What is Bitcoin SegWit [Segregated Witness] BTC Coins ...
The Risks of Segregated Witness: Problems ... - Bitcoin FYI
Segregated Witness – Keeping Stock
Inside Bitcoin: Segregated Witness (SegWit). Part 8B - The ...
UASF - 3 Year Anniversary - Look back
(This is how I look at it, specifics may be a little paraphrased) User Activated Soft Fork What was it An alternative to scaling the block size limit (and thus altering bitcoins original protocol design parameters). This alternative would permit more transactions without the need to adjust the core protocol. How did it come about? Amidst ongoing scaling concerns, we saw many people proposing that bitcoin cannot scale and requires bigger blocks than 1MB, so it can cater to larger amounts of network activity. Proposals for combinations between UASF (Activating Segregated Witness) and blocksize increase as a compromise, blocksize increase, or no two either and just a technical solution that doesn’t compromise the base layer. Why it is important to understand Bitcoin is money to some, it’s income to others, but as a technology it solves one single problem. Digital scarcity. In order for anything in this world or universe to be deemed scarce, we must be able to prove it’s defensibility. Against being reproduced, copied, weather storms if it’s raw materials, or be resilient against robbery at a larger scale (like wars between governments over natural resources). ELI5 If you teleport back to cave man days, and consider a cave man with a gold bar and a plank of wood. He takes them to the market to trade for food. 1 gold bar or 1 plank of wood can purchase a steak. Now he returns back to his cave and has his wood and gold by the entrance. A storm comes, and it blows and rains, and bashes his stockpile to pieces. Noticing the changes to his stock, his wood is brittle and diminished from the weather, but his gold has dirt on it, although still in tact. Knowing this, he now elects to spend his wood at the market instead of gold. His gold weathered the storm. UASF was a defining moment in weathering the storm, and that’s why bitcoin reigns supreme as the crowned heavyweight champion for the Duration Of Immutability title. Whatever happens moving forward, no matter how your relationship goes with bitcoin, remember that it’s super power may appear boring, but it is the long play. Generational play. It’s immutability is impossible to catch, the longer it goes, and the longer it goes, the stronger that conviction behind it being truly immutable is. That’s my take on UASF, and it was eye popping once the penny dropped for me (h/t to Neil & Richard). Do not dismiss immutability, ever. It’s the superpower because it requires the single thing that can’t be bought, time. Felt this was an analogy that broke the ice to learn more, hope it is helpful to even just one person. Considering how gentlemen this still is all these years later, hodl. Long live 👑🌽 👏 DURATION 👏 OF 👏 IMMUTABILITY 👏
Bitcoin mining may be a senseless waste of energy. As bitcoin hits mainstream media, the subject of bitcoin mining bubble regarding to pop.For ten years, the media has enjoyed painting bitcoin as a bubble concerning to pop. They’ve gleefully pronounced the bubble popped and bitcoin dead … over 350 times. However the reality regarding bitcoin is that it keeps coming back back. Why? Charlie Munger called bitcoin “worthless artificial gold.” Others in the media have likened bitcoin to a bubble, a “tulip mania,” and different strong statements Each time bitcoin improves itself (like with Segwit Segregated Witnesses. A protocol implemented by Bitcoin to extend transaction speed. SegWit allows a lot of transactions to be written into a single block on a blockchain. or the Lightning Network), or will increase in value, the media is keen and ready to jump on it, decrying and denouncing it. Therefore what’s the reality behind bitcoin’s price -- is it extremely a bubble? The reality regarding bitcoin is straightforward; it's experiencing the same rise and fall cycles as each new technology and asset catego The web also experienced a bubble. Shares of dotcom firms rose by a thousandpercent on a daily basis. Then it all tumbled down. However we have a tendency to’re still using the web, aren’t we have a tendency to? More than ever, in fact. Stocks conjointly experienced big boom and bust cycles, especially in their early days. We might feel like stocks have been around forever -- and to us they need. However stocks conjointly had a starting, and a rough one too. Once upon a time in 1531, when the first stocks were invented, they saw extraordinary volatility, scams, and no regulation. In fact, before stock exchanges, they were sold at occasional shops -- just like cryptocurrencies were sold on la peer to peer marketplace, before exchanges came online. Even property, viewed by the majority as “the safest investment” experienced a dramatic cycle. Business Insider reported that “Between 2006 and 2014, nearly ten million homeowners in America saw the foreclosure sale of their own homes.” And tens of thousands became homeless as a result of of it. Nevertheless --- we have a tendency to’re still living in homes, aren’t we? The future of bitcoin would possibly be the identical as that of stocks, bonds, assets, and the web. It rises and falls like all the others, and it is currently terribly volatile -- but that’s as a result of it’s young. Stocks have been around for 400 years. Dotcom corporations for forty years. Bitcoin is solely 10 years previous -- and cryptocurrencies, normally, are even younger. But slowly, they will become a part of our daily lives. Rich investors are manipulating costs! Look at this headline from the Independent: “Bitcoin price Crash: 'Manipulative Whales Whale A very wealthy individual capable of creating massive trades. View full glossary ' cause Cryptocurrency Market Meltdown!” It’s sensationalism, pure and straightforward. The article goes on to rant against these therefore-known as “whales” -- individuals who own voluminous dollars of BTC -- as evil-doers who’s solely thought is profit. This type of sensationalism is meant to harm Bitcoin’s future; to scare people faraway from doing research and thinking for themselves. Nonetheless, this statement is somewhat true. Up to eighty five% of Bitcoin’s supply is solely owned by onepercent of wallet addresses. But there’s an important point to be made about these numbers. Most of the prime percentage of wallets is not owned by whales -- but by exchanges Exchange On-line platforms on which people can buy and sell cryptocurrencies. View full glossary . However their result is getting smaller and smaller. A company referred to as Chainalysis -- that makes a speciality of analyzing the Bitcoin blockchain -- found that “the actual threat that all whales pose to the cryptocurrency economy is relatively low. If they sold off their entire holdings, it'd be effectively a $3.9 billion sale at current costs. That’s not even tenpercent of this total market capitalization of Bitcoin.” This is as a result of, as I hinted above, several of those wallets holding such vast sums are the ‘cold wallets ’ (wallets held offline) belonging to major exchanges like Coinbase, Kraken, Binance, and more. These wallets cannot be used to manipulate the price, diminishing the potential impact of enormous ‘whales’ selling their positions. Bitcoin is simply too slow for use as a currency. The reality regarding Bitcoin is that yes, it's slower than VISA, Mastercard, and alternative centralized electronic payment systems. Paying together with your credit cards takes seconds and the network can handle payments around the globe twenty fouseven. But, though Bitcoin can additionally be used around the world, confirmation of payment takes an average of 10 minutes; during the bitcoin craze recently 2017, confirmation times might take hours. Moreover, VISA on average processes around 2,00zero transactions per second (tps). This means the amount of payments individuals make per second on the network. VISA includes a maximum of twenty four,00zero TPS. Bitcoin, by distinction, has a maximum of ten TPS. This argument has been place forward by several critics over the years and picked up by the media as the doom of bitcoin’s future. However Bitcoin could be a technology that evolves. Now let’s assume regarding Bitcoin’s past for a moment. The coin and its underlying technology -- the blockchain -- are only ten years previous. When the web was ten years old -- the year was 1989. Do you keep in mind the net in 1989? I sure do. payments in exchange for not revealing sensitive info. So, in bound ways that, BTC and cryptocurrencies offer hackers a lot of options. However money continues to be king for every criminality. Though it’s true that hackers and phishers do typically ask for payment in BTC There’s an aphorism: “money talks.” It means that that if you would like to get something done -- the best argument you can build is to place down a stack of money. When Bitcoin rose to fame, the primary headlines focused around Bitcoin being the prime choice for criminality. But Lilita Infante, Special Agent for the DEA (Drug Enforcement Administration) has some contradictory info regarding this. She was one among a ten-person Cyber Investigative Task Force team whose primary aim was the dark web and crypto-related investigations. This cluster is no little force. They collaborate with the Department of Justice, FBI, and also the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. And she went on the record to talk regarding what share of bitcoin transactions are literally being employed for illegal things; she said that “illegal activity has shrunk to about 10 p.c.” Only tenp.c of all the transactions on the Bitcoin network could be used for illegal things. Which number is falling. The fall in Bitcoin’s use among criminals is due to several factors. The most prominent factor is that Bitcoin is no longer anonymous. Sciencemag wrote a full report on how governments are developing and using techniques to explore the Bitcoin blockchain and notice criminals by tracing their bitcoin payments. Paying with bitcoin isn’t simple. I’ve heard this argument flow into widely throughout the years. I still hear it from my grandpa each vacation dinner. He didn’t see a Bitcoin checkout option at the grocery when he bought the turkey -- therefore it’ll never be used. Perhaps Bitcoin is on its means to being such a store of worth. For 10 years now bitcoin has been ready to be saved and retrieved and exchanged -- and it’s worth has only gone up (bumpy but up). Need to get more cryptocurrencies? Check out our top 5 cryptocurrencies to shop for, whether you’re a beginner or an experienced investor! Bitcoin is difficult to use. Bitcoin, like all new technologies, isn't the most user-friendly. You would like to line up a wallet, bear in mind a seed phrase, and several additional steps. Sending and receiving BTC payments additionally involves steps of copy/pasting long strings of random letters and numbers. It’s powerful, I hear ya. I additionally keep in mind all the steps I needed to require to send emails back when those were new. Insert a CD from AOL into my computer. Install AOL. Unplug my phone line. Plug in my Modem. Wait for it to make all those noises and finally connect. Then set up my AOL email and password. It was quite the method. My grandfather never thought emails would come out and even my mother said folks would perpetually like handwriting letters (and using a physical dictionary for spell check!) and sending through the post. Think about it the approach we tend to assume about gold. Not everyone has gold. It’s also a bit difficult to own. If you wish to own gold for its ‘store of price’ properties, you wish to seek out a specialized look to buy investment gold. You need to store it somewhere, sort of a personal safe or a bank vault, and bear in mind the password. This is somewhat troublesome. https://preview.redd.it/k0x3jqsm8df51.jpg?width=770&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ff7c2f29881c28fb22c9828c497cc1981eea2919 Perhaps Bitcoin’s problem will facilitate it retain its value, just like gold You Might Conjointly Like: The 5 est Bitcoin Sports Betting Sites https://www.cryptoerapro.com/bitcoin-future/
03-27 13:34 - 'AiOption (AiOption) receives tens of millions of dollars in financing to help the blockchain empower the financial industry' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/jackzhang0 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 3-13min
''' In 2020, due to the dual impact of the coronary pneumonia epidemic and the plunge of US oil stocks, the economic situation in the Asia-Pacific region is very grim. Within a week, U.S. stocks melted twice, and crypto digital assets such as Bitcoin plummeted. This seems to indicate that the direction of global financial markets in 2020 will be extremely unstable. In this situation, traditional financial investment methods are not the most valuable means of financial management. AiOption Blockchain Binary Options Platform provides a new direction for financial investment, predicting the rise and fall of encrypted digital assets such as Bitcoin in a fixed period of time to obtain income. Recently, AiOption, a professional blockchain binary options platform, announced that it has received tens of millions of dollars in financing. This round of financing was led by the Japanese consortium and the Thai royal family. This round of financing is an important milestone in the continuous increase of market competitiveness. At the same time, AiOption has become the largest platform in China to provide blockchain binary options transactions. [link]1 This round of financing will help the platform to further strengthen the innovation and research and development of original key core technologies, consolidate the company's leading edge in the binary options industry of the blockchain, and help the company continue to expand more application scenarios and accelerate the blockchain's empowerment of the financial industry. In order to further improve the product experience, we will also introduce local special versions based on user habits in different countries and regions. As soon as it entered the promotion in the Asia-Pacific region in 2020, there were more than 100,000 registered users in the first week, achieving very good results. The platform will also launch more promotion activities in combination with local characteristics. The top investment groups such as the Thai Royal Family and the Japanese Consortium gave AiOption a high rating. It is indeed a black technology star product known as Israeli fintech innovation. AiOption (AiOption) is a professional crypto asset options trading platform with a solid foundation of blockchain technology. It has achieved significant R & D results in distributed network and blockchain security. It has worked closely with more than 8 countries to provide a very simple way to predict the price fluctuations of encrypted digital assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. The platform collects price data of multiple trading symbols from multiple selected trusted data sources (such as Binance, coinbase, bittrex, huobi, and some other well-known global exchanges) to merge together, and uses intelligent algorithms to identify and Filter abnormal price data and calculate the final price index for a single coin. Use more innovative and fair ways for players to predict the price of crypto digital assets such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. [link]2 Safe, efficient, and high-performance systems AiOption has top risk control, anti-fraud and segregated witness technologies, comprehensively formulates a security policy system, multi-level risk identification control, and multiple security defense methods. The high-frequency transaction matching engine steadily supports large amounts of data, high performance, and high concurrency. It adopts a distributed architecture, and the market and deep data come online at a fast speed. The front-end adopts a firewall anti-attack mechanism and the back-end adopts a hidden and discrete deployment. AiOption's binary options trading system is equipped with flexible and convenient trading modes and an extremely secure system to ensure the safety of user assets. Fair and simple, simple and convenient transaction model On a general options platform, the bet price is real-time Bitcoin price and can be easily manipulated by the platform. When the player wagers the Bitcoin price on the platform, the wager price is the initial Bitcoin price for each round of the game, and manipulation is not allowed! Ensure fair and fair transactions, convenient user transactions, and easy to master gameplay.
The operation is simple. You only need to judge the rise and fall of encrypted digital assets after 90 seconds.
