0:46:06.77,0:47:36.65
I lost a good six months of my life diving into script, right. Once you start getting into the language and what it can do, it is really pretty impressive how much you can achieve within script. Bitcoin was designed, was released originally, with script. I mean it didn't have to be – it could just be instead of having a transaction with script you could have accounts and you could say trust, you know, so many BTC from this public key to this one - but that's not the way it was done. It was done using script, and script provides so many capabilities if you start exploring it properly. If you start really digging into what it can do, yeah, it's really amazing what you can do with script. I'm really looking forward to seeing some some very interesting applications from that. I mean it was Awemany his zero-conf script was really interesting, right. I mean it relies on DSV which is a problem (and some other things that I don't like about it), but him diving in and using script to solve this problem was really cool, it was really good to see that.
Steve: 0:47:32.78,0:48:16.44
I asked a question to a couple of people in our research team that have been working on the Rabin signature stuff this morning actually and I wasn't sure where they are up to with this, but they're actually working on a proof of concept (which I believe is pretty close to done) which is a Rabin signature script - it will use smaller signatures so that it can fit within the current limits, but it will be, you know, effectively the same algorithm (as DSV) so I can't give you an exact date on when that will happen, but it looks like we'll have a Rabin signature in the blockchain soon (a mini-Rabin signature).
Cory: 0:48:13.61,0:48:57.63
Based on your responses I think I kinda already know the answer to this question, but there's a lot of questions about ending experimentation on Bitcoin. I was gonna kind of turn that into – with the plan that Bitcoin SV is on do you guys see like a potential one final release, you know that there's gonna be no new opcodes ever released (like maybe five years down the road we just solidify the base protocol and move forward with that) or are you guys more on the idea of being open-ended with appropriate testing that we can introduce new opcodes under appropriate testing.
Steve: 0:48:55.80,0:49:47.43
I think you've got a factor in what I said before about the philosophical differences. I think new functionality can be introduced just fine. Having said that - yes there is a place for new opcodes but it's probably a limited place and in my opinion the cryptographic primitive functions for example CHECKSIG uses ECDSA with a specific elliptic curve, hash 256 uses SHA256 - at some point in the future those are going to no longer be as secure as we would like them to be and we'll replace them with different hash functions, verification functions, at some point, but I think that's a long way down the track.
Daniel: 0:49:42.47,0:50:30.3
I'd like to see more data too. I'd like to see evidence that these things are needed, and the way I could imagine that happening is that, you know, that with the full scripting language some solution is implemented and we discover that this is really useful, and over a period of, like, you know measured in years not days, we find a lot of transactions are using this feature, then maybe, you know, maybe we should look at introducing an opcode to optimize it, but optimizing before we even know if it's going to be useful, yeah, that's the wrong approach.
Steve: 0:50:28.19,0:51:45.29
I think that optimization is actually going to become an economic decision for the miners. From the miner’s point of view is if it'll make more sense for them to be able to optimize a particular process - does it reduce costs for them such that they can offer a better service to everyone else? Yeah, so ultimately these decisions are going to be miner’s main decisions, not developer decisions. Developers of course can offer their input - I wouldn't expect every miner to be an expert on script, but as we're already seeing miners are actually starting to employ their own developers. I’m not just talking about us - there are other miners in China that I know have got some really bright people on their staff that question and challenge all of the changes - study them and produce their own reports. We've been lucky with actually being able to talk to some of those people and have some really fascinating technical discussions with them.
submitted by The_BCH_Boys to btc [link] [comments]

Long-run favors BTC over BCH, here's why...

There are many reasons why BTC will remain the gold standard and not BCH.
BTC Advantages over BCH:
BCH has:
I have been watching Bitcoin for a long time, and the main thing I've learned is don't overreact to flashes in the pan, weak hands, and anytime a "panic" is happening. What really pays in the long-run is sticking with things that have a proven track record, a high quality set of software engineers and computer scientists, and a critical mass of ecosystem. Nothing compares to Bitcoin in these regards!!
Bitcoin has a very bright future ahead!
submitted by fortunative to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Chainalysis Chief Economist Wants Crypto to Move Past ‘Buying Drugs on the Silk Road’

CoinDesk sat down with Chainalysis’ chief economist Philip Gladwell to get a macro-view of the crypto market.
Speaking at Invest: NYC 2019, Gladwell said the crypto-sleuthing firm has found that only 30 percent of bitcoin is actually liquid. Of this value exchanged, more and more of it is going towards legitimate merchant services, a departure from crypto’s first use case: “buying drugs on the Silk Road.”
“In recent months there has been a lot of disruption to [dark] markets, law enforcement has taken down a number of those sites. That’s actually reduced their size in the overall crypto economy,” Gladwell said.
One notable example was the investigation and closure of Welcome to Video, the world’s largest child exploitation site, according to Gladwell. Chainalysis participated in the global cooperative effort to shutter the site and arrest the alleged perpetrators, by analyzing crypto transactions used to pay for child pornography.
“We were able to help the [IRS and Homeland Security] understand were the bitcoin came from or where it got cashed out to,” Gladwell said. “You shouldn’t underestimate the amount of non-blockchain investigations,” that contributed to the effort, he added.
Gladwell also addressed how law enforcement might respond to the distribution of privacy-protecting coins, such as Zcash, as well as the open industry debate as to how much personally identifiable information exchanges should keep under Financial Action Task Force’s “Travel Rule.”
“The industry needs to work out what the right solution is,” Gladwell said.
submitted by SilkChain to u/SilkChain [link] [comments]