The rate of return is fast, and the single-round profit can be settled in 90 seconds.
Transaction time is unlimited, 90 seconds matching, non-stop trading 7 days and 24 hours.
There is no handling fee, and no dealer control disk.
At the same time, the platform has a unique function of depositing money and managing money. By depositing a certain amount of USDT, excellent players and excellent teams can obtain fixed high returns, with a maximum return of four times! For many years, AIoption has always adhered to the concept of blockchain technology to empower the financial industry, and has concentrated on polishing products and application scenarios. The top-level blockchain team has achieved certain results in the blockchain and financial fields. Through this financing, we will continue to focus on the development of blockchain technology and continue to develop in the large field of blockchain binary options services. AiOption's vision is to promote the development of blockchain binary options services, provide customers with better services, and continue to maintain its leading position in the domestic blockchain binary options industry. ''' AiOption (AiOption) receives tens of millions of dollars in financing to help the blockchain empower the financial industry Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: jackzhang0 1: pr*vi*w.redd.i*/0*i**tuut7p41.png*w***h=6*8&*mp;for*at*png&****=web*&*s*9387b*0a4b5b1*b8*165*517*9*5*bdb*a5e1a*b 2: preview.redd.it*vgy*zpd4u*p41*pn***i**h=769&format=pn*&am*;***o=w*bp&***;s=b69***7339239*967622***bccea*c5*07b*55** Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
The Great Bitcoin Bull Market Of 2017 by Trace Mayer
By: Trace Mayer, host of The Bitcoin Knowledge Podcast. Originally posted here with images and Youtube videos. I just got back from a two week vacation without Internet as I was scouring some archeological ruins. I hardly thought about Bitcoin at all because there were so many other interesting things and it would be there when I got back. Jimmy Song suggested I do an article on the current state of Bitcoin. A great suggestion but he is really smart (he worked on Armory after all!) so I better be thorough and accurate! Therefore, this article will be pretty lengthy and meticulous. BACKGROUND As I completely expected, the 2X movement from the New York Agreement that was supposed to happen during the middle of my vacation flopped on its face because Jeff Garzik was driving the clown car with passengers willfully inside like Coinbase, Blockchain.info, Bitgo and Xapo and there were here massive bugS and in the code and miners like Bitmain did not want to allocate $150-350m to get it over the difficulty adjustments. I am very disappointed in their lack of integrity with putting their money where their mouths are; myself and many others wanted to sell a lot of B2X for BTC! On 7 December 2015, with Bitcoin trading at US$388.40, I wrote The Rise of the Fourth Great Bitcoin Bubble. On 4 December 2016, with Bitcoin trading at US$762.97, I did this interview:
As of 26 November 2017, Bitcoin is trading around US$9,250.00. That is an increase of about 2,400% since I wrote the article prognosticating this fourth great Bitcoin bull market. I sure like being right, like usual (19 Dec 2011, 1 Jul 2013), especially when there are financial and economic consequences. With such massive gains in such a short period of time the speculative question becomes: Buy, Hold or Sell? FUNDAMENTALS Bitcoin is the decentralized censorship-resistant Internet Protocol for transferring value over a communications channel. The Bitcoin network can use traditional Internet infrastructure. However, it is even more resilient because it has custom infrastructure including, thanks to Bitcoin Core developer Matt Corrallo, the FIBRE network and, thanks to Blockstream, satellites which reduce the cost of running a full-node anywhere in the world to essentially nothing in terms of money or privacy. Transactions can be cheaply broadcast via SMS messages. SECURITY The Bitcoin network has a difficulty of 1,347,001,430,559 which suggests about 9,642,211 TH/s of custom ASIC hardware deployed. At a retail price of approximately US$105/THs that implies about $650m of custom ASIC hardware deployed (35% discount applied). This custom hardware consumes approximately 30 TWh per year. That could power about 2.8m US households or the entire country of Morocco which has a population of 33.85m. This Bitcoin mining generates approximately 12.5 bitcoins every 10 minutes or approximately 1,800 per day worth approximately US$16,650,000. Bitcoin currently has a market capitalization greater than $150B which puts it solidly in the top-30 of M1 money stock countries and a 200 day moving average of about $65B which is increasing about $500m per day. Average daily volumes for Bitcoin is around US$5B. That means multi-million dollar positions can be moved into and out of very easily with minimal slippage. When my friend Andreas Antonopolous was unable to give his talk at a CRYPSA event I was invited to fill in and delivered this presentation, impromptu, on the Seven Network Effects of Bitcoin. These seven network effects of Bitcoin are (1) Speculation, (2) Merchants, (3) Consumers, (4) Security [miners], (5) Developers, (6) Financialization and (7) Settlement Currency are all taking root at the same time and in an incredibly intertwined way. With only the first network effect starting to take significant root; Bitcoin is no longer a little experiment of magic Internet money anymore. Bitcoin is monster growing at a tremendous rate!!
SPECULATION For the Bitcoin price to remain at $9,250 it requires approximately US$16,650,000 per day of capital inflow from new hodlers. Bitcoin is both a Giffen good and a Veblen good. A Giffen good is a product that people consume more of as the price rises and vice versa — seemingly in violation of basic laws of demand in microeconomics such as with substitute goods and the income effect. Veblen goods are types of luxury goods for which the quantity demanded increases as the price increases in an apparent contradiction of the law of demand. There are approximately 16.5m bitcoins of which ~4m are lost, ~4-6m are in deep cold storage, ~4m are in cold storage and ~2-4m are salable. (http://www.runtogold.com/images/lost-bitcoins-1.jpg) (http://www.runtogold.com/images/lost-bitcoins-2.jpg) And forks like BCash (BCH) should not be scary but instead be looked upon as an opportunity to take more territory on the Bitcoin blockchain by trading the forks for real bitcoins which dries up more salable supply by moving it, likely, into deep cold storage. According to Wikipedia, there are approximately 15.4m millionaires in the United States and about 12m HNWIs ($30m+ net worth) in the world. In other words, if every HNWI in the world wanted to own an entire bitcoin as a 'risk-free asset' that cannot be confiscated, seized or have the balance other wise altered then they could not. For wise portfolio management, these HNWIs should have at least about 2-5% in gold and 0.5-1% in bitcoin. Why? Perhaps some of the 60+ Saudis with 1,700 frozen bank accounts and about $800B of assets being targetted might be able to explain it to you. In other words, everyone loves to chase the rabbit and once they catch it then know that it will not get away. RETAIL There are approximately 150+ significant Bitcoin exchanges worldwide. Kraken, according to the CEO, was adding about 6,000 new funded accounts per day in July 2017. Supposedly, Coinbase is currently adding about 75,000 new accounts per day. Based on some trade secret analytics I have access to; I would estimate Coinbase is adding approximately 17,500 new accounts per day that purchase at least US$100 of Bitcoin. If we assume Coinbase accounts for 8% of new global Bitcoin users who purchase at least $100 of bitcoins (just pulled out of thin error and likely very conservative as the actual number is perhaps around 2%) then that is approximately $21,875,000 of new capital coming into Bitcoin every single day just from retail demand from 218,750 total new accounts. What I have found is that most new users start off buying US$100-500 and then after 3-4 months months they ramp up their capital allocation to $5,000+ if they have the funds available. After all, it takes some time and practical experience to learn how to safely secure one's private keys. To do so, I highly recommendBitcoin Core (network consensus and full validation of the blockchain), Armory (private key management), Glacier Protocol (operational procedures) and a Puri.sm laptop (secure non-specialized hardware). WALL STREET There has been no solution for large financial fiduciaries to invest in Bitcoin. This changed November 2017. LedgerX, whose CEO I interviewed 23 March 2013, began trading as a CFTC regulated Swap Execution Facility and Derivatives Clearing Organization. The CME Group announced they will begin trading in Q4 2017 Bitcoin futures. The CBOE announced they will begin trading Bitcoin futures soon. By analogy, these institutional products are like connecting a major metropolis's water system (US$90.4T and US$2 quadrillion) via a nanoscopic shunt to a tiny blueberry ($150B) that is infinitely expandable. This price discovery could be the most wild thing anyone has ever experienced in financial markets. THE GREAT CREDIT CONTRACTION The same week Bitcoin was released I published my book The Great Credit Contraction and asserted it had now begun and capital would burrow down the liquidity pyramid into safer and more liquid assets. (http://www.runtogold.com/images/Great-Credit-Contraction-Liquidity-Pyramid.jpg) Thus, the critical question becomes: Is Bitcoin a possible solution to the Great Credit Contraction by becoming the safest and most liquid asset? BITCOIN'S RISK PROFILE At all times and in all circumstances gold remains money but, of course, there is always exchange rate risk due to price ratios constantly fluctuating. If the metal is held with a third-party in allocated-allocated storage (safest possible) then there is performance risk (Morgan Stanley gold storage lawsuit). But, if properly held then, there should be no counter-party risk which requires the financial ability of a third-party to perform like with a bank account deposit. And, since gold exists at a single point in space and time therefore it is subject to confiscation or seizure risk. Bitcoin is a completely new asset type. As such, the storage container is nearly empty with only $150B. And every Bitcoin transaction effectively melts down every BTC and recasts it; thus ensuring with 100% accuracy the quantity and quality of the bitcoins. If the transaction is not on the blockchain then it did not happen. This is the strictest regulation possible; by math and cryptography! This new immutable asset, if properly secured, is subject only to exchange rate risk. There does exist the possibility that a software bug may exist that could shut down the network, like what has happened with Ethereum, but the probability is almost nil and getting lower everyday it does not happen. Thus, Bitcoin arguably has a lower risk profile than even gold and is the only blockchain to achieve security, scalability and liquidity. To remain decentralized, censorship-resistant and immutable requires scalability so as many users as possible can run full-nodes. (http://www.runtogold.com/images/ethereum-bitcoin-scability-nov-2017.png) TRANSACTIONS Some people, probably mostly those shilling alt-coins, think Bitcoin has a scalability problem that is so serious it requires a crude hard fork to solve. On the other side of the debate, the Internet protocol and blockchain geniuses assert the scalability issues can, like other Internet Protocols have done, be solved in different layers which are now possible because of Segregated Witness which was activated in August 2017. Whose code do you want to run: the JV benchwarmers or the championship Chicago Bulls? As transaction fees rise, certain use cases of the Bitcoin blockchain are priced out of the market. And as the fees fall then they are economical again. Additionally, as transaction fees rise, certain UTXOs are no longer economically usable thus destroying part of the money supply until fees decline and UTXOs become economical to move. There are approximately 275,000-350,000 transactions per day with transaction fees currently about $2m/day and the 200 DMA is around $1.08m/day. (http://www.runtogold.com/images/bitcoin-transaction-fees-nov-2017.png) What I like about transaction fees is that they somewhat reveal the financial health of the network. The security of the Bitcoin network results from the miners creating solutions to proof of work problems in the Bitcoin protocol and being rewarded from the (1) coinbase reward which is a form of inflation and (2) transaction fees which is a form of usage fee. The higher the transaction fees then the greater implied value the Bitcoin network provides because users are willing to pay more for it. I am highly skeptical of blockchains which have very low transaction fees. By Internet bubble analogy, Pets.com may have millions of page views but I am more interested in EBITDA. DEVELOPERS Bitcoin and blockchain programming is not an easy skill to acquire and master. Most developers who have the skill are also financially independent now and can work on whatever they want. The best of the best work through the Bitcoin Core process. After all, if you are a world class mountain climber then you do not hang out in the MacDonalds play pen but instead climb Mount Everest because that is where the challenge is. However, there are many talented developers who work in other areas besides the protocol. Wallet maintainers, exchange operators, payment processors, etc. all need competent developers to help build their businesses. Consequently, there is a huge shortage of competent developers. This is probably the largest single scalability constraint for the ecosystem. Nevertheless, the Bitcoin ecosystem is healthier than ever before. (http://www.runtogold.com/images/bitcoin-ecosystem.jpg)(/images/bitcoin-ecosystem-small.jpg) SETTLEMENT CURRENCY There are no significant global reserve settlement currency use cases for Bitcoin yet. Perhaps the closest is Blockstream's Strong Federations via Liquid. PRICE There is a tremendous amount of disagreement in the marketplace about the value proposition of Bitcoin. Price discovery for this asset will be intense and likely take many cycles of which this is the fourth. Since the supply is known the exchange rate of Bitcoins is composed of (1) transactional demand and (2) speculative demand. Interestingly, the price elasticity of demand for the transactional demand component is irrelevant to the price. This makes for very interesting dynamics! (http://www.runtogold.com/images/bitcoin-speculation.jpg) On 4 May 2017, Lightspeed Venture Partners partner Jeremy Liew who was among the early Facebook investors and the first Snapchat investor laid out their case for bitcoin exploding to $500,000 by 2030. On 2 November 2017, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-02/blankfein-says-don-t-dismiss-bitcoin-while-still-pondering-value)said, "Now we have paper that is just backed by fiat...Maybe in the new world, something gets backed by consensus." On 12 Sep 2017, JP Morgan CEO called Bitcoin a 'fraud' but conceded that "(http://fortune.com/2017/09/12/jamie-dimon-bitcoin-cryptocurrency-fraud-buy/)Bitcoin could reach $100,000". Thus, it is no surprise that the Bitcoin chart looks like a ferret on meth when there are such widely varying opinions on its value proposition. I have been around this space for a long time. In my opinion, those who scoffed at the thought of $1 BTC, $10 BTC (Professor Bitcorn!), $100 BTC, $1,000 BTC are scoffing at $10,000 BTC and will scoff at $100,000 BTC, $1,000,000 BTC and even $10,000,000 BTC. Interestingly, the people who understand it the best seem to think its financial dominance is destiny. Meanwhile, those who understand it the least make emotionally charged, intellectually incoherent bearish arguments. A tremendous example of worldwide cognitive dissonance with regards to sound money, technology and the role or power of the State. Consequently, I like looking at the 200 day moving average to filter out the daily noise and see the long-term trend. (http://www.runtogold.com/images/bitcoin-price-200dma-nov-2017.png) Well, that chart of the long-term trend is pretty obvious and hard to dispute. Bitcoin is in a massive secular bull market. The 200 day moving average is around $4,001 and rising about $30 per day. So, what do some proforma situations look like where Bitcoin may be undervalued, average valued and overvalued? No, these are not prognostications. (http://www.runtogold.com/images/bitcoin-price-pro-forma.png) Maybe Jamie Dimon is not so off his rocker after all with a $100,000 price prediction. We are in a very unique period of human history where the collective globe is rethinking what money is and Bitcoin is in the ring battling for complete domination. Is or will it be fit for purpose? As I have said many times before, if Bitcoin is fit for this purpose then this is the largest wealth transfer in the history of the world. CONCLUSION Well, this has been a brief analysis of where I think Bitcoin is at the end of November 2017. The seven network effects are taking root extremely fast and exponentially reinforcing each other. The technological dominance of Bitcoin is unrivaled. The world is rethinking what money is. Even CEOs of the largest banks and partners of the largest VC funds are honing in on Bitcoin's beacon. While no one has a crystal ball; when I look in mine I see Bitcoin's future being very bright. Currently, almost everyone who has bought Bitcoin and hodled is sitting on unrealized gains as measured in fiat currency. That is, after all, what uncharted territory with daily all-time highs do! But perhaps there is a larger lesson to be learned here. Riches are getting increasingly slippery because no one has a reliable defined tool to measure them with. Times like these require incredible amounts of humility and intelligence guided by macro instincts. Perhaps everyone should start keeping books in three numéraires: USD, gold and Bitcoin. Both gold and Bitcoin have never been worth nothing. But USD is a fiat currency and there are thousands of those in the fiat currency graveyard. How low can the world reserve currency go? After all, what is the risk-free asset? And, whatever it is, in The Great Credit Contraction you want it! What do you think? Disagree with some of my arguments or assertions? Please, eviscerate them on Twitter or in the comments!
Enjoy =) Larry Page = $41 billion Bill Gates = $86 billion All Cryptocurrency's = $200 billion Amazon = $402 billion Apple = $730 billion USD in circulation = $1,500 billion Gold Market Cap = $8,200 billion Physical Money (notes/coins) = $31,200 billion Stock Markets = $66,800 billion All U.S. Money (bank deposits/loans) = $83,000 billion
This doesn't include ALL future's exchanges (such as CME Group), ALL options exchanges, ALL stock exchanges, ALL forex exchanges.
This doesn't include ALL celebrities, ALL inventors (such as Elon Musk, and so on), ALL corporations/companies.
This doesn't include ALL and each and every single country that ALSO has examples of all of the above.
This doesn't include Visa/Mastercard/Discovery/AmericanExpress transactions.
But why doesn't EVERYBODY just convert ALL of the world's money of the ENTIRE PLANET to paying each other in gold? Gold is a great 'store of value', isn't it? Yes, it sure has value, but because it is inconvenient, hard to transport, slow, not divisible (without a third party), and difficult to keep from being robbed (without a third party), that is why the entire planet does not transact in gold, and hence why Gold's market capitalization is only $8,200 billion.
So, how do we fix this? How can we get more people to transact in gold? How can we convince people to say "Fuck transacting in everything other than gold"?
The only way this is possible, is if gold was more convenient to transact with than everything else, especially VISA. Which is impossible. You can't pay for a $100.37 item on Amazon.com, through the internet, without a third party, in a split second, by using gold.
Then, what SHOULD we use? Well.. VISA can do 80,000 transactions per second peak velocity.
Bitcoin (whitepaper version), can do 1,000,000 transactions per second CHEAPER than VISA. (It can probably do even more in the future), it's also at the same time a tangible currency (that takes trillions of video cards to create one single uncounterfeitable coin) aka "store of value".
And what does 1,000,000 transactions per second mean? It means that ALL of the world (as described above) EASILY has room to enter the system. And not only is it a payment system, it is a currency ("store of value"). You literally HAVE tangible coins. Not merely a payment system like Paypal, or VISA, but a 2-in-1. It is a CURRENCY that is also in itself a PAYMENT SYSTEM that doesn't require a third party.
So, for example's sake, let's add up all of the money (listed above), and "flood" the entire planet into using a currency ("store of value"), that is ALSO a payment system in itself BY DESIGN, able to send money to the other side of the planet, instantly, without needing to use ANY kind of outside third party, because the coin ITSELF is the third party IF it is the Whitepaper Version of Bitcoin. But if the witness data (aka transaction signatures) are segregated from the chain, then the coin (economy itself) is no longer ITS' OWN "third party" anymore, but prone to whoever wants to take advantage of the segregated witness data (whether its blockstream, bitcoin core, AXA, miners, or banks, doesn't matter). Because when the chain of digital signatures is no longer part of the blockchain, the incentive to take advantage of the system and introduce a traditional (bankegovernment) "third party" is now profitable/possible to do so. Whereas, originally, without SegWit, anybody who tried to do this would infinitely lose money in trying to do so---aka mining coins was more profitable than trying to do a 51% attack. Hence, with SegWit, we introduce a loop-hole into Bitcoin, allowing double spending of anyone's transactions, reversing anyone's transactions, halting anyone's transactions, freezing anyone's transactions, charge-backs, etc.
Bitcoin (whitepaper version) = $10.7 Billion current total market capital.
Now introduce $191,659 billion (see above) of the world's money to a ONE WORLD CURRENCY, that DOES NOT REQUIRE A THIRD PARTY.
$191,659 billion / $10.7 billion = 17,912x
17,912 x $650 current value of Bitcoin (whitepaper version) = $11,642,800 , for one coin.
Therefore, no one (on a global scale) will use a currency (aka "store of value") where you have to pay $5-$1000 for each transaction... Walmart does not profit from selling chewing gum for $.99 cents and paying a $5 network fee (at minimum).
90% of people who buy Bitcoin don't even know what is "Segwit" or "Blockstream" or "Satoshi" or "Whitepaper". They think it's the 'norm' that it takes hours upon hours (or even days) to get their Bitcoin. They assume that because it's "hard to get", then that is why it is valuable. Upon all of the other reasons. It's all media. It is exactly what BitConnect is doing. The only reason people are buying it, is because everyone is gambling, but are fully convinced that it is "investing". This is why Bitcoin is not going to lose its' value instantly. Nor is it going to skyrocket to an astronomical value like $100,000 instantly. But it will most definitely NOT be used as replacement currency by Walmart, Amazon, Sams Club, Coca Cola, Target, etc, and so on, it goes on FOREVER. All of these companies use VISA.
And this is why Bitcoin (Whitepaper version) is literally full-stop replacing VISA over the next decade.
But what about other coins that already exist with little to no fees, instant transactions and end up having little to no traction and don't look like anyone cares about them??
There are huge reasons why they have little to no traction and look like no one cares about them.
Ethereum = does not have a fixed supply. It does not matter how fast transactions are if a coin's end-total-supply is inflationary. (Lipstick on a pig).
Ripple = 70% of the supply is held by a third-party. (Banker coin).
Litecoin = has a Script hashing algorithm, instead of SHA-256 hashing algorithm. (Coins have weaker security model--aka potential to be counterfeited several decades from now when we have stronger computers).
Dash = has master node system. The more DASH anyone has, the more master nodes they have. Over 70 percent of coins are located in just 2 percent of wallets, with 20 percent more in 1 percent of wallets. This actually means that just 3 percent of Dash owners control more than 90 percent of coins. This distribution is way to uniform and unnatural, and opens a highway for price manipulations.
NEO, NEM, QTUM, OmiseGo, IOTA = not mined coins. AKA no proof of work. Are ALL coins that were not made with any kind of "proof of work". They are literally made from nothing. (It takes TRILLIONS of video cards to make one single Bitcoin). These coins rely on security systems that do not solve the Byzantine Generals problem. (Aka, the "third party" for these coins is the creators---hence these coins have a flawed security model in who has say in what happens. Whereas, the "third party" for Bitcoin (whitepaper version) is the freemarket (the economy itself), the people who work and/or buy in to the system.). But all of these coins without proof of work rely on a closed-source system to prevent double spends. In other words, they are ALL more or less improved versions of Ripple.
Monero = severe scaling issues, the transactions are far bigger than what Moore's Law can keep up with. (Technology wouldn't be able to catch up with how much bandwidth/storage space is needed to run this network, regardless of how many years into the future we go).
These are the top ones I felt like choosing. I can explain every coin on the list. But the entire point, is that for EVERY one of these coins, Bitcoin Cash does it better. Bitcoin Cash has 0-conf (Bitcoin used to have it until the system could not accept anymore transactions and started backlogging transactions---aka full blocks). Bitcoin Cash has scripting functions (aka smart contracts). Bitcoin used to have it when the transaction fees only cost 1-5 cents per block... But no one wants to use the scripting functions anymore when you have to pay $5-$100 for each block.
Bitcoin (whitepaper version) does much more efficiently what EVERY other coin attempts to do. Whether it's security, transaction capacity, inflation control, storage, or the solving of the byzantine generals problem. Bitcoin (whitepaper version) does it flawlessly. Every other coin has flaws to some degree or another that only succeed in proving that Bitcoin (whitepaper version) is the most secure system possible.
There is a reason why Satoshi did not design Bitcoin (whitepaper version) like any of the other coins. It is because he already thought about those other designs.