Chainalysis Chief Economist Wants Crypto to Move Past ‘Buying Drugs on the Silk Road’

CoinDesk sat down with Chainalysis’ chief economist Philip Gladwell to get a macro-view of the crypto market.
Speaking at Invest: NYC 2019, Gladwell said the crypto-sleuthing firm has found that only 30 percent of bitcoin is actually liquid. Of this value exchanged, more and more of it is going towards legitimate merchant services, a departure from crypto’s first use case: “buying drugs on the Silk Road.”
“In recent months there has been a lot of disruption to [dark] markets, law enforcement has taken down a number of those sites. That’s actually reduced their size in the overall crypto economy,” Gladwell said.
One notable example was the investigation and closure of Welcome to Video, the world’s largest child exploitation site, according to Gladwell. Chainalysis participated in the global cooperative effort to shutter the site and arrest the alleged perpetrators, by analyzing crypto transactions used to pay for child pornography.
“We were able to help the [IRS and Homeland Security] understand were the bitcoin came from or where it got cashed out to,” Gladwell said. “You shouldn’t underestimate the amount of non-blockchain investigations,” that contributed to the effort, he added.
Gladwell also addressed how law enforcement might respond to the distribution of privacy-protecting coins, such as Zcash, as well as the open industry debate as to how much personally identifiable information exchanges should keep under Financial Action Task Force’s “Travel Rule.”
“The industry needs to work out what the right solution is,” Gladwell said.
submitted by SilkChain to u/SilkChain [link] [comments]

Daily analysis of cryptocurrencies 20191102 (Market index 50 — Neutral state)

Daily analysis of cryptocurrencies 20191102 (Market index 50 — Neutral state)

https://preview.redd.it/skq8bar2r6w31.png?width=1920&format=png&auto=webp&s=7c2fae20cd1d9d670104ddb87c6cc80c5bbb345f

Crypto Custody Firm Xapo Initiated 5 Whale Transfers On Nov 1 Citing data from the Bejijing-based blockchain security company Chainsguard, the Bitcoin network witnessed multiple whale transfers on Nov 1. At 21:10:38 UTC on Nov 1, Xapo, a Bitcoin custody service provider, has conducted five whale transfers with the largest amount within one transfer marking up to 20,000 BTC. The total number of moved BTC in these transfers records 65822.01. Many of these BTC originated from the transfers of 4,999 to 10,000 BTC collected by Xapo on the Bitcoin chain at 19:19:49 and 19:32:12 on the same day. One of the main BTC sources initiated by the address starting with 37whD5 was crypto exchange Bitstamp. Previously, the above-mentioned exchange announced that its custodian would change to BitGo. Otherwise, Bitstamp had a great transfer with more than 110,000 BTC involved on October 15. At 20:53:20 on Nov 1, the wallet address beginning with 3AdpZc initiated a transfer of 5000 BTC to the exchange Poloniex. After analysis, the source can be traced back to the coins accumulated by Poloniex in March 2016. Generally speaking, the whale transfer carried out by institutions comes from the needs of business or customers. Sometimes, it is only the planned wallet management.
Utah To Facilitate Voting For Disabled Individuals Through Blockchains Recent reports indicate that blockchain technology will soon be used in Utah, as part of a trial project meant to allow disabled individuals to cast their votes. To put things into perspective, the local council and government of Utah have decided to allow blockchain-based voting via smartphones in the upcoming municipal election that will take place in November. The platform that disabled voters will be using for this election represents the result of a fruitful partnership between the Utah Country Elections Division, the National Cybersecurity Centre, Tusk Philanthropies and Voatz, a local voting app development company.
Ethereum To Increase The Blocksize By 8x Ethereum is partially addressing the many complexities of sharding by simply increasing the blocksize from the equivalent of about 1MB every ten minutes to circa 8MB. Danny Ryan, the Ethereum 2.0 coordinator, publicly said: “We are making the blocks bigger based on recent research on safe block size and propagation times, so the data availability of the system is still > 1MB/s so you can still get similar scalability gains when doing things like ZKrollup and OVM.” ZK rollups are a hybrid scaling method that combines on-chain security and second layer networks through smart contracts and zero knowledge methods. OVM is the Optimistic Virtual Machine from Plasma, with both being more sort of on top of Ethereum’s public blockchain.

During the first quarter of the year, Bitcoin was trapped inside a tight trading range, where major players began buying the fear of retail crypto investors and accumulating the asset at the lowest possible prices.
Starting in the second quarter, the first-ever crypto asset rocketed up from that trading range, and went on a parabolic rally that didn’t stop until Bitcoin met former bear market resistance at $14,000 where it was rejected.
After three consecutive red monthly candles in a row, October closed green and kept a potential bull flag formation on monthly price charts intact, giving bulls hope that the crypto asset’s 2019 rally isn’t totally finished.
Review previous articles: https://medium.com/@to.liuwen

Encrypted project calendar(November 2, 2019)

Kambria (KAT): 02 November 2019 VietAI Summit 2019 Kambria joins forces with VietAI for the annual VietAI Summit, with top experts from Google Brain, NVIDIA, Kambria, VietAI, and more! ABBC Coin (ABBC): 02 November 2019 One-on-one Servicer “Users will be provided with a new one-on-one service platform on Saturday.”

Encrypted project calendar(November 3, 2019)

Waltonchain (WTC): 03 November 2019 Premining Application End “Application for SMN & GMN $WTA pre-mining ends at 17:00 on Nov. 3 (UTC+8).”