The New Crypto Order & Escaping Financial Repression
The Vigilante’s View It is our first issue in months that bitcoin hasn’t hit an all-time high! And it’s the last issue of the year. And what a year for cryptos it was. To put it in perspective, bitcoin could fall 90% from current levels and it will still have outperformed stocks, bonds and real estate in 2017. Bitcoin started 2017 at $960.79. At the time of this writing it is near $13,000 for a gain of 1,250% in 2017. And, bitcoin was actually one of the worst performing cryptocurrencies in our TDV portfolio in 2017! Ethereum (ETH) started 2017 at $8. It has since hit over $800 for a nice 10,000% gain in 2017. That’s pretty good, but not as good as Dash which started the year at $11.19 and recently hit $1,600 for a nearly 15,000% gain. I hope many of you have participated in these amazing gains! If not, or you are new, don’t worry there will be plenty more opportunities in the years ahead. It won’t all be just home runs though… in fact, some of the cryptos that have performed so well to date may go down dramatically or collapse completely in the coming years. I’ll point out further below why Lightning Network is not the answer to Bitcoin Core’s slow speeds and high costs. And, I’ll look ahead to 2018 and how we could already be looking beyond blockchains. Yes, things are moving so fast that blockchain just became known to your average person this year… and could be nearly extinct by next year. That’s why it is important to stick with us here at TDV to navigate these choppy free market waters! New Years Reflection On The Evolution Of Consensus Protocols Sooner or later crypto will humble you by its greatness. Its vastness is accompanied by a madness that is breathtaking, because you quickly realize that there is no stopping crypto from taking over the world. The moment you think you have everything figured out, is the moment the market will surprise you. We are for the first time living and witnessing the birth of the first worldwide free market. Throughout this rampage of innovation, we all are implicitly aiming for the best means of harnessing consensus. As we leave this bountiful 2017 and aim at 2018, it is important for us to meditate and appreciate the progress we have made in transforming the world through the decentralization of consensus. It is also important to reflect on the changes in consensus building we have partaken in and those yet to come. Consensus is the agreement that states “this is what has occurred, and this is what hasn’t happened.” Throughout the vastness of history, we humans have only really had access to centralized means for consensus building. In the centralized world, consensus has been determined by banks, states, and all kinds of central planners. As our readers know, any centralized party can misuse their power, and their consensus ruling can become unfair. In spite of this, many individuals still praise the effectiveness of consensus building of centralized systems. People from antiquity have had no other option but to trust these central planners. These systems of control have created still-water markets where only a few are allowed to compete. This lack of competition resulted in what we now can objectively view as slow innovation. For many, centralized consensus building is preferred under the pretense of security and comfort. Unfortunately, these same individuals are in for a whole lot of discomfort now that the world is innovating on top of the first decentralized consensus building technology, the blockchain. Everything that has occurred since the inception of bitcoin has shocked central planners because for the first time in history they are lost; they no longer hold power. We now vote with our money. We choose what we find best as different technologies compete for our money. What we are witnessing when we see the volatility in crypto is nothing more than natural human motion through price. The innovation and volatility of the crypto market may seem unorthodox to some, because it is. For the first time in history we are in a true free market. The true free market connects you to everybody and for this reason alone the market shouldn’t surprise us for feeling “crazy.” Volatility is a sign of your connection to a market that is alive. Radical innovation is a sign of a market that is in its infancy still discovering itself. In juxtaposing centralized consensus building with decentralized consensus building, I cannot keep myself from remembering some wise biblical words; “ And no one pours new wine into old wineskins. Otherwise, the new wine will burst the skins; the wine will run out and the wineskins will be ruined.” – Luke 5:37 The centralized legacy financial system is akin to old wineskins bursting to shreds by the new wine of crypto. Decentralized consensus building has no need for central planners. For example, think about how ludicrous it would be for someone to ask government for regulation after not liking something about crypto. Sorry, there is no central planner to protect you; even the mathematical protocols built for us to trust are now competing against one another for our money. These new mathematical protocols will keep competing against one another as they provide us with new options in decentralizing consensus. As we look unto 2018, it is important that we as investors begin to critically engage and analyze “blockchain-free cryptocurrencies.” HASHGRAPHS, TANGLES AND DAGS Blockchain-free cryptocurrencies are technologies composed of distributed databases that use different tools to achieve the same objectives as blockchains. The top contenders in the realm of blockchain-free cryptos are DAGs (Directed Acyclic Graphs) such as Swirlds’ Hashgraph, ByteBall’s DAG, and IOTA’s Tangle. These blockchain-free cryptos are also categorized as belonging to the 3 rd generation of cryptocurrencies. These technologies promise to be faster, cheaper, and more efficient than blockchain cryptocurrencies. Blockchains were the first means of creating decentralized consensus throughout the world. In the blockchain, the majority of 51% determine the consensus. The limits of blockchains stem from their inherent nature, whereupon every single node/participant needs to know all of the information that has occurred throughout the whole blockchain economy of a given coin. This opens up blockchains to issues akin to the ones we have been exposed to in regards to Bitcoin’s scaling. It is important to make a clear distinction in the language used between blockchains and blockchain-freecryptocurrencies. When we speak about blockchains it is more proper to speak about its transactionconsensus as “decentralized”, whereas with blockchain-free cryptocurrencies it is best if we refer to transaction consensus as “distributed.” Swirlds’ Hashgraph incorporates a radical and different approach to distributing consensus. Swirlds claims that their new approach will solve scaling and security issues found on blockchains. They use a protocol called “Gossip about Gossip.” Gossip refers to how computers communicate with one another in sending information. In comparison to the Blockchain, imagine that instead of all of the nodes receiving all of the transactions categorized in the past ten minutes, that only a few nodes shared their transaction history with other nodes near them. The Hashgraph team explains this as “calling any random node and telling that node everything you know that it does not know.” That is, in Hashgraph we would be gossiping about the information we are gossiping; i.e., sending to others throughout the network for consensus. Using this gossiped information builds the Hashgraph. Consensus is created by means of depending on the gossips/rumors that come to you and you pass along to other nodes. Hashgraph also has periodic rounds which review the circulating gossips/rumors. Hashgraph is capable of 250,000+ Transactions Per Second (TPS), compared to Bitcoin currently only allowing for 7 TPS. It is also 50,000 times faster than Bitcoin. There is no mention of a coin on their white paper. At this moment there is no Hashgraph ICO, beware of scams claiming that there is. There is however a growing interest in the project along with a surge of app development. IOTAs DAG is known as the Tangle. Contrary to Hashgraph, IOTA does have its own coin known as MIOTA, currently trading around the $3 mark. There are only 2,779,530,283 MIOTA in existence. The Tangle was also created to help alleviate the pains experienced with Blockchain scaling. IOTAs Tangle creates consensus on a regional level; basically neighbors looking at what other neighbors are doing. As the tangle of neighbors grows with more participants the security of the system increases, along with the speed of confirmation times. IOTA has currently been criticized for its still lengthy confirmation times and its current levels of centralization via their Coordinators. This centralization is due to the fact that at this moment in time the main team works as watchtower to oversee how Tangle network grows so that it does not suffer from attacks. Consensus is reached within IOTA by means of having each node confirm two transactions before that same node is able to send a given transaction. This leads to the mantra of “the more people use IOTA, the more transactions get referenced and confirmed.” This creates an environment where transactional scaling has no limits. IOTA has no transaction fees and upon reaching high adoption the transactions ought to be very fast. Another promising aspect about IOTA is that it has an integrated quantum-resistant algorithm, the Winternitz One-Time Signature Scheme, that would protect IOTA against an attack of future quantum computers. This without a doubt provides IOTA with much better protection against an adversary with a quantum computer when compared to Bitcoin. ByteBall is IOTA’s most direct competitor. They both possess the same transaction speed of 100+ TPS, they both have their own respective cryptocurrencies, and they both have transparent transactions. ByteBall’s token is the ByteBall Bytes (GBYTE), with a supply of 1,000,000; currently trading at around $700. ByteBall aims to service the market with tamper proof storage for all types of data. ByteBall’s DAG also provides an escrow like system called “conditional payments;” which allows for conditional clauses before settling transactions. Like IOTA, ByteBall is also designed to scale its transaction size to meet the needs of a global demand. ByteBall provides access to integrated bots for transactions which includes the capacity for prediction markets, P2P betting, P2P payments in chat, and P2P insurance. ByteBall’s initial coin distribution is still being awarded to BTC and Bytes holders according to the proportional amounts of BTC or Bytes that are held per wallet. IOTA, ByteBall and Hashgraph are technologies that provide us with more than enough reasons to be hopeful for 2018. In terms of the crypto market, you don’t learn it once. You have to relearn it every day because its development is so infant. If you are new to crypto and feel lost at all know that you are not alone. These technologies are constantly evolving with new competitive options in the market. As the technologies grow the ease for adoption is set to grow alongside innovation. We are all new to this world and we are all as much in shock of its ingenuity as the next newbie. Crypto is mesmerizing not just for its volatility which is a clear indication of how connected we are now to one another, but also because of the social revolution that it represents. We are experiencing the multidirectional growth of humanity via the free market. Meanwhile Bitcoin Is Turning Into Shitcoin It is with a great degree of sadness that I see bitcoin is on the cusp of destroying itself. Bitcoin Core, anyway. Bitcoin Cash may be the winner from all of this once all is said and done. Whether by design or by accident, bitcoin has become slow and expensive. Many people point out that IF the market were to upgrade to Segwit that all would be fine. I’ll explain further below why many market participants have no incentive to upgrade to Segwit… meaning that the implementation of Segwit has been a massively risky guess that so far has not worked. Others say that the Lightning Network (LN) will save bitcoin. I’ll point out below why that will not happen. Lightning Networks And The Future Of Bitcoin Core If you’ve been following bitcoin for any length of time, you’re probably aware of the significant dispute over how to scale the network. The basic problem is that although bitcoin could be used at one time to buy, say, a cup of coffee, the number of transactions being recorded on the network bid up the price per transaction so much that actually sending BTC cost more than the cup of coffee itself. Indeed, analysis showed that there were many Bitcoin addresses that had such small BTC holdings that the address itself couldn’t be used to transfer it to a different address. These are referred to as “unspendable addresses.” In the ensuing debate, the “big blockers” wanted to increase the size of each block in the chain in order to allow for greater transaction capacity. The “small blockers” wanted to reduce the size of each transaction using a technique called Segregated Witness (SegWit) and keep the blocks in the chain limited to 1MB. SegWit reduces the amount of data in each transaction by around 40-50%, resulting in an increased capacity from 7 transactions per second to perhaps 15. The software engineers who currently control the Bitcoin Core code repository have stated that what Bitcoin needs is “off-chain transactions.” To do this, they have created something called Lightning Networks (LN), based on an software invention called the “two-way peg.” Put simply, the two-way peg involves creating an escrow address in Bitcoin where each party puts some bitcoin into the account, and then outside the blockchain, they exchange hypothetical Bitcoin transactions that either of them can publish on Bitcoin’s blockchain in order to pull their current agreed-upon balance out of the escrow address. Most layman explanations of how this works describe the protocol as each party putting in an equal amount of Bitcoin into the escrow. If you and I want to start transacting off-chain, so we can have a fast, cheap payment system, we each put some Bitcoin in a multi-party address. I put in 1 BTC and you put in 1 BTC, and then we can exchange what are essentially cryptographic contracts that either of us can reveal on the bitcoin blockchain in order to exit our agreement and get our bitcoin funds. Fortunately, it turns out that the video’s examples don’t tell the whole story. It’s possible for the escrow account to be asymmetric. See:. That is, one party can put in 1 BTC, while the other party puts in, say, 0.0001 BTC. (Core developer and forthcoming Anarchapulco speaker Jimmy Song tells us that there are game theoretic reasons why you don’t want the counterparty to have ZERO stake.) Great! It makes sense for Starbucks to participate with their customers in Lightning Networks because when their customers open an LN channel (basically a gift card) with them for $100, they only have to put in $1 worth of Bitcoin. Each time the customer transacts on the Lightning Network, Starbucks gets an updated hypothetical transaction that they can use to cash out that gift card and collect their bitcoin. The elephant in the room is: transaction fees. In order to establish the escrow address and thereby open the LN channel, each party has to send some amount of bitcoin to the address. And in order to cash out and get the bitcoin settlement, one party also has to initiate a transaction on the bitcoin blockchain. And to even add funds to the channel, one party has to pay a transaction fee. Right now fees on the bitcoin blockchain vary widely and are extremely volatile. For a 1-hour confirmation transaction, the recommended fee from one wallet might be $12 US, while on another it’s $21 US. For a priority transaction of 10-20 minutes, it can range from $22-30 US. Transactions fees are based on the number of bytes in the transaction, so if both parties support SegWit (remember that?) then the fee comes down by 40-50%. So it’s between $6 and $10 US for a one hour transaction and between $11-15 for a 15 minute transaction. (SegWit transactions are prioritized by the network to some degree, so actual times may be faster) But no matter what, both the customer and the merchant have to spend $6 each to establish that they will have a relationship and either of them has to spend $6 in order to settle out and get their bitcoin. Further, if the customer wants to “top off” their virtual gift card, that transaction costs another $6. And because it adds an address to the merchant’s eventual settlement, their cost to get their Bitcoin goes up every time that happens, so now it might cost them $9 to get their bitcoin. Since these LN channels are essentially digital gift cards, I looked up what the cost is to retailers to sell acustomer a gift card. The merchant processor Square offers such gift cards on their retailer site. Their best price is $0.90 per card. So the best case is that Lightning Networks are 600% more expensive than physical gift cards to distribute, since the merchant has to put a transaction into the escrow address. Further, the customer is effectively buying the gift card for an additional $6, instead of just putting up the dollar amount that goes on the card. But it gets worse. If you get a gift card from Square, they process the payments on the card and periodically deposit cash into your bank account for a percentage fee. If you use the Lightning Network, you can only access your Bitcoin by cancelling the agreement with the customer. In other words, you have to invalidate their current gift card and force them to spend $6 on a new one! And it costs you $6 to collect your funds and another $6 to sell the new gift card! I’m sure many of you have worked in retail. And you can understand how this would be financially infeasible. The cost of acquiring a new customer, and the amount of value that customer would have to stake just to do business with that one merchant, would be enormous to make any financial sense. From time immemorial, when transaction costs rise, we see the creation of middlemen. Merchants who can’t afford to establish direct channels with their customers will have to turn to middlemen, who will open LN channels for them. Instead of directly backing and cashing out their digital gift cards, they will establish relationships with entities that consolidate transactions, much like Square or Visa would do today. Starbucks corporate or individual locations might spend a few USD on opening a payment channel with the middleman, and then once a month spend 6 USD to cash out their revenues in order to cover accounts payable. In the meantime, the middleman also has to offer the ability to open LN channels for consumers. This still happens at a fixed initial cost, much like the annual fee for a credit card in the US. They would continue to require minimum balances, and would offer access to a network of merchants, exactly like Visa and MasterCard today. This process requires a tremendous amount of capital because although the middleman does not have to stake Bitcoin in the consumer’s escrow account, he does have to stake it in the merchant’s account. In other words, if the Lightning Network middleman wants to do business with Starbucks to the tune of $100,000/month, he needs $100,000 of bitcoin to lock into an escrow address. And that has to happen for every merchant. Because every