Encrypted project calendar(November 4, 2019)

Stellar (XLM): 04 November 2019 Stellar Meridian Conf. Stellar Meridian conference from Nov 4–5 in Mexico City. Cappasity (CAPP): 04 November 2019 Lisbon Web Summit Lisbon Web Summit in Lisbon, Portugal from November 4–7. Aion (AION): 04 November 2019 CASCON x EVOKE 2019 CASCON x EVOKE 2019 from Nov 4–6 in Toronto. ThoreNext (THX): 04 November 2019 Migration/Swap Begins “4 Nov 2019 Migration/Swap/Issuance start Check Your email 1st Nov To facilitate a streamlined Process, we will use proprietary software…” Ocean Protocol (OCEAN): 04 November 2019 Blckchn for Science Party “Join us on Monday for bottles and (data) models at the official Blockchain for Science afterparty at @betahaus Factom (FCT): 04 November 2019 Grant Deadline “Have an idea you’ve been itching to build using #FactomProtocol? Apply for a grant (the deadline is November 4th):” Winding Tree (LIF): 04 November 2019 HackTravel London HackTravel London from November 4–6 in London.

Encrypted project calendar(November 5, 2019)

Nexus (NXS): 05 November 2019 Tritium Official Release “Remember, Remember the 5th of November, the day Tritium changed Distributed Ledger. Yes, this is an official release date.” NEM (XEM): 05 November 2019 Innovation Forum — Kyiv NEM Foundation Council Member Anton Bosenko will be speaking in the upcoming International Innovation Forum in Kyiv on November 5, 2019. TomoChain (TOMO): 05 November 2019 TomoX Testnet “Mark your calendar as TomoX testnet will be live on Tuesday, Nov 5th!” aelf (ELF): 05 November 2019 Bug Bounty Program Ends On Oct 24th, 2019 aelf’s biggest bug bounty will launch with a large reward pool. The event will run for almost 2 weeks. ICON (ICX): 05 November 2019 Seoul Meetup “We are pleased to announce that the ICON x Steem DApp SEOUL MEETUP will be held in the ICON Lounge on November 5th.” Utrust (UTK): 05 November 2019 Lisbon Meetup “We’re hosting a meetup for anyone interested in blockchain & crypto adoption! Industry leaders like Cointelegraph, BetProtocol & others…” Siacoin (SC): 05 November 2019 Zurich Meetup “Join us Tuesday, Nov 5th in Zurich for a Sia meetup with CEO David, and devs Chris and PJ at @impacthubzurich.” OKB (OKB): 05 November 2019 Simulation USDT Futures “NEW LAUNCH: The much-awaited $USDT-Margined Futures Trading will soon be available on #OKEx… Simulation launching Nov 5”

Encrypted project calendar(November 6, 2019)

STEEM/Steem: The Steem (STEEM) SteemFest 4 conference will be held in Bangkok from November 6th to 10th. KIM/Kimcoin: Kimcoin (KIM) Bitfinex will be online at KIM on November 6, 2019 at 12:00 (UTC). Nebulas (NAS): 06 November 2019 Burn Deadline “Be sure to read this announcement & burn your $NAT by November 6th, 3:00p.m. (UTC+8, Beijing time).” Power Ledger (POWR): 06 November 2019 Book Launch ATTN Perth Power Ledger community, we will be hosting renowned economist Ross Garnaut at our WA office for the launch of his latest book…

Encrypted project calendar(November 7, 2019)

XRP (XRP): 07 November 2019 Swell 2019 Ripple hosts Swell from November 7th — 8th in Singapore. BTC/Bitcoin: Malta The A.I. and Blockchain summit will be held in Malta from November 7th to 8th. Waves (WAVES): 07 November 2019 Joins Odyssey “#Waves is joining Odyssey… We’re kicking off on Nov. 7 at Polaris…” Komodo (KMD) and 1 other: 07 November 2019 Block Party Amsterdam Block Party Amsterdam in Amsterdam from 17:30–22:00. Horizen (ZEN): 07 November 2019 Weekly Insider Team updates at 3:30 PM UTC/ 11:30 AM EDT: Engineering, Node network, Product/UX, Helpdesk, Legal, BD, Marketing, CEO Closing thoughts, AMA.

Encrypted project calendar(November 8, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: The 2nd Global Digital Mining Summit will be held in Frankfurt, Germany from October 8th to 10th. IOTX/IoTeX: IoTex (IOTX) will participate in the CES Expo on November 08 TOP (TOP): 08 November 2019 Mainnet Launch “So excited to announce that on November 8th, TOP Network will officially launch the mainnet…” OKB (OKB): 08 November 2019 OKEx Talks — Valencia “Meet us at our next OKEx Talks in Valencia on 8 Nov with speaker Gustavo Segovia @sepu85 who will look at the benefits of creating

Encrypted project calendar(November 9, 2019)

CENNZ/Centrality: Centrality (CENNZ) will meet in InsurTechNZ Connect — Insurance and Blockchain on October 9th in Auckland. HTMLCOIN (HTML): 09 November 2019 (or earlier) Mandatory Wallet Update Mandatory Wallet Update: there will be a soft fork on our blockchain. This update adds header signature verification on block 997,655.

Encrypted project calendar(November 11, 2019)

PAX/Paxos Standard: Paxos Standard (PAX) 2019 Singapore Financial Technology Festival will be held from November 11th to 15th, and Paxos Standard will attend the conference. Crypto.com Coin (CRO): and 3 others 11 November 2019 Capital Warm-up Party Capital Warm-up Party in Singapore. GoldCoin (GLC): 11 November 2019 Reverse Bitcoin Hardfork The GoldCoin (GLC) Team will be “Reverse Hard Forking” the Bitcoin (BTC) Blockchain…” Horizen (ZEN): 11 November 2019 (or earlier) Horizen Giveaway — Nodes Horizen Giveaway — Win Free Node Hosting! Entries before November 11th.