month (or so) the merchants have to cash out of their bitcoin to fiat in order to pay for their cost of goods and make payroll. Even if their vendors and employees are paid in bitcoin and they have LN channels open with them, someone somewhere will want to convert to fiat, and trigger a closing channel creating a cascading settlement effect that eventually arrives at the middleman. Oh, and it triggers lots of bitcoin transactions that cost lots of fees. Did I mention that each step in the channel is expecting a percentage of the value of the channel when it’s settled? This will come up again later. Again, if you’ve worked in the retail business, you should be able to see how infeasible this would be. You have to buy inventory and you have to sell it to customers and every part that makes the transaction more expensive is eating away at your margins. Further, if you’re the middleman and Starbucks closes out a channel with a $100,000 stake where they take $95,000 of the bitcoin, how do you re-open the channel? You need another $95,000 in capital. You have revenue, of course, from the consumer side of your business. Maybe you have 950 consumers that just finished off their $100 digital gift cards. So now you can cash them out to bitcoin for just $5700 in transaction fees, and lose 5.7% on the deal. In order to make money in that kind of scenario, you have to charge LN transaction fees. And because your loss is 5.7%, you need to charge in the range of 9% to settle Lightning Network transactions. Also, you just closed out 950 customers who now have to spend $5700 to become your customer again while you have to spend $5700 to re-acquire them as customers. So maybe you need to charge more like 12%. If you approached Starbucks and said “you can accept Bitcoin for your customers and we just need 12% of the transaction,” what are the odds that they would say yes? Even Visa only has the balls to suggest 3%, and they have thousands and thousands of times as many consumers as bitcoin. The entire mission of bitcoin was to be faster, cheaper and better than banks, while eliminating centralized control of the currency. If the currency part of Bitcoin is driven by “off-chain transactions” while bitcoin itself remains expensive and slow, then these off-chain transactions will become the territory of centralized parties who have access to enormous amounts of capital and can charge customers exorbitant rates. We know them today as banks. Even for banks, we have to consider what it means to tie up $100,000/month for a merchant account. That only makes sense if the exchange rate of bitcoin grows faster than the cost of retaining Bitcoin inventory. It costs nothing to store Bitcoin, but it costs a lot to acquire it. At the very least the $6 per transaction to buy it, plus the shift in its value against fiat that’s based on interest rates. As a result, it only makes sense to become a Lightning Network middleman if your store of value (bitcoin) appreciates at greater than the cost of acquiring it (interest rate of fiat.) And while interest rates are very low, that’s not a high bar to set. But to beat it, Bitcoin’s exchange rate to fiat has to outpace the best rate available to the middleman by a factor exceeding the opportunity cost of other uses of that capital. Whatever that rate is, for bitcoin, the only reason the exchange rate changes is new entry of capital into the “price” of bitcoin. For that to work, bitcoin’s “price” must continue to rise faster than the cost of capital for holding it. So far this has happened, but it’s a market gamble for it to continue. Since it happens because of new capital entering into the bitcoin network and thus increasing the market cap, this results in Bitcoin Core becoming the very thing that its detractors accuse it of: a Ponzi scheme. The cost of transacting in Bitcoin becomes derived from the cost of holding bitcoin and becomes derived from the cost of entering bitcoin. Every middleman has to place a bet on the direction of bitcoin in a given period. And in theory, if they think the trend is against Bitcoin, then they’ll cash out and shut down all the payment channels that they transact. If they bought bitcoin at $15,000, and they see it dropping to $13,000 — they’ll probably cash out their merchant channels and limit their risk of a further drop. The consumer side doesn’t matter so much because their exposure is only 1%, but the merchant side is where they had to stake everything. If you’re wondering why this information is not widely known, it’s because most bitcoin proponents don’t transact in bitcoin on a regular basis. They may be HODLing, but they aren’t doing business in bitcoin. Through Anarchapulco, TDV does frequent and substantial business in bitcoin, and we’ve paid fees over $150 in order to consolidate ticket sale transactions into single addresses that can be redeemed for fiat to purchase stage equipment for the conference. For Bitcoin to be successful at a merchant level via Lightning Networks, we will have to see blockchain transactions become dramatically cheaper. If they return to the sub-$1 range, we might have a chance with centralized middlemen, but only with a massive stabilization of volatility. If they return to $0.10, we might have a chance with direct channels. Otherwise, Lightning Networks can’t save bitcoin as a means of everyday transaction. And since that takes away its utility, it might very well take away the basis of its value and bitcoin could find itself truly being a tulip bubble. One final note: there are a some parties for whom all these transactions are dramatically cheaper. That is the cryptocurrency exchanges. Because they are the entry and exit points for bitcoin-to-fiat, they can eliminate a layer of transaction costs and thus offer much more competitive rates — as long as you keep your bitcoin in their vaults instead of securing it yourselves. Sending it out of their control lessens their competitive advantage against other means of storage. It comes as no surprise, then, that they are the least advanced in implementing the SegWit technology that would improve transaction costs and speed. If you buy bitcoin on Poloniex, it works better for them if it’s expensive for you to move that coin to your Trezor. In fact, an exchange offering Lightning Network channels to merchants could potentially do the following… 1) Stake bitcoins in channels with merchants. These coins may or may not be funds that are held by their customers. There is no way to know. 2) Offer customers “debit card” accounts for those merchants that are backed by the Lightning network 3) Establish middle addresses for the customer accounts and the merchant addresses on the Lightning Network. 4) Choose to ignore double-spends between the customer accounts and the merchant addresses, because they don’t actually have to stake the customer side. They can just pretend to since they control the customer’s keys. 5) Inflate their bitcoin holdings up to the stake from the merchants, since the customers will almost never cash out in practice. In other words, Lightning Networks allow exchanges a clear path to repeating Mtgox; lie to the consumer about their balance while keeping things clean with the merchant. In other words, establish a fractional reserve approach to bitcoin. So, to summarize, Bitcoin Core decided increasing the blocksize from 1mb to 2-8mb was “too risky” and decided to create Segwit instead which the market has not adopted. When asked when bitcoin will be faster and less expensive to transfer most Bitcoin Core adherents say the Lightning Network will fix the problems. But, as I’ve just shown, the LN makes no sense for merchants to use and will likely result in banks taking over LN nodes and making BTC similar to Visa and Mastercard but more expensive. And, will likely result in exchanges becoming like banks of today and having fractional reserve systems which makes bitcoin not much better than the banking system of today. Or, people can switch to Bitcoin Cash, which just increased the blocksize and has much faster transaction times at a fraction of the cost. I’ve begun to sell some of my bitcoin holdings because of what is going on. I’ve increased my Bitcoin Cash holdings and also increased my holdings of Dash, Monero, Litecoin and our latest recommendation, Zcash. Other News & Crypto Tidbits When bitcoin surpassed $17,600 in December it surpassed the total value of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) currency. Meanwhile, Alexei Kireyev of the IMF put out his working paper, “ The Macroeconomics of De-Cashing ,” where he advises abolishing cash without having the public aware of the process. Countries such as Russia are considering creating a cryptocurrency backed by oil to get around the US dollar and the US dollar banking system. Venezuela is as well although we highly doubt it will be structured properly or function well given the communist government’s track record of destroying two fiat currencies in the last decade. To say that the US dollar is being attacked on every level is not an understatement. Cryptocurrencies threaten the entire monetary and financial system while oil producing countries look to move away from the US dollar to their own oil backed cryptocurrency. And all this as bitcoin surpassed the value of the IMF’s SDR in December and in 2017 the US dollar had its largest drop versus other currencies since 2003. And cryptocurrency exchanges have begun to surpass even the NASDAQ and NYSE in terms of revenue. Bittrex, as one example, had $3 billion in volume on just one day in December. At a 0.5% fee per trade that equaled $15m in revenue in just one day. If that were to continue for 365 days it would mean $5.4 billion in annual revenue which is more than the NASDAQ or NYSE made this year. Conclusion I never would have guessed how high the cryptocurrencies went this year. My price target for bitcoin in 2017 was $3,500! That was made in late 2016 when bitcoin was near $700 and many people said I was crazy. Things are speeding up much faster than even I could have imagined. And it is much more than just making money. These technologies, like cryptocurrencies, blockchains and beyond connect us in a more profound way than Facebook would ever be able to. We are now beginning to be connected in ways we never even thought of; and to some degree still do not understand. These connections within this completely free market are deep and meaningful. This is sincerely beautiful because we are constantly presented with an ever growing buffet of competing protocols selling us their best efforts in providing harmony within the world. What all of these decentralized and distributed consensus building technologies have in common is that they connect us to the world and to each other. Where we are going we don’t need foolish and trite Facebook’s emojis. As we close a successful 2017 we look with optimism towards a much more prosperous 2018. The Powers That Shouldn’t Be (TPTSB) can’t stop us. As we move forward note how much crypto will teach you about ourselves and the world. In a radical free market making our own bets will continue to be a process of self discovery. Crypto will show us the contours of our fears, the contours of our greed, and will constantly challenge us to do our best with the knowledge we have. Remember, randomness and innovation are proper to the happenstance nature of a true digital free market. Happy New Year fellow freedom lovers! And, as always, thank you for subscribing! Jeff Berwick
For the price of bitcoin, the summer was anything but smooth. Markets boomed on news of 'the Brexit', tapered off through the long-awaited halving and tumbled on the news yet another exchange had been hacked. Since then, the price has fluctuated between $550 and $600, returning to the "relative" calm observed earlier in the year. But given bitcoin's historical volatility, analysts are already beginning to question what may trigger bitcoin's next big price swing. As we head into the fall and winter months, a diverse set of theories are beginning to emerge about conditions that could either boost the price, or see it return to its 2015 lows. Institutional approval Among the potential triggers cited by analysts, the emergence of a bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF), an investment vehicle that generally tracks a basket of stocks or commodities, was perhaps the most often discussed. Many market observers have been watching the status of two proposed ETFs with great interest, but for a while, there wasn't any reason to hope for developments. However, excitement for a potential market first has grown in recent weeks following the July announcement of the SolidX Bitcoin Trust and amid new filings by the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust. The approval of either could represent a milestone for the bitcoin community, analysts say, as the ETFs would enable authorized participants to issues shares tied to real bitcoin holdings, which could be a catalyst for new liquidity. Daniel Masters, director of Global Advisors Bitcoin Investment Fund (GABI), noted recently that many commodities have enjoyed sharp increases in price and more robust trading activity once ETFs based on the underlying assets hit the market. He wrote in an August blog post: "From the early 2000s onward, there was a proliferation of ETFs covering all manner of commodity interests. In each and every case – for gold, silver, oil, natural gas, platinum, copper and even indices – the advent of the ETFs led to higher prices, more trading volume of futures and cash exchanges and higher levels of commodity futures open interest." Should either ETF receive approval, bitcoin could enjoy a notable increase in liquidity. It was this variable that Du Jun, co-founder of Chinese exchange Huobi, singled out as potentially driving the digital currency's price higher. "Bitcoin's liquidity depends on the future of bitcoin's value and investors' expectation to a large extent," Du said. Technical improvements Yet another potential boost for the bitcoin price could come in the form of a long-awaited resolution to the "scaling" debate. Currently, blocks of transactions on the bitcoin blockchain have a storage size of just 1MB. As this puts a limitation on the number of transactions the network can process (and therefore, some argue, adoption), there has been a sometimes messy and contentious drive in the community to change it. But due to the tricky specifics of how a change to this hard-coded limit would need to be enacted, no consensus has yet been reached. Still, that doesn't mean solutions aren't on the way, the most notable of which is Segregated Witness (SegWit), an upgrade that recently saw a preliminary code release. While promising for the network, though, analysts seemed less enthusiastic about SegWit’s potential impact on bitcoin prices. Cryptocurrency investment fund manager Jacob Eliosoff, for example, said investors have likely already priced in the coming change as it was announced in December and originally expected to be deployed in April. "SegWit's release seems too gradual and widely expected (not to say overdue) to really bump the price," Eliosoff said. Tim Enneking, chairman of investment manager EAM, struck a similar tone, adding: "I don’t think SegWit will have anything more than an incremental and marginal impact on BTC prices, at least in the short term." Post-Halving pressures In one of the more unique claims, investor and entrepreneur Vinny Lingham singled out the halving of rewards on the bitcoin network as a potential influence. The prediction may be surprising given that a planned technical change the reduced the mining reward from 25 BTC to 12.5 BTC took place earlier this summer, largely without fanfare. But while bitcoin prices experienced little change this July, Lingham asserts its true impact has not yet been felt. In the next two-to-four weeks, forces resulting from the shift could cause the digital currency to surge, he said. As detailed in a recent post, miners who aren't turning enough profit, he contends, may soon be forced to buy bitcoin from exchanges, an event he said was likely to trigger a "short squeeze", or a sharp increase in the price based on the lack of available supply. He wrote in May: "It’s the same as selling crops in the futures market and then being hit by a storm that wipes out half of your fields. The only way, technically, that this doesn’t happen, is if the price doubles on halving day (it won’t)." Financial (in)stability Finally, some predicted bitcoin's next major price event would be dependent on the stability of the global financial system. Traders have repeatedly flocked to the digital currency in times of crisis, leading many market observers to label it a risk-off asset or even a "digital gold" that appeals during times of economic stress. In the past, bitcoin has benefitted from situations such as the 'Brexit', as well as during periods of economic volatility in Greece and Cyprus. It remains debatable how much of these increases is based on real capital flight, but there is still widespread belief that such events could come to be a powerful influencer going forward. Huobi's Du spoke to this matter, telling CoinDesk that when the global financial system experiences volatility, investors will "look for more safe-haven investments" like bitcoin. Another variable remains government responses to the digital currency. If major countries accept bitcoin, analysts said, it will affect both the currency's trading activity and value. Source: coindesk.com If you are interested on bitcoin trading visit our website Houbi.com. We are one of the largest BTC-USD, BTC-CNY trading platform in the world. HUOBI OFFERS FREE BTC-CNY/LTC-CNY TRADING, 24*7 CUSTOMER SERVICES AND SECURE PROTECTION FOR USER ASSETS. Welcome to trade on HUOBI.COM! What do you think about the article. Please leave the comments below.
top 10 cryptocurrencies known to you. Bitcoin exchange Ticker — BTC Ethereum (ETH)
Ripple (XRP). This cryptocurrency is used in real-time gross settlement system, as well as for currency exchange and money transfers. The Ripple Protocol was launched in 2012. Its goal is to provide "secure, instant and almost free global financial transactions of any size without chargebacks". According to some captainrussel, payment system Ripple could potentially become “an alternative to the SWIFT”.
Bitcoin Cash is the “alternative to bitcoin”that appeared as a result of the hard fork. Thus, on August 1, the bitcoin blockchain split into two chains and a new digital asset appeared — Bitcoin Cash (sometimes Bcash), which has a common history with bitcoin, but is traded under another Ticker — BCC (less often – BCH).
IOTA. Cryptocurrency exchange network project for the Internet of things. It is based on the Unique tangle consensus method. The main feature of the latter is the lack of miners.
Litecoin (LTC). A popular fork of bitcoin, often referred to as”digital silver". Litecoin was one of the first to activate support for the SegWit Protocol. However, Litecoin and before activation Segregated Witness differed significantly faster confirmation time of transactions than the same bitcoin.
NEO. Platform digital asset NEO (previously known as Antshares) is often called the "Chinese Ethereum". Recently, representatives of the project have completed the full completion of the rebranding. In particular, the Chinese startup announced the upgrade of the blockchain node, the update of technical documentation, social media, the official website, the change of the stock Ticker, as well as the successful transition to the system of smart contracts NEO 2.0.