Encrypted project calendar(November 12, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: The CoinMarketCap Global Conference will be held at the Victoria Theatre in Singapore from November 12th to 13th Binance Coin (BNB) and 7 others: 12 November 2019 CMC Global Conference “The first-ever CoinMarketCap large-scale event: A one-of-a-kind blockchain / crypto experience like you’ve never experienced before.” Aion (AION) and 17 others: 12 November 2019 The Capital The Capital conference from November 12–13 in Singapore. Loom Network (LOOM): 12 November 2019 Transfer Gateway Update “If you have a dapp that relies on the Transfer Gateway, follow the instructions below to make sure you’re prepared.”

Encrypted project calendar(November 13, 2019)

Fetch.ai (FET): 13 November 2019 Cambridge Meetup “Join us for a @Fetch_ai #Cambridge #meetup on 13 November @pantonarms1.” Binance Coin (BNB) and 5 others: 13 November 2019 Blockchain Expo N.A. “It will bring together key industries from across the globe for two days of top-level content and discussion across 5 co-located events…” OKB (OKB): 13 November 2019 Dnipro, Ukraine- Talks Join us in Dnipro as we journey through Ukraine for our OKEx Cryptour on 11 Nov. Centrality (CENNZ): 13 November 2019 AMA Meetup “Ask our CEO @aaronmcdnz anything in person! Join the AMA meetup on 13 November in Singapore.” OKB (OKB): 13 November 2019 OKEx Cryptotour Dnipro “OKEx Cryptour Ukraine 2019 — Dnipro” in Dnipro from 6–9 PM (EET).

Encrypted project calendar(November 14, 2019)

BTC/Bitcoin: The 2019 BlockShow Asia Summit will be held at Marina Bay Sands, Singapore from November 14th to 15th. Binance Coin (BNB): and 4 others 14 November 2019 BlockShow Asia 2019 BlockShow Asia 2019 at Marina Bay Sands Expo, Singapore from November 14–15. Basic Attention Token (BAT): 14 November 2019 London Privacy Meetup “If you’re in London on Nov. 14th, don’t miss our privacy meetup! The Brave research team, our CPO @johnnyryan, as well as @UoE_EFI Horizen (ZEN): 14 November 2019 Weekly Insider Team updates at 3:30 PM UTC/ 11:30 AM EDT: Engineering, Node network, Product/UX, Helpdesk, Legal, BD, Marketing, CEO Closing thoughts, AMA. IOTA (MIOTA): 14 November 2019 Berlin Meetup From Construction to Smart City: IOTA, Maschinenraum & Thinkt Digital will explain, using concrete use cases, how to gain real value from.. Dash (DASH): 14 November 2019 Q3 Summary Call “Dash Core Group Q3 2019 Summary Call — Thursday, 14 November 2019” NEO (NEO): 14 November 2019 NeoFest Singapore Meetup “Glad to have @Nicholas_Merten from DataDash as our host for #NeoFest Singapore meetup on 14th Nov!”

Encrypted project calendar(November 15, 2019)

TRON (TRX): 15 November 2019 Cross-chain Project “The #TRON cross-chain project will be available on Nov. 15th” Bluzelle (BLZ): 15 November 2019 (or earlier) CURIE Release CURIE release expected by early November 2019. Zebi (ZCO): 15 November 2019 ZEBI Token Swap Ends “… We will give 90 days to all the ERC 20 token holders to swap out their tokens into Zebi coins.” OKB (OKB): 15 November 2019 OKEx Talks — Vilnius “Join us for a meetup on 15 Nov (Fri) for our 1st ever Talks in Vilnius, Lithuania.”

Encrypted project calendar(November 16, 2019)

Bancor (BNT): and 2 others 16 November 2019 Crypto DeFiance-Singapore “Crypto DeFiance is a new global DeFi event embracing established innovators, financial market disruptors, DApp developers…” NEM (XEM): 16 November 2019 Developer’s Event “BLOCKCHAIN: Creation of Multifirma services” from 10:50 AM — 2 PM.

Encrypted project calendar(November 17, 2019)

OKB (OKB): 17 November 2019 OKEx Talks — Lagos Join us on 17 Nov for another OKEx Talks, discussing the “Life of a Crypto Trader”.

Encrypted project calendar(November 18, 2019)

Maker (MKR): 18 November 2019 MCD Launch “BIG changes to terminology are coming with the launch of MCD on Nov. 18th Say hello to Vaults, Dai, and Sai.”

Encrypted project calendar(November 19, 2019)

Lisk (LSK): 19 November 2019 Lisk.js “We are excited to announce liskjs2019 will take place on November 19th. This all day blockchain event will include…”

Encrypted project calendar(November 20, 2019)

OKB (OKB): 20 November 2019 OKEx Cryptour Odessa Ukr “Join us in Odessa as we journey through Ukraine for our OKEx Cryptour!”