NEM (XEM). Is a digital currency rose to prominence in early 2015. It is distinguished from many other digital currencies by its original open source code and a number of interesting innovations. For example, the xem cryptocurrency is based on the POI (Proof of Importance) algorithm, a modification of “proof-of-stake”. However, unlike PoS, in addition to proof of storage of a certain amount of funds, POI also takes into account the activity of the user — the number of transactions carried out by him. Receiving a reward for a block in the NEM network is called "harvesting".
Dash. The launch of the cryptocurrency, which at that time was called Xcoin, took place on January 18, 2014. From January 28, 2014 to March 25, 2015, the cryptocurrency was named Darkcoin.
Q: What is your relationship with Blockstream now? Are you in a Cold War? Your evaluation on BS was pretty high “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation.” But now, what’s your opinion on BS? A: I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream. We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
Q: 1) Why insist on hard fork at only 75%? You once explained that it is possible to be controlled by 5% if we set the threshold at 95%. I agree, but there should be some balance here. 75% means a high risk in splitting, isn’t it too aggressive? Is it better if we set it to 90%? A: 1)The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network. Q: 2) How to solve the potentially very large blocks problem Classic roadmap may cause, and furthur causing the centralization of nodes in the future? A: 2)Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night). I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second. Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned. Q: 3) Why do you not support the proposal of RBF by Satoshi, and even plan to remove it in Classic completely? A: 3) Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time. When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before. Q: 4) . Your opinion on soft fork SegWit, sidechain, lighnting network. Are you for or against, please give brief reasons. Thanks. A: 4) The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful. I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good. I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them. Q: 5) Can you share your latest opinion on Brainwallet? It is hard for new users to use long and complex secure passphrase, but is it a good tool if it solves this problem? A: 5) We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things. We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
Q: Gavin, do you have bitcoins now? What is your major job in MIT? Has FBI ever investigated on you? When do you think SHA256 might be outdated, it seems like it has been a bit unsafe? A: Yes, a majority of my own person wealth is still in bitcoins -- more than a financial advisor would say is wise. My job at MIT is to make Bitcoin better, in whatever way I think best. That is the same major job I had at the Bitcoin Foundation. Sometimes I think the best way to make Bitcoin better is to write some code, sometimes to write a blog post about what I see happening in the Bitcoin world, and sometimes to travel and speak to people. The FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) has never investigated me, as far as I know. The closest thing to an investigation was an afternoon I spent at the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC. They were interested in how I and the other Bitcoin developers created the software and how much control we have over whether or not people choose to run the software that we create. “Safe or unsafe” is not the way to think about cryptographic algorithms like SHA256. They do not suddenly go from being 100% secure for everything to completely insecure for everything. I think SHA256 will be safe enough to use in the all ways that Bitcoin is using it for at least ten years, and will be good enough to be used as the proof-of-work algorithm forever. It is much more likely that ECDSA, the signature algorithm Bitcoin is using today, will start to become less safe in the next ten or twenty years, but developer are already working on replacements (like Schnorr signatures).
Q: It’s a pleasure to meet you. I only have one question. Which company are you serving? or where do you get your salary? A: The Media Lab at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) pays my salary; I don’t receive regular payments from anybody else. I have received small amounts of stock options in exchange for being a techical advisor to several Bitcoin companies (Coinbase, BitPay, Bloq, Xapo, Digital Currency Group, CoinLab, TruCoin, Chain) which might be worth money some day if one or more of those companies do very well. I make it very clear to these companies that my priority is to make Bitcoin better, and my goal in being an advisor to them is to learn more about the problems they face as they try to bring Bitcoin to more of their customers. And I am sometimes (once or twice a year) paid to speak at events.
Q: Would you mind share your opinion on lightning network? Is it complicated to implement? Does it need hard fork? A: Lightning does not need a hard fork. It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly. I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
Q: 1) There has been a lot of conferences related to blocksize limit. The two took place in HongKong in Decemeber of 2015 and Feberary of 2016 are the most important ones. Despite much opposition, it is undeniable that these two meetings basically determines the current status of Bitcoin. However, as the one of the original founders of Bitcoin, why did you choose to not attend these meetings? If you have ever attended and opposed gmax’s Core roadmap (SegWit Priority) in one of the meetings, we may be in a better situation now, and the 2M hard fork might have already begun. Can you explain your absence in the two meetings? Do you think the results of both meetings are orchestrated by blockstream? A: 1) I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached. A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015. The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents. I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit. Q: 2) We have already known that gmax tries to limit the block size so as to get investment for his company. However, it is obvious that overthrowing Core is hard in the short term. What if Core continues to dominate the development of Bitcoin? Is it possible that blockstream core will never raise the blocksize limit because of their company interests? A: 2) I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically. He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time. Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
Q: I would like to ask your opinion on the current situation. It’s been two years, but a simple 2MB hard fork could not even be done. In Bitcoin land, two years are incredibly long. Isn’t this enough to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy? A: I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things. Q: How can a multi-billion network with millions of users and investors be choked by a handful of people? How can this be called decentrilized and open-source software anymore? It is so hard to get a simple 2MB hard fork, but SegWig and Lighting Network with thousands of lines of code change can be pushed through so fast. Is this normal? It is what you do to define if you are a good man, not what you say. A: I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer. The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning. Q: The problem now is that everybody knows Classic is better, however, Core team has controlled the mining pools using their powers and polical approaches. This made them controll the vast majority of the hashpower, no matter what others propose. In addition, Chinese miners have little communication with the community, and do not care about the developement of the system. Very few of them knows what is going on in the Bitcoin land. They almost handed over their own power to the mining pool, so as long as Core controls the pools, Core controls the whole Bitcoin, no matter how good your Classic is. Under this circumstance, what is your plan? A: Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy. Q: From this scaling debate, do you think there is a huge problem with Bitcoin development? Does there exsit development centrilization? Does this situation need improvment? For example, estabilish a fund from Bitcoin as a fundation. It can be used for hiring developers and maintainers, so that we can solve the development issue once and for all. A: I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks. And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing). I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features). I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
You are one of the most-repected person in Bitcoin world, I won’t miss the chance to ask some questions. First of all, I am a Classic supporter. I strongly believe that on-chain transcations should not be restrained artificially. Even if there are transcations that are willing to go through Lighting Network in the future, it should be because of a free market, not because of artificial restrication. Here are some of my questions: Q: 1) For the past two years, you’ve been proposing to Core to scale Bitcoin. In the early days of the discussion, Core devs did agree that the blocksize should be raised. What do you think is the major reason for Core to stall scaling. Does there exist conflict of interest between Blockstream and scaling? A: 1) There might be unconscious bias, but I think there is just a difference of opinion on priorities and timing. Q: 2) One of the reason for the Chinese to refuse Classic is that Classic dev team is not technically capable enough for future Bitcoin development. I also noticed that Classic does have a less frequent code release compared to Core. In your opinion, is there any solution to these problems? Have you ever thought to invite capable Chinese programers to join Classic dev team? A: 2) The great thing about open source software is if you don’t think the development team is good enough (or if you think they are working on the wrong things) you can take the software and hire a better team to improve it. Classic is a simple 2MB patch on top of Core, so it is intentional that there are not a lot of releases of Classic. The priority for Classic right now is to do things that make working on Classic better for developers than working on Core, with the goal of attracting more developers. You can expect to see some results in the next month or two. I invite capable programmers from anywhere, including China, to help any of the teams working on open source Bitcoin software, whether that is Classic or Core or Unlimited or bitcore or btcd or ckpool or p2pool or bitcoinj. Q: 3) Another reason for some of the Chinese not supporting Classic is that bigger blocks are more vulnerable to spam attacks. (However, I do think that smaller blocks are more vlunerable to spam attack, because smaller amount of money is needed to choke the blockchain.) What’s our opinion on this? A: 3) The best response to a transaction spam attack is for the network to reject transactions that pay too little fees but to simply absorb any “spam” that is paying as much fees as regular transactions. The goal for a transaction spammer is to disrupt the network; if there is room for extra transactions in blocks, then the network can just accept the spam (“thank you for the extra fees!”) and continue as if nothing out of the ordinary happened. Nothing annoys a spammer more than a network that just absorbs the extra transactions with no harmful effects. Q: 4) According to your understanding on lighting network and sidechains,if most Bitcoin transactions goes throught lighting network or sidechains, it possible that the fees paid on the these network cannot reach the main-chain miners, which leaves miners starving. If yes, how much percent do you think will be given to miners. A: 4) I don’t know, it will depend on how often lightning network channels are opened and closed, and that depends on how people choose to use lightning. Moving transactions off the main chain and on to the lightning network should mean less fees for miners, more for lightning network hubs. Hopefully it will also mean lower fees for users, which will make Bitcoin more popular, drive up the price, and make up for the lower transaction fees paid to miners. Q: 5) The concept of lighting network and sidechains have been out of one or two years already, when do you think they will be fully deployed. A: 5) Sidechains are already “fully deployed” (unless you mean the version of sidechains that doesn’t rely on some trusted gateways to move bitcoin on and off the sidechain, which won’t be fully deployed for at least a couple of years). I haven’t seen any reports of how successful they have been. I think Lightning will take longer than people estimate. Seven months ago Adam Back said that the lightning network might be ready “as soon as six months from now” … but I would be surprised if there was a robust, ready-for-everybody-to-use lightning-capable wallet before 2018. Q: 6)Regarding the hard fork, Core team has assumed that it will cause a chain-split. (Chinese miners are very intimitated by this assumption, I think this is the major reason why most of the Chinese mining pools are not switching to Classic). Do you think Bitcoin will have a chain-split? A: 6) No, there will not be a chain split. I have not talked to a single mining pool operator, miner, exchange, or major bitcoin business who would be willing to mine a minority branch of the chain or accept bitcoins from a minority branch of the main chain. Q: 7) From your point of view, do you think there is more Classic supporters or Core supporters in the U.S.? A: 7) All of the online opinion pools that have been done show that a majority of people worldwide support raising the block size limit.
Q: Which is more in line with the Satoshi’s original roadmap, Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core? How to make mining pools support and adopt Bitcoin Classic? A: Bitcoin Classic is more in line with Satoshi’s original roadmap. We can’t make the mining pools do anything they don’t want to do, but they are run by smart people who will do what they think is best for their businesses and Bitcoin.
Q: Do you have any solution for mining centralization? What do you think about the hard fork of changing mining algorithms? A: I have a lot of thoughts on mining centralization; it would probably take ten or twenty pages to write them all down. I am much less worried about mining centralization than most of the other developers, because Satoshi designed Bitcoin so miners make the most profit when they do what is best for Bitcoin. I have also seen how quickly mining pools come and go; people were worried that the DeepBit mining pool would become too big, then it was GHash.io… And if a centralized mining pool does become too big and does something bad, the simplest solution is for businesses or people to get together and create or fund a competitor. Some of the big Bitcoin exchanges have been seriously considering doing exactly that to support raising the block size limit, and that is exactly the way the system is supposed to work-- if you don’t like what the miners are doing, then compete with them! I think changing the mining algorithm is a complicated solution to a simple problem, and is not necessary.
Q: Last time you came to China, you said you want to "make a different". I know that in USA the opposition political party often hold this concept, in order to prevent the other party being totally dominant. Bitcoin is born with a deep "make a different" nature inside. But in Chinese culture, it is often interpreted as split “just for the sake of splitting”, can you speak your mind on what is your meaning of "make a different"? A: I started my career in Silicon Valley, where there is a lot of competition but also a lot of cooperation. The most successful companies find a way to be different than their competitors; it is not a coincidence that perhaps the most successful company in the world (Apple Computer) had the slogan “think different.” As Bitcoin gets bigger (and I think we all agree we want Bitcoin to get bigger!) it is natural for it to split and specialize; we have already seen that happening, with lots of choices for different wallets, different exchanges, different mining chips, different mining pool software.
Q: 1) The development of XT and Classic confirmed my thoughts that it is nearly impossible to use a new version of bitcoin to replace the current bitcoin Core controlled by Blockstream. I think we will have to live with the power of Blockstream for a sufficient long time. It means we will see the deployment of SegWit and Lighting network. If it really comes to that point, what will you do? Will you also leave like Mike Hearn? A: 1) With the development of Blockchain, bitcoin will grow bigger and bigger without any doubts, And also there will be more and more companies related to the bitcoin network. When it comes to money, there will be a lot of fights between these companies. Is it possible to form some kind of committee to avoid harmful fights between these companies and also the situation that a single company controlling the direction of the bitcoin development? Is there any one doing this kind of job right now? Q: 2) My final question would be, do you really think it is possible that we can have a decentralized currency? Learning from the history, it seems like every thing will become centralized as long as it involves human. Do you have any picture for a decentralized currency or even a society? Thanks. A: 2) I think you might be surprised at what most people are running a year or three from now. Perhaps it will be a future version of Bitcoin Core, but I think there is a very good chance another project will be more successful. I remember when “everybody” was running Internet Explorer or Firefox, and people thought Google was crazy to think that Chrome would ever be a popular web browser. It took four years for Chrome to become the most popular web browser. In any case, I plan on working on Bitcoin related projects for at least another few years. Eventually it will become boring or I will decide I need to take a couple of years of and think about what I want to do next. As for fights between companies: there are always fights between companies, in every technology. There are organizations like the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) that try to create committees so engineers at companies can spend more time cooperating and less time fighting; I’m told by people who participate in IETF meetings that they are usually helpful and create useful standards more often than not. Finally, yes, I do think we can have a “decentralized-enough” currency. A currency that might be controlled at particular times by a small set of people or companies, but that gives everybody else the ability to take control if those people or businesses misbehave.