Encrypted project calendar(November 21, 2019)

Cardano (ADA): and 2 others 21 November 2019 Meetup Netherlands (AMS) “This meetup is all about how to decentralize a blockchain, the problems and differences between Proof-of-Work and Proof-of-Stake…” Cappasity (CAPP): 21 November 2019 Virtuality Paris 2019 “Cappasity to demonstrate its solution for the interactive shopping experience at Virtuality Paris 2019.” Horizen (ZEN): 21 November 2019 Weekly Insider Team updates at 3:30 PM UTC/ 11:30 AM EDT: Engineering, Node network, Product/UX, Helpdesk, Legal, BD, Marketing, CEO Closing thoughts, AMA. OKB (OKB): 21 November 2019 OKEx Talks — Johannesburg “Join us the largest city of South Africa — Johannesburg where we will host our OKEx Talks on the 21st Nov.” IOST (IOST): 22 November 2019 Singapore Workshop Join the Institute of Blockchain for their 2nd IOST technical workshop in Singapore on 22 Nov 2019. The workshop includes IOST’s key tech. OKB (OKB): 22 November 2019 St. Petersberg Talks “Join us in St. Petersberg on 22 Nov as we answer your questions on Crypto Security. “

Encrypted project calendar(November 22, 2019)

IOST (IOST): 22 November 2019 Singapore Workshop Join the Institute of Blockchain for their 2nd IOST technical workshop in Singapore on 22 Nov 2019. The workshop includes IOST’s key tech OKB (OKB): 22 November 2019 St. Petersberg Talks “Join us in St. Petersberg on 22 Nov as we answer your questions on Crypto Security. “

Telegram: https://t.me/Lay126
Twitter:https://twitter.com/mianhuai8
Facebook:https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100022246432745
Reddi:https://www.reddit.com/useliuidaxmn
LinkedIn:https://www.linkedin.com/in/liu-wei-294a12176/
submitted by liuidaxmn to u/liuidaxmn [link] [comments]

Craig Wright: The Real Satoshi Or The Real Scammer

Today we will focus on Craig Wright, the person who took the liberty to declare himself as true Satoshi Nakamoto and who tries to take all the credit of the creator of Bitcoin, the main cryptocurrency.
Bitcoin is considered to be one of the progressive forms of payments — absolutely transparent, distributed and resistant to external influence. Its creator must be at least a genius, and most importantly, a billionaire — because a significant amount of Bitcoins mined in the early stages of the project is concentrated in his hands. It is known that Satoshi Nakamoto retired from the project around 2010 and no one knows exactly who is he really is.
In December 2015, two American publications — Gizmodo and Wired — published huge investigations aimed at finding a man who has been hiding under the name of Satoshi Nakamoto since 2008. Clues led journalists to Craig Wright, a 45-year-old entrepreneur from Australia, which on many grounds could be reckoned as a true Satoshi. For example, there were publications about the ideas of a decentralized payment system similar to Bitcoin in Wright’s blog in 2008, a year before Satoshi Nakamoto himself created BTC. Another interesting fact is that in 2013 he invested more than one million BTC in the project to create his Bitcoin Bank — supposedly only the creator of Bitcoin could own such amount of coins.
In correspondence with the publications, Craig indirectly confirmed that he is Nakamoto. At the same time, in December, 2015, Wright said that he was not going to talk about himself publicly. But almost six months later Craig Wright appeared on the front pages. Unexpectedly for many, Craig decides to give an interview to the BBC and The Economist, in which once again, but already publicly assures that he is Satoshi Nakamoto. As the main proof, Wright provided a “cryptographic signature” from the private key used in the first Bitcoin transactions by Satoshi Nakamoto himself.
Since then, Dr. Wright did not give up his words and continued to tell everyone that he is Satoshi. Later Craig said that he would sue anyone who slanders him and generally denies his merits in the creation of Bitcoin.
And while he was just talking around declaring himself as the creator of BTC — all this was tolerated and ignored. But when Wright began to threaten all who disagreed with his lies, the crypto-community decided to teach him a lesson.
Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao wrote the following on his Twitter:
“Craig Wright is not Satoshi. Anymore of this sh!t, we delist!”
His example was followed by some other exchanges, like ShapeShift and Kraken, which also announced the delisting of BSV.
Blogger and ex-hacker Nik Cubrilovic and cybersecurity researcher Dan Kaminsky published their own investigations in which Wright is exposed as a great deceiver. Enthusiasts also investigated the activities of Wright and his companies. It turned out that the purpose of the existence of many of them was to draw tax refunds and the operation of other benefits that are provided to companies focused on research activities.
When an entrepreneur’s business started to decline and companies have earned an unpleasant reputation, Wright decides to appear before the public as Satoshi Nakamoto. According to Cubrilovic’s opinion, this could improve Craig’s affairs, attract new investments and add excitement since it is known that Nakamoto owns large amounts of Bitcoins.
Craig’s opponents also notice one detail: Satoshi Nakamoto would certainly stand on the side of the Bitcoin community that would like to leave the BTC system in its original form. However, in a conversation with The Economist Wright drew a different picture: if Bitcoin power can be repeatedly scaled, then it will be able to replace not only all banking systems but many others, becoming a truly mainstream currency.
In this case, the regulation and support of such cryptocurrency would have to be taken up by large organizations — from banks, already interested in using blockchain technology, to entire states. If this happens, Bitcoin will really replace conventional currency but will lose its independence — the main reason for its creation.
Here are some interesting facts about Craig Wright:
  1. In the early 1990s, worked as a sauce cook at a French restaurant.
  2. Wright filed about 114 Blockchain-related patents since 2017
  3. Craig Wright has his own companies, for example, the Tulip Trading company, which has been very successful in developing supercomputers, as well as DeMorgan Ltd and Panopticrypt Pty Ltd, engaged in various operations with cryptocurrencies. But Wright’s main project is, of course, his own Bitcoin SV (Satoshi Vision), which appeared as a result of the fork of Bitcoin Cash in November 2018. The fork’s reason was the dissatisfaction of developers and miners with a size of the blockchain that was originally written in code. Transactions were processed very slowly, so Bitcoin Cash ABC appeared, where the size was increased to 8 megabytes. But this was not enough for Craig Wright, and he initiated the second fork, setting the block size to 128 megabytes in the currency he was in charge of.
  4. In February 2018 Wright was sued by David Kleiman — a computer scientist and cyber-security expert suspected to be one of the developers behind the Bitcoin and the blockchain tech. Kleiman said that Wright stole between 550,000 and 1,100,000 BTC.
  5. In 2018, Craig Wright was sued, accusing him of forging contracts and signatures in order to assign Bitcoins in the amount of $5 billion.
  6. In October 2017, Cointelegraph published a list of the most influential individuals from the blockchain industry. Not finding his name in it, Craig Wright appealed to the media with a comment about their negative mood regarding his personality. At the same time in the Cointelegraph ranking was the name Satoshi Nakamoto. This situation was noted as Wright’s recognition that he is not the creator of Bitcoin.
  7. Craig is suspected of repeatedly conducting operations to cash large amounts of BTC. During one of the checks, he brought the family from his native Sydney and moved to London to continue working and creating his own business.
What do you think about Craig Wright? Write your opinion in the comments below!
Like and share this article if you find it useful. Want more interesting articles on the crypto world? Follow us on Medium,Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to get Stealthex.io updates and the latest news about the crypto world. For all requests message us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
submitted by Stealthex_io to btc [link] [comments]