Hi Gavin, I have some questions: Q: 1) I noticed there are some new names added to the classic team list. Most people here only know you and Jeff. Can you briefly introduce some others to the Chinese community? A: 1) Tom Zander has been acting as lead developer, and is an experienced C++ developer who worked previously on the Qt and Debian open source projects. Pedro Pinheiro is on loan from Blockchain.info, and has mostly worked on continuous integration and testing for Classic. Jon Rumion joined recently, and has been working on things that will make life for developers more pleasant (I don’t want to be more specific, I don’t want to announce things before they are finished in case they don’t work out). Jeff has been very busy starting up Bloq, so he hasn’t been very active with Classic recently. I’ve also been very busy traveling (Barbados, Idaho, London and a very quick trip to Beijing) so haven’t been writing much code recently. Q: 2) if bitcoin classic succeeded (>75% threshold), what role would you play in the team after the 2MB upgrade finished, as a leader, a code contributor, a consultant, or something else? A: 2)Contributor and consultant-- I am trying not to be leader of any software project right now, I want to leave that to other people who are better at managing and scheduling and recruiting and all of the other things that need to be done to lead a software project. Q: 3) if bitcoin classic end up failed to achieve mainstream adoption (<75% 2018), will you continue the endeavor of encouraging on-chain scaling and garden-style growth of bitcoin? A: 3) Yes. If BIP109 does not happen, I will still be pushing to get a good on-chain solution to happen as soon as possible. Q: 4) Have you encountered any threat in your life, because people would think you obviously have many bitcoins, like what happened to Hal Finney (RIP), or because some people have different ideas about what bitcoin's future should be? A: 4) No, I don’t think I have received any death threats. It upsets me that other people have. Somebody did threaten to release my and my wife’s social security numbers and other identity information if I did not pay them some bitcoins a couple of years ago. I didn’t pay, they did release our information, and that has been a little inconvenient at times. Q: 5) Roger Ver (Bitcoin Jesus) said bitcoin would worth thousands of dollars. Do you have similar thoughts? If not, what is your opinion on bitcoin price in future? A: 5) I learned long ago to give up trying to predict the price of stocks, currencies, or Bitcoin. I think the price of Bitcoin will be higher in ten years, but I might be wrong. Q: 6) You've been to China. What's your impression about the country, people, and the culture here? Thank you! A: 6) I had a very quick trip to Beijing a few weeks ago-- not nearly long enough to get a good impression of the country or the culture. I had just enough time to walk around a little bit one morning, past the Forbidden City and walk around Tianmen Square. There are a LOT of people in China, I think the line to go into the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall was the longest I have ever seen! Beijing reminded me a little bit of London, with an interesting mix of the very old with the very new. The next time I am in China I hope I can spend at least a few weeks and see much more of the country; I like to be in a place long enough so that I really can start to understand the people and cultures.
Q: Dear Gavin, How could I contact you, we have an excellent team and good plans. please confirm your linkedin. A: Best contact for me is [email protected] : but I get lots of email, please excuse me if your messages get lost in the flood. 15. satoshi Q: Gavin, you've been both core and classic code contributor. Are there any major differences between the two teams, concerning code testing (quality control) and the release process of new versions? A: Testing and release processes are the same; a release candidate is created and tested, and once sufficiently tested, a final release is created, cryptographically signed by several developers, and then made available for download. The development process for Classic will be a little bit different, with a ‘develop’ branch where code will be pulled more quickly and then either fixed or reverted based on how testing goes. The goal is to create a more developer-friendly process, with pull requests either accepted or rejected fairly quickly.
I am a bitcoin enthusiast and a coin holder. I thank you for your great contribution to bitcoin. Please allow me to state some of my views before asking:
I'm on board with classic
I support the vision to make bitcoin a powerful currency that could compete with Visa
I support segwit, so I'll endorse whichever version of bitcoin implementation that upgrades to segwit, regardless of block size.
I disagree with those who argue bitcoin main blockchain should be a settlement network with small blocks. My view is that on the main chain btc should function properly as a currency, as well as a network for settlement.
I'm against the deployment of LN on top of small block sized blockchain. Rather, it should be built on a chain with bigger blocks.
I also won’t agree with the deployment of many sidechains on top of small size block chain. Rather, those sidechains should be on chain with bigger blocks.
With that said, below are my questions: Q: 1) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC? A: 1) If the block limit is not raised, then no, I don’t think transaction fees will be that high. Q: 2) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC? A: 2) Yes, the vision is lots of transactions, each paying a very small fee, adding up to a big total for the miners. Q: 3) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, do you think POW would fail in future, because the mining industry might be accounted too low value compared with that of the bitcoin total market, so that big miners could threaten btc market and gain profit by shorting? *The questioner further explained his concern. Currently, its about ~1.1 billion CNY worth of mining facilities protecting ~42 billion CNY worth (6.5 Billion USD) of bitcoin market. The ratio is ~3%. If bitcoin market cap continues to grow and we adopt layered development plan, the mining portion may decrease, pushing the ratio go even down to <1%, meaning we are using very small money protecting an huge expensive system. For example, in 2020 if bitcoin market cap is ~100 billion CNY, someone may attempt to spend ~1 billion CNY bribe/manipulate miners to attack the network, thus making a great fortune by shorting bitcoin and destroying the ecosystem. A: 3) Very good question, I have asked that myself. I have asked people if they know if there have been other cases where people destroyed a company or a market to make money by shorting it -- as far as I know, that does not happen. Maybe because it is impossible to take a large short position and remain anonymous, so even if you were successful, you would be arrested for doing whatever you did to destroy the company or market (e.g. blow up a factory to destroy a company, or double-spend fraud to try to destroy Bitcoin). Q: 4) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, will the blocks become too big that kill decentralization? A: 4) No, if you look at how many transactions the typical Internet connection can support, and how many transactions even a smart phone can validate per second, we can support many more transactions today with the hardware and network connections we have now. And hardware and network connections are getting faster all the time. Q: 5) In theory, even if we scale bitcoin with just LN and sidechains, the main chain still needs blocks with size over 100M, in order to process the trading volume matching Visa's network. So does core have any on-chain scaling plan other than 2MB? Or Core does not plan to evolve bitcoin into something capable of challenging visa? A: 5) Some of the Core developer talk about a “flexcap” solution to the block size limit, but there is no specific proposal. I think it would be best to eliminate the limit all together. That sounds crazy, but the most successful Internet protocols have no hard upper limits (there is no hard limit to how large a web page may be, for example), and no protocol limit is true to Satoshi’s original design. Q: 6) If (the majority of) hash rate managed to switch to Classic in 2018, will the bitcoin community witness the deployment of LN in two years (~2018)? A: 6) The bottleneck with Lightning Network will be wallet support, not support down at the Bitcoin protocol level. So I don’t think the deployment schedule of LN will be affected much whether Classic is adopted or not. Q: 7) If (majority) hash rate upgraded to blocks with segwit features in 2017 as specified in core's roadmap, would classic propose plans to work on top of that (blocks with segwit)? Or insist developing simplified segwit blocks as described in classic's roadmap? A: 7) Classic will follow majority hash rate. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else. Q: 8) If most hash rate is still on core's side before 2018, will you be disappointed with bitcoin, and announce that bitcoin has failed like what Mike did, and sell all your stashed coins at some acceptable price? A: 8) No-- I have said that I think if the block size limit takes longer to resolve, that is bad for Bitcoin in the short term, but smart engineers will work around whatever road blocks you put in front of them. I see Bitcoin as a long-term project. Q: 9) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company? A: 9) I think Blockstream might lose some employees, but otherwise I don’t think it will matter much. They are still producing interesting technology that might become a successful business. Q: 10) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company? A: 10) I don’t think Blockstream’s fate depends on whether or not BIP109 is adopted. It depends much more on whether or not they find customers willing to pay for the technology that they are developing. Q: 11) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of companies that support classic, such as Coinbse, bitpay, and Blockchain.info? A: 11) We have already seen companies like Kraken support alternative currencies (Kraken supports Litecoin and Ether); if there is no on-chain scaling solution accepted by the network, I think we will see more companies “hedging their bets” by supporting other currencies that have a simpler road map for supporting more transactions. Q: 12) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, will that hinder the development of sidechain tech? What will happen to companies like Rockroot(Rootstock?) ? A: 12) No, I think the best use of sidechains is for things that might be too risky for the main network (like Rootstock) or are narrowly focused on a small number of Bitcoin users. I don’t think hash rate supporting Classic will have any effect on that. Q: 13) Between the two versions of bitcoin client, which one is more conducive to mining industry, classic or core? A: 13) I have been working to make Classic better for the mining industry, but right now they are almost identical so it would be dishonest to say one is significantly better than the other.
Q: Gavin, can you describe what was in your mind when you first learned bitcoin? A: I was skeptical that it could actually work! I had to read everything I could about it, and then read the source code before I started to think that maybe it could actually be successful and was not a scam.
Glossary of Crypto Currency terms to help inform and guide the community
Hello active and prospective Crypto Curency enthusiasts-- Welcome! I wanted to share a glossary of terms I've compiled from across the internet that will assist on your journey in becoming Crypto Currency fluent. Sometimes, I think, we forget others are not as versed in this emerging, exciting technology, and it behooves us all to provide a Rosetta stone for the community and world at large. I'm sure I've missed some terms, so please feel free to add or correct the record in the interest of spreading the good word. Thank you! Cryptocurrency - "A digital currency in which encryption techniques are used to regulate the generation of units of currency and verify the transfer of funds, operating independently of a central bank." Market Cap - "The value of a company that is traded on the stock market (coin exchange), calculated by multiplying the total number of shares (coins) by the present share (coin) price." Mining Based Offering - The process by which a user or a pool of users coordinate their computer hardware (normally graphics cards) to solve a series of algorithms or "puzzles" to unlock a block or portion of a "coin." This provides inherent value as resources, labor were utilized in the discovery. (E.g. Bitcoin, Litecoin) ICO - Initial Crypto Offering - "A means by which funds are raised [typically crowd-funding] for a new cryptocurrency venture. In an ICO campaign, a percentage of the cryptocurrency is sold to early backers of the project in exchange for legal tender or other cryptocurrencies." This type of offering has a pre-determined price-point, volume of coins, and is traditionally not based on mining or labor intensity. (E.g. Ethereum, NXT) Hard Fork - "A hard fork is a software upgrade that introduces a new rule to the network that isn't compatible with the older software." Soft Fork - "A soft fork, by contrast, is any change that's backward compatible. Say, instead of 1MB blocks, a new rule might only allow 500K blocks." Lightning Network - "Lightning Network is a protocol for scaling and speeding up blockchains. It was designed to solve some of the technical limitations of the Bitcoin blockchain, but could be implemented on top of any blockchain." Segregated Witness - "SegWit" - "The process by which the block size limit on a blockchain is increased by removing signature data from Bitcoin transactions. When certain parts of a transaction are removed, this frees up space or capacity to add more transactions to the chain." Atomic Swap - "Allows users to cross-trade different cryptocurrencies without relying on centralized parties. If user A has bitcoin, and user B wants Ethereum Classic, for example, they can agree to a fixed trading price and complete the transaction immediately." FUD - Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt - "Usually evoked intentionally in order to put a competitor at a disadvantage." FOMO - Fear Of Missing Out - "Anxiety that an exciting or interesting event may currently be happening elsewhere, often aroused by [word of mouth]." HODL - "An enthusiastic misspelling of "Hold," prompting bitcoin users to avoid the temptation of selling off their coins once price starts rising." Moon - A Derivative of "To the Moon" which implies an accelerated, optimistic forecast for a coin's upward trajectory in value Coin Arbitrage - "Taking advantage of a price difference in Crypto Currency between markets" Additional Resources: Lightning Network - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpfvhiqFw7A Segregated Witness - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzBAG2Jp4bg
Segregated Witness (Segwit) was activated on the Bitcoin blockchain network in August 2017. Bitpanda has "now completed our development. Segwit supported wallets and transactions will now be rolled out to Bitpanda users. All Bitpanda deposits and transactions will now be SegWit compatible." Source: https://blog.bitpanda.com/bitpanda-update-segwit-implementation-new-deposit-addresses-and-lower-tx-fees-7b2653edbc9 Bitcoin BTC development is moving forwards at "lightning" speed, now that the "small bosses", like China FUD, and BUGGY SegWit2X have been defeated. This is all in the pipeline for BTC: RootStock (Ethereum style smart-contract platform), off-chain atomic swaps, improved privacy features, all coming soon, & don't forget the free dividend coins coming in 2018, and the upcoming lightning network technology. AND remember... WALL STREET is coming...:) STATS: https://bitinfocharts.com/cryptocurrency-charts.html
I found out this link: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-June/008810.html, Gavin, you said: [But even before stepping down as Lead I was starting to wonder if there are ANY successful open source projects that didn't have either a Benevolent Dictator or some clear voting process to resolve disputes that cannot be settled with "rough consensus."]. I think you are quite right. Wladimir’s roll is hard, huge responsibility with unfitting return. However, that’s not the reason for demanding unanimous support for changes to take place, allowing one-vote veto. What’s the different between having Wladimir and a robot then? My question is: Other than trying to be “decentrilized”, is it also because that you found the leading dev roll with too much responsibility but too little return, so that you gave up your power? After that, realizing the 5-dev-group (the devs with commit access) need to be somehow centralized, have you ever tried to abolish one-vote veto, and change it to a majority rule. If it was changed to majority rule now, we might need another leading dev. Are you willing to lead the development again? A: I think I am much better at writing and communicating and thinking about ‘the big picture’ than I am at managing and keeping track of hundreds of small details. People have encouraged me to be “the Linus Torvalds of Bitcoin,” but I looked at what Linus actually does and I don’t think I would be very good at it or enjoy it. He spends a lot of time with the details of pulling in changes to the Linux kernel, and that is the kind of thing a lead developer needs to spend time doing. Wladimir is good at that. Even if the Core project changed from “overwhelming consensus-- one or two people can veto a change” to “majority rule” I don’t think I want the lead developer role. If there was nobody else to do it, I would return, but I think there are now lots of people who would be good lead developers. Some of them are leading projects like Bitcoin Unlimited or btcd or Bitcoin Classic, and that is great!