Exposed: How Bankers are trying to centralize and highjack Bitcoin by buying "supporters" and promoters (like OpenBazaar team) for the B2X (S2X/NYA) attack on Bitcoin.

*Open Bazaar was crossed-out after their S2X support retraction, see edit at bottom.
These guys have deep pockets, but as you will see below, they are funded by even deeper pockets.
We can't leave this to chance or "the markets to decide" when there is such a malicious intent to manipulate the markets by those powerful players. So that's why all the people saying: "Don't worry, S2X won't happen" or "S2X is DOA" need to stop, we are at a 'make-or-break' moment for Bitcoin. It's very dumb to underestimate them. If you don't know yet who those malicious players are, read below:
We need to keep exposing them everywhere. Using Garzik as a pawn now, after they failed when they bought Hearn and Andresen (Here are the corrupted former 'good guys'), they are using the old and effective 'Problem-Reaction-Solution' combined with the 'Divide & Conquer' strategies to try to hijack Bitcoin. Well, effective before the current social media era, in which hidden motives can be brought to the light of day to be exposed.
Public pressure works when your profits depend on your reputation. The social media criticism worked for companies like Open Bazaar, which after weeks of calling them out on their S2X support, they finally withdrew it.
Please contact the companies on these lists if you have any type of relationship with them, we have just a few days left until the fork:
Regarding OpenBazaar:
* openbazaar (OB1) developer appears to be spreading pro s2x fud. someone needs to fork their project
* PSA : Open Bazaars latest investment round was for 200K from Barry Silberts DCG (Digital Currency Group)
(See edit at the bottom)
B2X (S2X/NYA) is nothing more than an open attack on Bitcoin, not an "upgrade" as they want to sell it. This attack has no 'consensus', at all. It was "agreed" by a bunch of miners and corporations behind closed doors, with no community nor developers support. Only miners and a few millionaires that stand to profit from the B2X attack support it. The vast majority of the Bitcoin community is totally against this attack on Bitcoin. Most of those companies are under DCG group:
Every bitcoiner should know about what DCG (Digital Currency Group) is, and call out publicly these crooks and the people they bribed that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin:
Brian Armstrong, Winklevoss brothers, Bobby Lee, Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team)(see edit at the bottom), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins (Federal Reserve Board of Directors), Bill Barhydt and Jiang Zhuoer.
Once people are informed, they won't be fooled (like all the poor guys at btc) and will follow Bitcoin instead of the S2X or Bcash or any other centralized altcoin they come up with disguised as Bitcoin.
DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Blythe Masters:
Former executive at JPMorgan Chase.[1] She is currently the CEO of Digital Asset Holdings,[2] a financial technology firm developing distributed ledger technology for wholesale financial services.[3] Masters is widely credited as the creator of the credit default swap as a financial instrument. She is also Chairman of the Governing Board of the Linux Foundation’s open source Hyperledger Project, member of the International Advisory Board of Santander Group, and Advisory Board Member of the US Chamber of Digital Commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Masters
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
  1. MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
  2. Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistant in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
And before you dismiss all those hard and documented facts as just a 'conspiracy theory', think about this:
Of course, who thought that the ones holding the centralized financial power today (famous for back-door shady plots to consolidate even more power and control), would sit on their hands and let Bitcoin just stroll in and easily take that power away from them?
So, it is not a crazy conspiracy theory, but more like the logical and expected thing to happen. Don't let it happen.
Edit: Formatting.
Edit 2: Brian Armstrong taken out of the 'bad guys' list.
Edit 3: Welp, Brian Armstrong back on the blacklist for this flip-flop. And added Winklevoss Brothers for this, and Bobby Lee for this.
Edit 4: Due to Brian Hoffman just issuing this excellent and explicit S2X/NYA support retraction, I created this post to apologize for my previous posts (calling them out for the S2X support) and I will be editing my posts to reflect this positive change. I'm gladly back to being a supporter of the great and promising project that OpenBazaar has proven to be.
Edit 5: Added Blythe Masters (How could we leave her out?).
Edit 6: Added links to lists of companies supporting S2X/NYA.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Elliott Wave analyst's thoughts on Bitcoin

(NB: typos mine; crappy OCR software. If anyone wants to see the Eliott Wave he's discussing and I'll make it available.)
Bitcoin Bubble or Bitcoin Breakthrough? How about both?
by Elliott Prechter
December 20, 2013 in the Elliott Wave Theorist
EWT discussed Bitcoin for the first time in August 2010, when the currency traded at six cents. As far as we know, EWI was the first financial publisher to discuss it. Bitcoin was unknown to the general public and off private investors’ radar. Even the earliest adopters did not take it as seriously as they should have. The most notable example of this is the man who paid 10,000 BTC for a pizza. This pizza purchase is now famous (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=l37.0), and many continue to track its price in USD terms via the “Bitcoin Pizza Index," which recently hit an all-time high of over S12 million.
Fast forward to today, and the currency is regularly featured in financial news and social media. Bitcoin Magazine has become popular, Congress is holding hearings on the currency, Germany has defined its role in finance, China is ruling on its legality, and the business world is adopting it. The most prominent business to embrace Bitcoin is Virgin Galactic, one of the many creations of billionaire Richard Branson (http://www.cnbc.com/id/101220710).
EWT readers were prepared for all this. When Bitcoin was still in the shadows, the August 2012 issue said,
Presuming bitcoin succeeds as the world’s best currency-and I believe it will-it should rise many more multiples in value over the years. -EWT, August 2012
The big question on the minds of investors is not what Bitcoin has achieved, but should they buy Bitcoins now? It’s amusing that so many people ignored Bitcoin upon hearing about it in 20 1 0, but now that its price has gone up 20,000 times, they want to invest. Notwithstanding the currency’s potential, this shift in attitude is a signal saying now is not the time to buy. Let’s look at four areas of evidence:
1) Optimism is off the charts. Past issues of The Elliott Wave Financial Forecast discussed people selling their homes and borrowing money to invest in Bitcoins. That was near the peak of wave Now the desire to buy has grown even more extreme. Bloggers are calling for Bitcoin to reach S1 million. . .soon. One young investor borrowed a million dollars from his father and without his knowledge invested it in Bitcoin (https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=359228.0). The other day I walked into a convenience store wearing a Bitcoin T-shirt, and the owner asked me if he should invest now. I felt like I was living in 1929.
2) Investors have recently been rushing to buy a rash of 95 (at last count; see https://bitcointalk. org/index.php?topic=l34179.0) new clones of Bitcoin that have recently emerged: Litecoin, Namecoin, Zerocoin, BBQCoin, PPcoin, PrimeCoin, NovaCoin, FeatherCoin, TerraCoin, Devcoin, Megacoin, Mincoin, DigitalCoin, Anoncoin, Worldcoin, Freicoin, IxCoin... and more. (That they are clones is obvious from the lack of imagination in naming.) This rush of clones is reminiscent of the South Sea bubble of 1720 and the dot-com mania of 1999, when shares of zero-profit, copycat companies (and even fake ones) sold like hotcakes. Virtually every week now, the Bitcoin code is forked into a new coin that investors bid up. lt’s as if buyers feel the world will run out of cryptocurrency, which in fact is infinitely and freely duplicable.
3) The Elliott wave pattern from Bitcoin’s inception shows five waves up. The December ll Short Term Update noted that a major top was potentially in place: The peak [in Bitcoin] came 10 days after U.S. officials, ranging from an assistant attorney general with the Department of Justice to Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke, “spoke approvingly of the potential of virtual currencies." So, here again, the government is getting on board at the very tail end ofa long rise. Since we posted that comment, Bitcoin has fallen an additional 40%, bringing it down nearly 60% from its all-time high.
Will this prove to be just another brief, sharp correction or something larger? Take a look at the completed impulse pattern shown in Figure 3. The structure begins very near the inception of the currency three-plus years ago, when it was selling for a penny. Notice that wave @ is a triangle (see text, p.49), which typically comes in the fourth-wave position. Wave a thrust, carried to the all-time high of S 1242 on November 29. The reversal from that point should mark the start of the largest bear market to date in the currency. This forecast is in tune with the anticipated bear market in the broader stock averages, which have strongly correlated with Bitcoin’s pattern.
The chart is in log scale to show the returns one would have achieved in each impulse leg of the pattern. Wave Q) achieved a stunning 3 19ox gain. Wave ® achieved 59.3% (a Fibonacci 3/5) of the gain of wave Q). Wave ® (measured from the low of wave @) achieved 39.3% (a Fibonacci 2/5) of the gain of wave (D and 66.3% (a Fibonacci 2/3) of the gain of wave Therefore, while each upward move has been large, each successive wave has been decelerating in log terms relative to past waves, in each case by a Fibonacci multiple. Also notice that Bitcoin trades more like a commodity than a stock, with its blow-off tops and extended fifih waves. Most of the gain since early 20 12 has been within (5) of ® and the final wave all of which is probable retracement territory.
4) Most people involved in this mania seem oblivious to Bitcoin’s fundamentals. In my experience, raising these issues publicly earns scorn for spreading “FUD.” But there is a good reason-now widely ignored-that Bitcoin is beta software. Our August 2010 piece explained how Bitcoin operates, but it’s worth revisiting some details to understand just how out-of-touch investor expectations are with the reality of Bitcoin technology. Specifically, let's examine the limitations of Bitcoin’s blockchain.
The blockchain is the heart of Bitcoin. In its simplest form, the blockchain is a public ledger of all transactions that happen in the Bitcoin network. Each block is composed of individual records that track the ownership of each coin. The transactions “fit” together cryptographically. A block is created about once every 10 minutes by the network. Each block is then cryptographically linked to the previous blocks in the chain, forming a history of all transactions that-to Bitcoin’s credit-cannot be forged. To the extent that Bitcoin currency is real, it could be said that the blockchain is the Bitcoin currency.
Yet the core problem with the blockchain is that it grows over time and must be shared by every fiill Bitcoin node. Today it is nearing 13 GB in size. Now, 13 GB doesn't sound too large, but at the current rates of exponential growth the blockchain is projected to become over a terabyte in size in just three years. What's more, the amount of accompanying data required to handle just a fraction of Visa-level traffic would overwhelm even the fastest Internet connections. This technical hurdle makes the “Bitcoin is going to a million” commentary seem premature.
The hope for Bitcoin’s future lies in its open-source nature, allowing it to be improved, and Moore’s Law. Moore’s Law is colloquially used to signify the exponential increases in computer-hardware efficiency over time, including network capacity. But Moore’s law-which calls for a doubling of computer speed every two years-has hit a snag in recent years: the rate of improvement in performance has dramatically slowed, causing many experts to call for the end of the operation of Moore’s law. (For the record, Moore’s Law was never intended to refer to computer hardware performance, but the media have confused the term to the point where it is now generally used in this context. Originally, it was intended to refer to the increase in the number of transistors that are packed into microchips.)
The past four years have been an exciting ride for Bitcoin. But the evidence says the Bitcoin bull market is done for now. It would be best to put Bitcoin out of your mind for the duration of the deflationary wave that is curling toward the financial world. Due to the psychology surrounding Bitcoin, as well as its correlation with the stock indices, it is too risky to buy now. Due to its open-source nature, however, Bitcoin’s infrastructure should continue to improve over the years.
For the long run, I agree with Roger Ver, the CEO of memory dealers and one of Bitcoin’s earliest adopters, who recently said, “It is just getting started." But one could have said that about the U.S. stock market in 1966. It would have been visionary only if you were patient and willing to hold through a very deep valley. Our position is that Bitcoin will never again sell for 6 cents, as it did when EWT first wrote it up. But there will be another time to buy it for relative peanuts alongside stocks, real-estate, gold and silver. When the time comes, no one will be interested.
Elliott Prechter's primary task at EWI is working on EWA VES, our in-house artificial intelligence softwarefor analyzing Elliott waves.
submitted by Indy_Pendant to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitstocks’ Michael Hudson on Bitcoin as Timechain, BitcoinSV-Banking and Financial Sovereignty Δημιουργία λογαριασμού bitcoin (wallet) Bitcoin Block Size: Larger or smaller blocks? Peter Rizun: A Bitcoin Fee Market Without A Blocksize Limit (Episode 172) CoinDesk's Most Influential in Blockchain 2017 - Erik Voorhees

Economist Jeffrey Tucker sparked a debate with prominent crypto leaders when he argued the BTC price is depressed because it hasn’t scaled. American Institute for Economic Research editorial director Jeffrey Tucker reignited the long-running Bitcoin scaling debate with a tweet earlier today. Blockchain market size ; Blockchain companies; Blockchain, the underlying technology of bitcoin, was once just a buzzword but is now an irreversible trend that has the potential to reshape human society. 1. What is blockchain? There is no consensus on the definition of blockchain. Technically speaking, blockchain is an ever-growing append-only chain of blocks, where blocks are chained together ... For example, a blockchain such as the Bitcoin one can be used to cheaply verify ownership and exchanges of its native digital asset. While this technically allows anyone to send and receive bitcoin globally without using an intermediary or being censored, actually being able to spend bitcoin to buy goods and services offline still runs into last mile issues. Hence, while Bitcoin has been used ... (Investopedia, Bitcoin.org, The Economist) Blockchain serves as the public transaction ledger for the first and best-known cryptocurrency, Bitcoin. Satoshi conceived a peer-verified electronic cash that would allow monetary transactions to be performed directly between two parties without the need of intermediaries such as banks . The blockchain itself is actually a list of records, or blocks ... In 2015, Ingo was worldwide the first economist to offer a Master seminar on cryptocurrencies. Ingo regularly adds to the public knowledge on his main research topics – gambling and blockchain – by commenting in various media outlets and by consulting key policy stakeholders.

[index] [27589] [26699] [15008] [7399] [39928] [1442] [10206] [13094] [16236] [40191]

Bitstocks’ Michael Hudson on Bitcoin as Timechain, BitcoinSV-Banking and Financial Sovereignty

Michael Hudson (Bitstocks CEO-Founder) talks to BSV Channel’s Shem Booth-Spain about the playground lessons that lead him to Bitcoin, his motivation for founding his Bitcoin investing company ... The Economist's Matthew Bishop interviews Michael Casey and Paul Vigna, authors of "The Age of Cryptocurrency," in the Memorial Church of Harvard during the On Cue 2015 conference, June 16, 2005. The capacity of the bitcoin network is limited by a hard-coded limit inside its protocol. As technology advances, this limit becomes increasingly absurd. When will it be updated to be more ... 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 ... Co-hosts are Spanish economist Felix Moreno and Coindesk/Cointelegraph journalist Aaron van Wirdum. We talk about the block size, the past expenses of the Bitcoin Foundation, how to market Bitcoin ...

#