Q: Lots of people say that “Bitcoin is dead”. What’s your opinion on this? Does Bitcoin still have a future? A: Bitcoin absolutely has a future. It has been declared dead dozens of time, and I am sure it will be declared dead dozens of times more before people get tired of saying that it is dead.
Q: Bitcoin has been stably running for seven years, why not the core developers act like Satoshi, just watch it, so as to avoid development centralization? A: Good developers always want to make things better! And there are changes that must be made as more people use Bitcoin.
Q: What’s your opinion on Dogecoin? Is it possible that Dogecoin becomes one of Bitcoin’s sidechains, so that it can helps the traffic on Bitcoin mainchain? A: I like the 21-million bitcoin limit. I think it makes sense for there to be a limited, predictable supply of money. So I don’t like altcoins that create even more money; you can think of it as a sneaky way of increasing the 21-million coin limit. If Dogecoin was just a sidechain, without its own currency, then I would like it more.
Q: Gavin, what’s your opinion on Ethereum? Any comment on the trend that the industry started to talk about blockchain without mentioning Bitcoin? A: I answered another question about Ethereum. As for “we like Blockchain” instead of “we like Bitcoin” : I don’t have a strong opinion about that. I answered another question about private blockchains; I think they make sense for some things, and not for others.
Q: Can you explain why it is not possible to solve the congestion problem by reducing block generation time? Is reducing block generation time the same as increasing blocksize? A: It would be even more controversial to reduce the block generation time than it is to increase the block size limit. It is technically more difficult to safely reduce the generation time, and would require more changes to more software. In particular, lightweight wallets that just download block headers might have to download many more headers, increasing their bandwidth usage.
Q: Hi, Gavin, I‘m curious why you always change your idea in the size of block limit? Why not insist on one hard fork solution? I think you did not think about it carefully on how to increase the limit, what’s your opinion? A: I have been trying very hard for a long time to find a solution that most people can agree on, and have made just two proposals (BIP101 and BIP109). I have thought very carefully about how to safely increase the limit. Part of the problem is it can be done in many ways, and it really doesn’t matter which way is chosen-- it is more important that SOMETHING is chosen. Those are the decisions that are the hardest to make, because it is easy for people to have different opinions about what way is best.
Q: Sure, I’m gonna ask something other than blocksize and Classic vs. Core. Gavin I just want to ask you a question as an ordinary trader. Do you believe that Bitcoin can serve as a good store of value? Because you said on bitcontalk that Bitcoin cannot become a significant instrument for storing value https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=204.msg1714#msg1714. Do you still think so? A: That feels like a very long time ago I said that… I still think that the best store of value is in diversified investments that are investing in people that are working hard to make the world a better place. So the part of my personal savings that is not Bitcoin is mostly invested in diversified stock mutual funds. Having some of your savings in a very safe investment makes a lot of sense; something like precious metals is probably the safest investment right now. Hopefully some day Bitcoin will be safer than gold, and it will make sense to hold Bitcoin as part of your “safe from stock market craziness” money. Today, I think it makes sense to hold some Bitcon as part of your “high risk but maybe high future reward” money. But please don’t invest all of your money in any one thing!
Q: I just want to ask that, Gavin, you have a title “Chief Scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation”, what does it mean? What’s the main responsibility, and who assigned it to you? A: There was a meeting in Seattle where we created the Foundation. I don’t remember who suggested the “Chief Scientist” title, but it seemed better than the rest of the possible titles we were thinking of. I am fortunate to have very few responsibilities. I am given the freedom to do what I think will be best for Bitcoin. I tell people I have almost no gray hair (I should have gray hair, I will be 50 years old at the end of the year) because I organize my life so that I do not need to manage people and almost never have to talk with lawyers.
Q: How did you know Satoshi at the very beginning, did he come to you, or you were attacted by the Bitcoin project and contacted him? A: I contacted Satoshi on the bitcointalk forums. Here is my first message to him: Hey Satoshi: I want to help make Bitcoin a success. I've started by creating freebitcoins.appspot.com, and plan on doing a couple of other small projects like it. But I think I might be able to help in lots of other ways. I was the chief architect of the VRML 3D-graphics-on-the-web standardization effort (which is STILL a solution in search of a problem, unfortunately), and had the unpleasant experience of taking it through the ISO standardization process. I've also written a lot of C++ code (I'm very proud of the code I wrote as part of the Open Inventor team at Silicon Graphics), although it's been a while (I've switched to Python). I'm very curious to hear more about you-- how old are you? Is Satoshi your real name? Do you have a day job? What projects have you been involved with before? Anyway, Bitcoin is a brilliant idea, and I want to help. What do you need? -- Gavin Andresen
Q: Gavin, last time when you were in Beijing, what did you say in that meeting? *A: *The first and only time I’ve been in China was the end of last month (March). The purpose of the trip was to meet with some of the mining pools and miners, to better understand what they are thinking about the block size limit, segregated witness, the halving, and anything else that is an issue right now. I did not say a lot-- just made clear some technical points about BIP109, and explained what I have been hearing from large and small companies in the West.
Q: Gavin, what do you think is the best way to introduce / explain Bitcoin to an average Joe? A: I usually start by saying that Bitcoin is one of those ideas that sounds crazy when you first hear it. And then I describe it as “money for the Internet, that is designed to be like the Internet-- with no single person or government or company in control.” Then I let them steer the conversation and ask questions if they are interested. Some people want to talk about what governments think, some people want to know about the technology, some people want to know if they should invest or how easy it is to use… there are lots of things to talk about!
Q: Gavin, you’re working for bitcoin as a career, is there anyone around try to deride or attact you about what you’re doing? How did you move on and continue your work? What do you think about the current situation of bitcoin development? *A: *There are always people on the Internet who seem to like attacking other people. I don’t know if it is better or worse with Bitcoin; probably worse, because people care so much about it. I get many more people thanking me for the work I do on Bitcoin than people attacking me, so usually it is easy to move on and continue my work. I am most hurt when I am attacked by people I have worked with in the past; that is discouraging. I think overall Bitcoin development is stronger than it has ever been. There are more people contributing, not just to Core but to other projects, and more innovation happening. But moving from there being just one implementation of the protocol to multiple competing implementations is necessary, but difficult. I wish developers did not see that transition as being some sort of personal attack.
Q: Hi Gavin, SegWig had a PR a couple of days ago, however, the blocksize limit is still 1MB, the amount of transactions can be processed are still the same per block. I really want to know that when we can benefit from SegWig, and when can we actually have blocks that can process more transactions? A: If everything goes perfectly, we might see a significan number of SegWit transactions in three months. I would guess it will take six months for the miners to adopt segwit and then wallets to start producing segwit transactions, but it could take a year. Unfortunately, transaction volume was growing more quickly than that, so even if Segwit helps, it will not help quickly enough.
Q: Hi Gavin, you said in 2015 that having 1-minute block generation time is a good idea. Do you still believe so? If yes, can you share your strategy on dealing with the security issues and the higher orphan rate? https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/35hpkt/please_remind_me_once_again_why_we_cant_decrease/cr4wk0g A: Yes, I still believe Bitcoin would work just fine with a one-minute block generation time. I don’t think we should change that right now, though, because it would be a big change that requires changing lots of software. I’m not sure what security issues you are talking about, perhaps you could be more specific. As for higher orphan rates: if everybody has a higher orphan rate, then that is not a problem (unless orphan rates get very high-- say 5-10% or more). Even worries about larger miners having an advantage at higher orphan rates could be addressed with some protocol changes. But, again, all of that is a much longer discussion that I don’t think we should have right now. Increasing or eliminating the block size limit is much simpler.
Q: Hi Gavin, how many hours do spend on working every day? Do you still write code nowadays? *A: *It depends on what you mean by “working” -- does answering email after dinner count? I try not to work too much; I need to get more exercise, and like to spend time with my family (my children will be going to college in just a few years). I am usually at my office maybe seven hours, five days per week, and on good days I do get to still write code.
Q: Hi, Gavin, how many children do you have? :-D How do you balance between your life and bitcoin? A: Two children, a girl and a boy, both teenagers. The trick to balancing life and bitcoin is to say “no” a lot (“no, I’m sorry, I cannot speak at your conference in Botswana”).
Q: Hi Gavin, I’m very worried about bitcoin may split to two coins, which is very bad. So I once posted on 8btc to discuss how to prevent bitcoin from splitting in future. http://8btc.com/thread-30758-1-1.htm. Simply put, we just add all different opinions into one wallet, and the network automatically hard fork based on the vote result of the wallet. In this way, there would be no splitting ever happen. Do you think this idea would work out? (See above image as an illustration of the idea) A: Agreeing how the vote would work would be hard (would transactions vote? For how long? 51% agreement or 75% or 95%?) Only transactions in blocks count as voting? (if not, then somebody could send lots of transactions to vote multiple times) And what if miners decide not to mine transactions that vote for something they disagree with?
Q: Gavin, do you think large institutions wil join in Bitcoin ,like big fund or bank? There are news mentioned about safery regulations and risk factors in bitoin, may they be eliminated? Or will bitcoin be a game for ordinary people forever? A: If Bitcoin continues to grow, then yes, I think large institutions will start to accept Bitcoin. We have already seen some big technology companies like Microsoft work with Bitcoin. Most of the risk with Bitcoin is caused by new, immature companies (like Mt. Gox). The risk is smaller today, because larger, more stable, better funded companies with better engineers are involved, and I expect that will continue. I hope Bitcoin will also be used by ordinary people forever!
Q: What are you most proud of since you've join in Bitcoin development? A: All of the testing infrastructure that I put into place. My first contribution was the Bitcoin testnet, and if I remember correctly I also put the first unit tests in place and the first regression tests.
Q: Hi Gavin, do you mind further share some insights on why you think Bitcoin cannot replace the fiat system and become a true global currency? Bitcoin is a better instrument as store of value, it has better liquidity, also better against counterfeiting, and can even truly make people's wealth inviolable to anyone! (no more confiscation and capital control.) Therefore, Bitcoin obviously is a better currency comparing to fiat. When a better currency appears, people tends to adopt it naturally, and gradually abandon the old currency. (just like how people abandoned shells, when they realized that gold is better form of money with excellent monetary attributes. *A: * It could eventually replace the fiat system, but I don’t think that will happen in my lifetime. I hope I am wrong about that!
Q: Hi, Gavin, welcome to 8btc! I am a altlcoin dev ,do you like one or some altcoins? And what do you think of the coins developed by Chinese Teams, like the VPNCoin、Dacrs(SmartCoin)、Antshares or others projects(these are all high light shown on 8btc.com). Have you ever tried to understand such altcoins? Best Regards! Your fans A: I don’t like altcoins that are created just to create more money, because I like the 21-million bitcoin limit. Altcoins that have some innovative technology in them (like Ethereum or Zerocash) are more interesting, but I would rather they were done as sidechains to the Bitcoin blockchain. I think you should have a very good purpose for creating a new currency, and if you don’t have a good purpose, you should use the Bitcoin currency.
Gavin: Thank you very much for the great questions, and BIG thanks to the translators for their hard work! kcb: Thank you Gavin!! It’s great to have you here!! WangXiaoMeng: Thanks a lot Gavin!!!
The bitcoin community still debates whether Segregated Witness will help the network’s scalability or will instead create more problems. As I have previously written, SegWit raises legal ... Segregated Witness (SegWit) This is an upgrade of the protocol and consensus rules, proposed and implemented as a soft-fork (BIP-9) activated on the main-net on August 1st, 2017. In cryptography the term Witness is used to describe a solution to a cryptographic puzzle: in Bitcoin, the Witness meets the conditions set on a UTXO. Read writing about Segregated Witness in Keeping Stock. the cashflow stories that matter. covering finance, wealth accumulation, venture capital, bitcoin, and money, money, money. What is Bitcoin SegWit – Segregated Witness When you think of cryptocurrency and data storage you may end up finding yourself feeling a bit confused. After all, how many cryptocurrency newcomers understand what a block is or how transactions between nodes and masternodes even works? Don’t worry, many people who are new to cryptocurrency or coding […] The bitcoin community still debates whether Segregated Witness will help the network’s scalability or will instead create more problems. As I have previously written, SegWit raises legal questions because it would enable full digital signature (witness) data to be dropped from the transaction data; this would undermine the ability of bitcoin digital signatures to also be used as electronic ...
SegWit is a solution to increase the scalability of blockchain and has already been successfully implemented on Litecoin and Bitcoin. Currently, every block not only record every transaction ... Segregated Witness or 'SegWit' is the main focus of this interview; this is the development solution for bitcoin scaling that would further accelerate adoption and give confidence to big wall ... What is 'Segregated Witness' and what's its purpose? How do soft forks work and what do they make possible? What the %^&* is a sidechain? Innovation breeds innovations, says he -- the Grecian ... Signalling and approval process for updating bitcoin to allow segregated witness. LINKS: Signalling Stats: http://bitcoin.sipa.be/ver9-10k.png Bitcoin Core: ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue