HashCash: el ancestro de la prueba de trabajo de Bitcoin

The very few people mentioned by Satoshi Nakamoto in his white paper

Wei Dai
Henri Massias
Xavier Serret-Avila
Jean-Jacques Quisquater
Dave Bayer
Stuart Haber
W. Scott Stornetta
Adam Back
Ralph C. Merkle
William Feller
submitted by staviac to btc [link] [comments]

PoW & PoS...

A Proof-of-Work (PoW) is a piece of data which is costly to produce, so as to satisfy certain requirements, but is trivial to verify. Bitcoin uses the Hashcash PoW. Mining, the process of producing PoW, plays a central role in creating, distributing, and securing Bitcoin and many of its variants. The most common criticism of PoW mining is its massive waste of energy. At the time of writing, the total daily revenue of mining Bitcoin is around $1.8 milion USD. Depending on the aggregate profit margin and the fraction of overall cost that electricity accounts for, we estimate the daily total electricity cost between $200k and $500k USD. In addition to this wastefulness, there are several more reasons why mining remains a very controversial aspect of PoW cryptocurrencies.
Proof-of-Stake is an alternative to Pow, where based on connectivity to the network and random chance, you can receive new coins to assist in the decentralization of the network. One useful feature of Proof-of-Stake is the significant savings in energy consumption in that it requires no dedicated hardware and negligible amounts of electricity to reward miners, and in many cases is far more resilient to a 51% attack on the network. (Blackcoin Core Team 2016)
submitted by KahshCoin to u/KahshCoin [link] [comments]

Facts about Adam Back (Bitcoin/Blockstream CEO) you heard it right, he himself thinks he is in charge of Bitcoin.

Via: u/ydtm
Who is Adam Back?
Why do people think he's important?
If he hadn't convinced some venture capitalists to provide $75 million to set him up as President/CEO of Blockstream - would he be just another "nobody" in Bitcoin?
Consider the following 4 facts:
(1) Go to the list of Bitcoin "Core" contributors do a Find for "adam":
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors
Hmm... Apparently, he is not a Bitcoin "Core" dev.
Here is his GitHub page:
https://github.com/adam3us
Hmm...
zero contributions
zero repositories
Now, ask yourself:
(2) Look at his profile on his Twitter home page:
https://twitter.com/adam3us
It says:
  • "inventor of hashcash"
  • "bitcoin is hashcash extended with inflation control"
Both of these statements have been publicly exposed as false - but he still refuses to take them down.
" 'Bitcoin is Hashcash extended with inflation control.' ...[is] sort of like saying, 'a Tesla is just a battery on wheels.' " -- Blockstream's Adam Back #R3KT by Princeton researchers in new Bitcoin book
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/45121i/bitcoin_is_hashcash_extended_with_inflation/
Adam Back did not invent proof of work
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/46vq7i/adam_back_did_not_invent_proof_of_work/
Now, ask yourself:
  • Do you trust someone who puts false statements like this on their Twitter profile?
(3) Recall his history of failures regarding Bitcoin:
He was personally informed by Satoshi about Bitcoin in 2009 via email - and he did not think it would work.
He did not become involved in Bitcoin until it was around its all-time high of 1000 USD, in November 2013.
He opened his Github account within 48 hours of Bitcoin's all-time high price. Presumably he sat and watched it go from zero to 4 figures before getting involved.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/45n462/adam_back_on_twitter_virtuallylaw_jgarzik/czyzso5?context=1
  • Why didn't Adam understand the economics of Bitcoin from 2009 until 2013?
  • If you want a "leader" of Bitcoin, do you think it should be someone who didn't understand it for 4 years?
  • Do you think he can really understand the economics of Bitcoin now?
(4) Adam wants to radically "fork" Bitcoin from Satoshi's original vision of "p2p electronic cash" and instead encourage people to use the highly complicated and unproven "Lightning Network" (LN).
However, unfortunately, he hasn't figured out how to make LN decentralized.
Lightning network is selling as a decentralized layer 2 while there's no decentralized path-finding.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43oi26/lightning_network_is_selling_as_a_decentralized/
Unmasking the Blockstream Business Plan
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/42nx74/unmasking_the_blockstream_business_plan/
It's time for people to start asking some serious questions about Adam Back:
  • about his lack of contributions to the Bitcoin codebase;
  • about his unethical style of communication;
  • about his rejection of Satoshi's vision for Bitcoin;
  • about his lack of understanding of economics, p2p, and decentralization.
Bitcoin was never even supposed to have a leader - but somehow (because some venture capitalists and Adam found each other), now we apparently have one: and it's Adam Back - someone who never contributed any code to Bitcoin, never believed in the economics of Bitcoin, and never believed in the decentralization of Bitcoin.
Whether you're decentralization-loving libertarian or cypherpunk - or a Chinese miner - or just someone who uses Bitcoin for your personal life or business, it's time to start asking yourself:
  • Who is Adam Back?
  • Why hasn't he contributed any code for Bitcoin?
  • Why is he lying about Bitcoin and HashCash on his Twitter profile?
  • Why did he fail to understand the economics of Bitcoin from 2009 to 2013?
  • Does he understand the economics of Bitcoin now?
  • If he rejects Satoshi's original vision of "p2p electronic cash" and prefers a centralized, "Level-2" system such as Lightning Network, then shouldn't be doing this on some alt-coin, instead of radically "forking" Bitcoin itself?
  • If he hadn't convinced some venture capitalists to provide $75 million to set him up as President/CEO of Blockstream - would you still be listening to him?
Bitcoin was supposed to be "trustless" and "leaderless".
But now, many people are "trusting" Adam Back as a "leader" - despite the fact that:
  • he has contributed no code to Bitcoin "Core" - or any other Bitcoin code repository (eg: Classic, XT, BU);
  • he never believed in Bitcoin until the price hit $1000;
  • he rejects Satoshi's vision of "p2p electronic cash";
  • he is dishonest about his academic achievements;
  • he is dishonest about the Lightning Network's lack of decentralization.
Maybe it's time for everyone to pause, and think about how we got into this situation - and what we can do about it now.
One major question we should all be asking:
Would Adam Back enjoy this kind of prestige and prominence if he didn't have $75 million in venture capital behind him?
There is, of course, a place for everyone in Bitcoin.
But Bitcoin was never about "trusting" any kind of "leader" - especially someone whose main "accomplishments" with Bitcoin have consisted of misunderstanding it for years, and now trying to radically "fork" it away from Satoshi's vision of "p2p electronic cash".
TL;DR:
  • Adam Back's history with Bitcoin is a long track record of failures.
  • If he hadn't convinced some VCs into backing him and his company with $75 million, you probably wouldn't have ever heard of him.
  • So you should not be "trusting" him as the "leader" of Bitcoin.
submitted by defconoi to btc [link] [comments]

Core/AXA/Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are sabotaging Bitcoin - but they lack the social skills to even feel guilty for this. Anyone who attempts to overrule the market and limit or hard-code Bitcoin's blocksize must be rejected by the community.

Centrally planned blocksize is not a desirable feature - it's an insidious bug which is slowly and quietly suppressing Bitcoin's adoption and price and market cap.
And SegWit's dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" hack isn't just a needless kludge (which Core/Blockstream/AXA are selfishly trying to quietly slip into Bitcoin via a dangerous and messy soft fork - because they're deathly afraid of hard fork, knowing that most people would vote against their shitty code if they ever had the balls to put it up for an explicit, opt-in vote).
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is a poison-pill for Bitcoin
SegWit is brought to you by the anti-Bitcoin central bankers at AXA and the economically ignorant, central blocksize planners at Blockstream whose dead-end "road map" for Bitcoin is:
AXA is trying to sabotage Bitcoin by paying the most ignorant, anti-market devs in Bitcoin: Core/Blockstream
This is the direction that Bitcoin has been heading in since late 2014 when Blockstream started spreading their censorship and propaganda and started bribing and corrupting the "Core" devs using $76 million in fiat provided by corrupt, anti-Bitcoin "fantasy fiat" finance firms like the debt-backed, derivatives-addicted insurance mega-giant AXA.
Remember:
You Do The Math, and follow the money, and figure out why Bitcoin has been slowly failing to prosper ever since AXA started bribing Core devs to cripple our code with their centrally planned blocksize and now their "Anyone-Can-Spend" SegWit poison-pill.
Smart, honest devs fix bugs. Fiat-fueled AXA-funded Core/Blockstream devs add bugs - and then turn around and try to lie to our face and claim their bugs are somehow "features"
Recently, people discovered bugs in other Bitcoin implementations - memory leaks in BU's software, "phone home" code in AntMiner's firmware.
And the devs involved immediately took public responsibility, and fixed these bugs.
Meanwhile...
So the difference is: BU's and AntMiner's devs possess enough social and economic intelligence to fix bugs in their code immediately when the community finds them.
Meanwhile, most people in the community have been in an absolute uproar for years now against AXA-funded Blockstream's centrally planned blocksize and their deadly Anyone-Can-Spend hack/kludge/poison-pill.
Of course, the home-schooled fiat-fattened sociopath Blockstream CTO One-Meg Greg u/nullc would probably just dismiss all these Bitcoin users as the "shreaking" [sic] masses.
Narcissistic sociopaths like AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell and CTO Adam and their drooling delusional attack dog Luke-Jr (another person who was home-schooled - which may help explain why he's also such a tone-deaf anti-market sociopath) are just too stupid and arrogant to have the humility and the shame to shut the fuck up and listen to the users when everyone has been pointing out these massive lethal bugs in Core's shitty code.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr, and Theymos are the most damaging people in Bitcoin
These are the four main people who are (consciously or unconsciously) attempting to sabotage Bitcoin:
These toxic idiots are too stupid and shameless and sheltered - and too anti-social and anti-market - to even begin to recognize the lethal bugs they have been trying to introduce into Bitcoin's specification and our community.
Users decide on specifications. Devs merely provide implementations.
Guys like Greg think that they're important because they can do implemenation-level stuff (like avoiding memory leaks in C++ code).
But they are total failures when it comes to specification-level stuff (ie, they are incapable of figuring out how to "grow" a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market by maximally leveraging available technology).
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos apparently lack the social and economic awareness and human decency to feel any guilt or shame for the massive damage they are attempting to inflict on Bitcoin - and on the world.
Their ignorance is no excuse
Any dev who is ignorant enough to attempt to propose adding such insidious bugs to Bitcoin needs to be rejected by the Bitcoin community - no matter how many years they keep on loudly insisting on trying to sabotage Bitcoin like this.
The toxic influence and delusional lies of AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are directly to blame for the slow-motion disaster happening in Bitcoin right now - where Bitcoin's market cap has continued to fall from 100% towards 60% - and is continuing to drop.
When bitcoin drops below 50%, most of the capital will be in altcoins. All they had to do was increase the block size to 2mb as they promised. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/68219y/when_bitcoin_drops_below_50_most_of_the_capital/
u/FormerlyEarlyAdopter : "I predict one thing. The moment Bitcoin hard-forks away from Core clowns, all the shit-coins out there will have a major sell-off." ... u/awemany : "Yes, I expect exactly the same. The Bitcoin dominance index will jump above 95% again."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5yfcsw/uformerlyearlyadopter_i_predict_one_thing_the/
Market volume (ie, blocksize) should be decided by the market - not based on some arbitrary number that some ignorant dev pulled out of their ass
For any healthy cryptocurrency, market price and market capitalization and market volume (a/k/a "blocksize") are determined by the market - not by any dev team, not by central bankers from AXA, not by economically ignorant devs like Adam and Greg (or that other useless idiot - Core "Lead Maintainer" Wladimir van der Laan), not by some drooling pathological delusional authoritarian freak like Luke-Jr, and not by some petty tyrant and internet squatter and communmity-destroyer like Theymos.
The only way that Bitcoin can survive and prosper is if we, as a community, denounce and reject these pathological "centralized blocksize" control freaks like Adam and Greg and Luke and Theymos who are trying to use tricks like fiat and censorship and lies (in collusion with their army of trolls organized and unleashed by the Dragons Den) to impose their ignorance and insanity on our currency.
These losers might be too ignorant and anti-social to even begin to understand the fact that they are attempting to sabotage Bitcoin.
But their ignorance is no excuse. And Bitcoin is getting ready to move on and abandon these losers.
There are many devs who are much better than Greg, Adam and Luke-Jr
A memory leak is an implementation error, and a centrally planned blocksize is a specification error - and both types of errors will be avoided and removed by smart devs who listen to the community.
There are plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in C++ - plus plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in other languages as well, such as:
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos are being exposed as miserable failures
AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, their drooling attack dog Luke-Jr and their censor Theymos (and all the idiot small-blockheads, trolls, and shills who swallow the propaganda and lies cooked up in the Dragons Den) are being exposed more and more every day as miserable failures.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos had the arrogance and the hubris to want to be "trusted" as "leaders".
But Bitcoin is the world's first cryptocurrency - so it doesn't need trust, and it doesn't need leaders. It is decentralized and trustless.
C++ devs should not be deciding Bitcoin's volume. The market should decide.
It's not suprising that a guy like "One-Meg Greg" who adopts a nick like u/nullc (because he spends most of his life worrying about low-level details like how to avoid null pointer errors in C++ while the second-most-powerful fiat finance corporation in the world AXA is throwing tens of millions of dollars of fiat at his company to reward him for being a "useful idiot") has turned to be not very good at seeing the "big picture" of Bitcoin economics.
So it also comes as no suprise that Greg Maxwell - who wanted to be the "leader" of Bitcoin - has turned out to be one of most harmful people in Bitcoin when it comes to things like growing a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market and economy.
All the innovation and growth and discussion in cryptocurrencies is happening everywhere else - not at AXA-funded Blockstream and r\bitcoin (and the recently discovered Dragons Den, where they plan their destructive social engineering campaigns).
Those are the censored centralized cesspools financed by central bankers and overrun by loser devs and the mindless trolls who follow them - and supported by inefficient miners who want to cripple Bitcoin with centrally planned blocksize (and dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" SegWit).
Bitcoin is moving on to bigger blocks and much higher prices - leaving AXA-funded Blockstream's crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust
Let them stagnate in their crippled shit-coin with its centrally planned, artificial, arbitrary 1MB 1.7MB blocksize, and SegWit's Anyone-Can-Spend hack kludge poison-pill.
Bitcoin is moving on without these tyrants and liars and losers and sociopaths - and we're going to leave their crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust.
Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5y9qtg/coreblockstream_are_now_in_the_k%C3%BCblerross/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
1 BTC = 64 000 USD would be > $1 trillion market cap - versus $7 trillion market cap for gold, and $82 trillion of "money" in the world. Could "pure" Bitcoin get there without SegWit, Lightning, or Bitcoin Unlimited? Metcalfe's Law suggests that 8MB blocks could support a price of 1 BTC = 64 000 USD
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5lzez2/1_btc_64_000_usd_would_be_1_trillion_market_cap/
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

The only acceptable "compromise" is SegWit NEVER, bigger blocks NOW. SegWit-as-a-soft-fork involves an "anyone-can-spend" hack - which would give Core/Blockstream/AXA a MONOPOLY on Bitcoin development FOREVER. The goal of SegWit is NOT to help Bitcoin. It is to HURT Bitcoin and HELP Blockstream/AXA.

TL;DR: Adding a poison pill like SegWit to Bitcoin would not be a "compromise" - it would be suicide, because SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" hack would give a permanent monopoly on Bitcoin development to the corrupt, incompetent, toxic dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA, who are only interested in staying in power and helping themselves at all costs - even if they end up hurting Bitcoin.
Most of this post will probably not be new information for many people.
It is being provided mainly as a reminder, to counteract the constant flood of lies and propaganda coming from Core/Blocsktream/AXA in their attempt to force this unwanted SegWit poison pill into Bitcoin - in particular, their latest desperate lie: that there could somehow be some kind of "compromise" involving SegWit.
But adding a poison pill / trojan horse like SegWit to our code would not be some kind of "compromise". It would be simply be suicide.
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is an existential threat to Bitcoin development - because SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" hack would give a permanent monopoly on Bitcoin development to the corrupt / incompetent centralized dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA who are directly to blame for the current mess of Bitcoin's crippled, clogged network and drastically falling market cap.
Furthermore, markets don't even do "compromise". They do "winner-takes-all". Any coin adopting SegWit is going to lose, simply because SegWit is such shitty code:
"Compromise is not part of Honey Badger's vocabulary. Such notions are alien to Bitcoin, as it is a creature of the market with no central levers to compromise over. Bitcoin unhampered by hardcoding a 1MB cap is free to optimize itself perfectly to defeat all competition." ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5y7vsi/compromise_is_not_part_of_honey_badgers/
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is a poison-pill / trojan horse for Bitcoin
SegWit is brought to you by the anti-Bitcoin central bankers at AXA and the economically ignorant, central blocksize planners at Blockstream whose dead-end "road map" for Bitcoin is:
AXA is trying to sabotage Bitcoin by paying the most ignorant, anti-market devs in Bitcoin: Core/Blockstream
This is the direction that Bitcoin has been heading in since late 2014 when Blockstream started spreading their censorship and propaganda and started bribing and corrupting the "Core" devs using $76 million in fiat provided by corrupt, anti-Bitcoin "fantasy fiat" finance firms like the debt-backed, derivatives-addicted insurance mega-giant AXA.
Remember: The real goals of Core/Blocsktream/AXA with SegWit are to:
  • permanently supress Bitcoin's price / adoption / network capacity / market cap / growth - via SegWit's too-little, too-late centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize;
  • permanently control Bitcoin development - via SegWit's deadly "anyone-can-spend" hack.
In order to see this, all you need to do is judge Core/Blocsktream/AXA by their actions (and the results of their actions - and by their shitty code):
Purely coincidental... ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6a72vm/purely_coincidental/
Do not judge Core/Blocsktream/AXA by their words.
As we have seen, their words have been just an endless stream of lies and propaganda involving changing explanations and shifting goalposts and insane nonsense - including this latest outrageous concept of SegWit as some kind of "compromise" which some people may be "falling for":
Latest Segwit Trickery involves prominent support for "SW Now 2MB Later" which will lead to only half of the deal being honored. Barry Silbert front and center. Of course.
~ u/SouperNerd
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6btm5u/latest_segwit_trickery_involves_prominent_support/
The people we are dealing with are the WORST type of manipulators and liars.
There is absolutely NO reason why they should not deliver a 2 MB block size at the same time as SegWit.
This is like a dealer saying "hey gimme that $200 now, I just gotta run home and get your weed, I promise I'll be right back".
~ u/BitAlien
Barry Silbert's "proposal" is just another bait and switch
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6btl26/barry_silberts_proposal_is_just_another_bait_and/
Right, so the wording is:
I agree to immediately support the activation of Segregated Witness and commit to effectuate a block size increase to 2MB within 12 months
[Based] on [their] previous performance [in the Hong Kong agreement - which they already broke], they're going to say, "Segregated Witness was a block size increase, to a total of 4MB, so we have delivered our side of the compromise."
~ u/edmundedgar
Barry is an investor in Blockstream. What else needs to be said?
~ u/coinlock
Nothing involving SegWit is a "compromise".
SegWit would basically hijack Bitcoin development forever - giving a permanent monopoly to the centralized, corrupt dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA.
  • SegWit would impose a centrally planned blocksize of 1.7MB right now - too little and too late.
  • Segwit would permanently "cement" Core/Blockstream/AXA as the only people controlling Bitcoin development - forever.
If you are sick and tired of these attempts by Core/Blockstream/AXA to sabotage Bitcoin - then the last thing you should support is SegWit in any way, shape or form - even as some kind of so-called "compromise".
This is because SegWit is not primarily a "malleability fix" or a "capacity increase".
SegWit is a poison pill / trojan horse which would put the idiots and traitors at Core/Blockstream/AXA permanently and exclusively in control of Bitcoin development - forever and ever.
Here are the real problems with SegWit (which Core/Blockstream/AXA is not telling you about):
Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ge1ks/segwit_cannot_be_rolled_back_because_to/
"So, Core wants us to trust miners not to steal Segwit's anyone-can-spends, but will not let them have a say on block size. Weird."~Cornell U Professor and bitcoin researcher Emin Gün Sirer.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/60ac4q/so_core_wants_us_to_trust_miners_not_to_steal/
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5sndsz/brock_pierces_blockchain_capital_is_partowner_of/
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h0yf0/ulukejr_invented_segwits_dangerous_anyonecanspend/
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdl1j/segwit_encumbers_bitcoin_with_irreversible/
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ju5r8/we_had_our_arms_twisted_to_accept_2mb_hardfork/
Here is a list (on medium.com) of 13 articles that explain why SegWit would be bad for Bitcoin.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/646kmv/here_is_a_list_on_mediumcom_of_13_articles_that/
"Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbv1j/why_is_flexible_transactions_more_futureproof/
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dlyz7/coreblockstream_their_supporters_keep_saying_that/
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly (self.btc)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jqgpz/segwit_would_bring_unnecessary_complexity_to_the/
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rfh4i/3_excellent_articles_highlighting_some_of_the/
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mnpxx/normal_users_understand_that_segwitasasoftfork_is/
As Benjamin Frankline once said: "Given a choice between Liberty (with a few Bugs), and Slavery (with no Bugs), a Free People will choose Liberty every time." Bitcoin Unlimited is liberty: market-based blocksizes. SegWit is slavery: centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize & "anyone-can-spend" transactions
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zievg/as_benjamin_frankline_once_said_given_a_choice/
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e86fg/uuptrenda_on_segwit_core_is_forcing_every_bitcoin/
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fc1ii/just_because_something_is_a_soft_fork_doesnt_mean/
Here are the real reasons why Core/Blockstream/AXA is terrified of hard forks:
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4080mw/the_real_reason_why_core_blockstream_always/
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ttmk3/reminder_previous_posts_showing_that_blockstreams/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
If some bozo dev team proposed what Core/Blockstream is proposing (Let's deploy a malleability fix as a "soft" fork that dangerously overcomplicates the code and breaks non-upgraded nodes so it's de facto HARD! Let's freeze capacity at 1 MB during a capacity crisis!), they'd be ridiculed and ignored
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5944j6/if_some_bozo_dev_team_proposed_what/
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e410j/negotiations_have_failed_bscore_will_never_hf/
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e4e7d/the_proper_terminology_for_a_hard_fork_should_be/
Here are the real reasons why Core/Blockstream/AXA has been trying to choke the Bitcoin network and suppress Bitcoin's price & adoption. (Hint: Blockstream is controlled by central bankers who hate Bitcoin - because they will go bankrupt if Bitcoin succeeds as a major world currency).
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4r2pw5/if_bitcoin_becomes_a_major_currency_then_tens_of/
Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5btu02/who_owns_the_world_1_barclays_2_axa_3_state/
Double standards: The other sub would go ballistic if Unlimited was funded by AXA. But they are just fine when AXA funds BS-core.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/62ykv1/double_standards_the_other_sub_would_go_ballistic/
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k1r7v/the_insurance_company_with_the_biggest_exposure/
Bilderberg Group -> AXA Strategic Ventures -> funds Blockstream -> Blockstream Core Devs. (The chairman of Bilderberg is Henri de Castries. The CEO of AXA Henri de Castries.)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/576ac9/bilderberg_group_axa_strategic_ventures_funds/
Why is Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc trying to pretend AXA isn't one of the top 5 "companies that control the world"? AXA relies on debt & derivatives to pretend it's not bankrupt. Million-dollar Bitcoin would destroy AXA's phony balance sheet. How much is AXA paying Greg to cripple Bitcoin?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/62htv0/why_is_blockstream_cto_greg_maxwell_unullc_trying/
Core/AXA/Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are sabotaging Bitcoin - but they lack the social skills to even feel guilty for this. Anyone who attempts to overrule the market and limit or hard-code Bitcoin's blocksize must be rejected by the community.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/689y1e/coreaxablockstream_cto_greg_maxwell_ceo_adam_back/
"I'm angry about AXA scraping some counterfeit money out of their fraudulent empire to pay autistic lunatics millions of dollars to stall the biggest sociotechnological phenomenon since the internet and then blame me and people like me for being upset about it." ~ u/dresden_k
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5xjkof/im_angry_about_axa_scraping_some_counterfeit/
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mlo0z/greg_maxwell_used_to_have_intelligent_nuanced/
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5obe2m/this_traders_price_volume_graph_model_predicted/
Just as a reminder: The main funder of Blockstream is Henri de Castries, chairman of French insurance company AXA, and chairman of the Bilderberg Group!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uw6cc/just_as_a_reminder_the_main_funder_of_blockstream/
AXA/Blockstream are suppressing Bitcoin price at 1000 bits = 1 USD. If 1 bit = 1 USD, then Bitcoin's market cap would be 15 trillion USD - close to the 82 trillion USD of "money" in the world. With Bitcoin Unlimited, we can get to 1 bit = 1 USD on-chain with 32MB blocksize ("Million-Dollar Bitcoin")
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u72va/axablockstream_are_suppressing_bitcoin_price_at/
Bitcoin can go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks, so it will go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks. All the censorship & shilling on r\bitcoin & fantasy fiat from AXA can't stop that. BitcoinCORE might STALL at 1,000 USD and 1 MB blocks, but BITCOIN will SCALE to 10,000 USD and 4 MB blocks - and beyond
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jgkxv/bitcoin_can_go_to_10000_usd_with_4_mb_blocks_so/
And finally, here's one easy way that Bitcoin can massively succeed without SegWit - and even without the need for any other major or controversial changes to the code:
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Craig S. Wright's most interesting answers in recent interview. (whether you believe him or not, this is a very fascinating read)

Whether or not you believe Craig is satoshi, this is a very interesting read.
I read through it and pulled out the most interesting parts below:
 
 

Regarding the blocksize limit

Craig Wright (vlad2vlad) [5:23 AM]
I stopped responding to trolls. The base protocol was and is fine.
 
christophbergmann [5:29 AM]
what is the base protocol?
 
Craig Wright (vlad2vlad) [5:31 AM]
With the cap removed it remains ok.
 
 

Regarding satoshi as an authority figure

Craig Wright (vlad2vlad):
IF you need to do what I say as I am Satoshi and not because of the idea I am presenting, but the nature of my identity, then you are all lost!
If you cannot think for yourself, then all this was for nothing.
If you judge based on an identity alone, on a perceived authority, then you are sheeple and deserve all you get.
 
What we need is simple, it is competition. Not a central authority. Not a 1984 double speak committee, but open and free competition.
This means that people are allowed to build on top of the base protocol. That the miners decide (see the 08 paper). If people do not like it, they can lobby miners or better, invest in hash power.
This way, changes are made based on what the market decides. Not an authority, the market. Each tries and fails and grows based on supply to a market.
Craig later adds:
Please, all I ask is do not follow me, a developer or anyone based on who they are. Look anytime, everytime on the solution, the effects and the trade-off.
Everyone seeks an authority. This is what BitCoin was created to bypass. We can all trade and we can do this as the market determines. Not as a consequence of a high priesthood, but through trial and error, failure and just sheer will to try and learn and fail again.
Satoshi has to be a myth. If you make me, or anyone a 'God', an infallible authority, then what is the point?
He makes a good point.
He is saying basically: If Bitcoin only worked based on listening to the authority figure "satoshi", then the system would be flawed right there, as Bitcoin is supposed to work in a decentralized manner, without respect to authority.
So CSW simply removed himself as the authority figure 5 years ago, to allow Bitcoin to work as it is supposed to work.
This sounds like something the real satoshi would say imo.
 
 

Regarding why Craig did not publish a signed message proving he is satoshi.

christophbergmann [5:42 AM]:
Why did you not publish a signed message?
Craig Wright (vlad2vlad):
Answer to your last questing about signing a message:
  1. Tax. I am not offering proof that is proof. If I can access or not is MY business and it stays that way.
  2. More importantly, stop looking to a bloody saviour!
Markets are the answer, free open competition. Not Satoshi on his bloody white horse. Markets!
It makes sense. If he proved that he owned the keys, then suddenly he becomes liable to all taxes and the proof can be used against him. I had never considered this before but it makes total sense. I probably would do the same in satoshi's shoes for this very reason.
Later Craig contines on this when asked again...
tomtomtom7:
csw: Sorry if blunt, but could you comment on why you let Gavin vouch for you without going public with proof yourself?
Craig Wright:
Tomx3+7, I had never wanted what occured and I had no plans to be an authority. I will not.
I will be a scammer with ideas that go to market before I become something I detest and people wanted that. They dressed me in a bloody turtle neck! I have NEVER worn a frikin turtle neck in my life. Like I was bloody jobs or something.
I made stupid decisions and I, as all do, have regrets.
joeldalais:
its not that bad decisions are done, but how we act after that matters
Craig Wright:
I am not good with people. This is difficult for me now. Vlad and others have pushed me to be here and to be frank it scares the shit out of me
tomtomtom7:
thank you csw
Craig Wright:
I am not going to play Satoshi. I am not wanting to have people think I am and I am going to imagine that nobody ever doxx'd me and that I am just some overqualified academic for the moment... ok?
 
 

Layer 2 Networks (including Lightning Network) and centralization

Craig Wright (vlad2vlad):
Layer 2 networks will require the introduction of AML and intermediary controls. These are localised networks in the form of existing intermediaries.
They can be allowed to operate with Bitcoin competitively, but not at the expense of open exchange. This being what they fear, why use L2 if you have no need?
Those who do not think that government can set in and control this are either naive or malicious. There is no other view. This is not a false dichotomy. These are the only options.
In all cases, L2 will require systems that can be controlled and they will require the interaction of merchants and other parties. Networks such as lightning centralise and offer control on a platter.
 

Why 21 Million Coins

Craig Wright (vlad2vlad):
21 million links to global M1
There are no decimal points, 21 million is the reference for people, the no. Satoshi (and I did not call them that) are related to M1
cryptonaut [6:50 AM]:
can you expand on that?
Craig Wright (vlad2vlad):
http://lexicon.ft.com/Term?term=m0,-m1,-m2,-m3,-m4
If you read the 08 paper, you will note the use of fiat as a value.
Sect, 9. Page 5.
In the use of 21 million x 108 parts you have a value that maps to the cent.
That is, to global M1. This would be 21,000,000,000,000 USD as M1. 21,000 trillion
 
 

Regarding Adam Back

jp:
Why did you credit Adam Back hashcash when you didn't use it?
Craig Wright:
Adam intro'd Wei. I do not generally talk to people I do not know. Not without an intro
jp:
But why credit him while you not used his? This wrong citation creates this evil blockstream
Craig Wright:
Adam was helpful for all that he said it would not work, but I am used to people saying my work is not worth considering.
 
 

Regarding Core

Craig Wright:
Core should not tell you what to do. They need to propose and allow the market to decide. Bitcoin solves the issue of sock puppets in a manner analogous to the gambler at the roulette table. This means we propose and allow it to compete and to see what we can have, not as a centralised system but through many groups.
 
 

Discussion with Charlie Shrem Regarding Bitcoin Unlimited and its scaling solution

Craig Wright:
If you consider the flaw in BU, it was a loss to the miner, not to the protocol
charlieshrem:
BU has too many issues to safely be considered the reference client.
Craig Wright:
That should be encouraged. No transaction was lost and the overall system did not suffer, so why is this a problem generally? Charlie, I do agree. But the solution does not need to be so difficult.
charlieshrem:
Agreed.
Craig Wright:
And we can scale on and off chain at the same time.
charlieshrem:
Agreed as well.
Craig Wright:
In the 8 years, Moore's law has held and will continue.
 
lunar:
Good afternoon. I'm just one small cog in the Bitcoin Unlimited team, but we've been trying to solve the blocksize issue for several years now. I was interested in what you thought about the emergent consensus solution? The idea BU implements, by giving miners the tools to signal between each other and come to a free market driven determination of the blocksize commodity, with an adjustable block cap. Thanks
Craig Wright::
This occurred in 2012. I think that miners need to decide.
 
 
Original source here: https://pastebin.com/zU6YZWXK
submitted by BitcoinIsTehFuture to btc [link] [comments]

Core/Blockstream attacks any dev who knows how to do simple & safe "Satoshi-style" on-chain scaling for Bitcoin, like Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen. Now we're left with idiots like Greg Maxwell, Adam Back and Luke-Jr - who don't really understand scaling, mining, Bitcoin, or capacity planning.

Before Core and AXA-owned Blockstream started trying to monopolize and hijack Bitcoin development, Bitcoin had some intelligent devs.
Remember Mike Hearn?
Mike Hearn was a professional capacity planner for one of the world's busiest websites: Google Maps / Earth.
TIL On chain scaling advocate Mike Hearn was a professional capacity planner for one of the world’s busiest websites.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6aylng/til_on_chain_scaling_advocate_mike_hearn_was_a/
Mike Hearn also invented a decentralized Bitcoin-based crowdfunding app, named Lighthouse.
Lighthouse: A development retrospective - Mike Hearn - Zürich
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4iZKISMZS8
Mike Hearn also developed BitcoinJ - a Java-based Bitcoin wallet still used on many Android devices.
Mike Hearn: bitcoinj 0.12 released
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2i6t6h/mike_hearn_bitcoinj_012_released/
So of course, Core / Blockstream had to relentlessly slander and attack Mike Hearn - until he left Bitcoin.
Thank you, Mike Hearn
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/40v0dx/thank_you_mike_hearn/
Remember Gavin Andresen?
Satoshi originally gave control of the Bitcoin project to Gavin. (Later Gavin naïvely gave control of the repo to the an idiot dev named Wladimir van der Laan, who is now "Lead Maintainer for Bitcoin Core".)
Gavin provided a simple & safe scaling roadmap for Bitcoin, based on Satoshi's original vision.
21 months ago, Gavin Andresen published "A Scalability Roadmap", including sections called: "Increasing transaction volume", "Bigger Block Road Map", and "The Future Looks Bright". This was the Bitcoin we signed up for. It's time for us to take Bitcoin back from the strangle-hold of Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43lxgn/21_months_ago_gavin_andresen_published_a/
Gavin Andresen: "Let's eliminate the limit. Nothing bad will happen if we do, and if I'm wrong the bad things would be mild annoyances, not existential risks, much less risky than operating a network near 100% capacity." (June 2016)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6delid/gavin_andresen_lets_eliminate_the_limit_nothing/
Gavin's scaling roadmap for Bitcoin is in line with Satoshi's roadmap:
Satoshi's original scaling plan to ~700MB blocks, where most users just have SPV wallets, does NOT require fraud proofs to be secure (contrary to Core dogma)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6di2mf/satoshis_original_scaling_plan_to_700mb_blocks/
So of course, Core / Blockstream had to relentlessly slander and attack Gavin Andresen - until he basically left Bitcoin.
Gavin, Thanks and ... 'Stay the course'.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/45sv55/gavin_thanks_and_stay_the_course/
In fact, Core and AXA-funded Blockstream devs and trolls have relentlessly attacked and slandered all talented devs who know how to provide simple and safe on-chain scaling for Bitcoin:
"Notice how anyone who has even remotely supported on-chain scaling has been censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed from any area of Core influence. Community, business, Hearn, Gavin, Jeff, XT, Classic, Coinbase, Unlimited, ViaBTC, Ver, Jihan, Bitcoin.com, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5omufj/notice_how_anyone_who_has_even_remotely_supported/).
So who are the "leaders" of Bitcoin development now?
Basically we've been left with three toxic and insane wannabe "leaders": Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr and Adam Back.
Here's the kind of nonsense that /nullc - Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell has been saying lately:
Here's the kind of nonsense that the authoritarian nut-job u/luke-jr Luke-Jr has been saying lately:
Meanwhile, Adam Back u/adam3us, CEO of the AXA-owned Blockstream, is adamantly against Bitcoin upgrading and scaling on-chain via any simple and safe hard forks, because a hard fork, while safer for Bitcoin, might remove Blockstream from power.
In addition to blatantly (and egotistically) misdefining Bitcoin on his Twitter profile as "Bitcoin is Hashcash extended with inflation control", Adam Back has never understood how Bitcoin works.
4 weird facts about Adam Back: (1) He never contributed any code to Bitcoin. (2) His Twitter profile contains 2 lies. (3) He wasn't an early adopter, because he never thought Bitcoin would work. (4) He can't figure out how to make Lightning Network decentralized. So... why do people listen to him??
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47fr3p/4_weird_facts_about_adam_back_1_he_neve
The alarming graph below shows where Bitcoin is today, after several years of "leadership" by idiots like Greg Maxwell, Luke Jr, and Adam Back:
Purely coincidental...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6a72vm/purely_coincidental/
Why does it seem so hard to "scale" Bitcoin?
Because we've been following toxic insane "leaders" like Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr, and Adam Back.
Here are two old posts - from over a year ago - when everyone already had their hair on fire about the urgency of increaing the blocksize.
Meanwhile the clueless "leaders" from Core - Greg Maxwell and Luke-Jr - ignored everyone because they're are apparently too stupid to read a simple graph:
Just click on these historical blocksize graphs - all trending dangerously close to the 1 MB (1000KB) artificial limit. And then ask yourself: Would you hire a CTO / team whose Capacity Planning Roadmap from December 2015 officially stated: "The current capacity situation is no emergency" ?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynswc/just_click_on_these_historical_blocksize_graphs/
Look at these graphs, and you will see that Luke-Jr is lying when he says: "At the current rate of growth, we will not hit 1 MB for 4 more years."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47jwxu/look_at_these_graphs_and_you_will_see_that_lukej
What's the roadmap from Greg Maxwell, Adam Back, and Luke-Jr?
They've failed to get users and miners to adopt their dangerous SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - so now they're becoming even more desperate and reckless, advocating a suicidal "user (ie, non-miner) activated soft fork, or "UASF".
Miner-activated soft forks were already bad enough - because they take away your right to vote.
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
But a user-activated soft fork is simply suicidal (for the users who try to adopt it - but fortunately not for everyone else).
"The 'logic' of a 'UASF' is that if a minority throw themselves off a cliff, the majority will follow behind and hand them a parachute before they hit the ground. Plus, I'm not even sure SegWit on a minority chain makes any sense given the Anyone-Can-Spend hack that was used." ~ u/Capt_Roger_Murdock
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6dr9tc/the_logic_of_a_uasf_is_that_if_a_minority_throw/
Is there a better way forward?
Yes there is.
There is no need to people to listen to toxic insane "leaders" like:
  • Greg Maxwell u/nullc - CTO of Blockstream
  • Luke-Jr u/luke-jr - authoritarian nutjob
  • Adam Back u/adam3us - CEO of Blockstream
They have been immensely damaging to Bitcoin with their repeated denials of reality and their total misunderstanding of how Bitcoin works.
Insane toxic "leaders" like Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr and Adam Back keep spreading nonsense and lies which are harmful to the needs of Bitcoin users and miners.
What can we do now?
Code that supports bigger blocks (Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic, Extension Blocks, 8 MB blocksize) is already being used by 40-50% of hashpower on the network.
https://coin.dance/blocks
http://nodecounter.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks
Code that supports bigger blocks:
Scaling Bitcoin is only complicated or dangerous if you listen to insane toxic "leaders" like Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr and Adam Back.
Scaling Bitcoin is safe and simple if you just ignore the bizarre proposals like SegWit and now UASF being pushed by those insane toxic "leaders".
We can simply install software like Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic - or any client supporting bigger blocks, such as Extension Blocks or 8 MB blocksize - and move forward to simple & safe on-chain scaling for Bitcoin - and we could easily enjoy a scenario such as the following:
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

4 weird facts about Adam Back: (1) He never contributed any code to Bitcoin. (2) His Twitter profile contains 2 lies. (3) He wasn't an early adopter, because he never thought Bitcoin would work. (4) He can't figure out how to make Lightning Network decentralized. So... why do people listen to him??

Who is Adam Back?
Why do people think he's important?
If he hadn't convinced some venture capitalists to provide $75 million to set him up as President/CEO of Blockstream - would he be just another "nobody" in Bitcoin?
Consider the following 4 facts:
(1) Go to the list of Bitcoin "Core" contributors do a Find for "adam":
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/graphs/contributors
Hmm... Apparently, he is not a Bitcoin "Core" dev.
Here is his GitHub page:
https://github.com/adam3us
Hmm...
zero contributions
zero repositories
Now, ask yourself:
(2) Look at his profile on his Twitter home page:
https://twitter.com/adam3us
It says:
  • "inventor of hashcash"
  • "bitcoin is hashcash extended with inflation control"
Both of these statements have been publicly exposed as false - but he still refuses to take them down.
" 'Bitcoin is Hashcash extended with inflation control.' ...[is] sort of like saying, 'a Tesla is just a battery on wheels.' " -- Blockstream's Adam Back #R3KT by Princeton researchers in new Bitcoin book
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/45121i/bitcoin_is_hashcash_extended_with_inflation/
Adam Back did not invent proof of work
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/46vq7i/adam_back_did_not_invent_proof_of_work/
Now, ask yourself:
  • Do you trust someone who puts false statements like this on their Twitter profile?
(3) Recall his history of failures regarding Bitcoin:
He was personally informed by Satoshi about Bitcoin in 2009 via email - and he did not think it would work.
He did not become involved in Bitcoin until it was around its all-time high of 1000 USD, in November 2013.
He opened his Github account within 48 hours of Bitcoin's all-time high price. Presumably he sat and watched it go from zero to 4 figures before getting involved.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/45n462/adam_back_on_twitter_virtuallylaw_jgarzik/czyzso5?context=1
  • Why didn't Adam understand the economics of Bitcoin from 2009 until 2013?
  • If you want a "leader" of Bitcoin, do you think it should be someone who didn't understand it for 4 years?
  • Do you think he can really understand the economics of Bitcoin now?
(4) Adam wants to radically "fork" Bitcoin from Satoshi's original vision of "p2p electronic cash" and instead encourage people to use the highly complicated and unproven "Lightning Network" (LN).
However, unfortunately, he hasn't figured out how to make LN decentralized.
Lightning network is selling as a decentralized layer 2 while there's no decentralized path-finding.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43oi26/lightning_network_is_selling_as_a_decentralized/
Unmasking the Blockstream Business Plan
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/42nx74/unmasking_the_blockstream_business_plan/
It's time for people to start asking some serious questions about Adam Back:
  • about his lack of contributions to the Bitcoin codebase;
  • about his unethical style of communication;
  • about his rejection of Satoshi's vision for Bitcoin;
  • about his lack of understanding of economics, p2p, and decentralization.
Bitcoin was never even supposed to have a leader - but somehow (because some venture capitalists and Adam found each other), now we apparently have one: and it's Adam Back - someone who never contributed any code to Bitcoin, never believed in the economics of Bitcoin, and never believed in the decentralization of Bitcoin.
Whether you're decentralization-loving libertarian or cypherpunk - or a Chinese miner - or just someone who uses Bitcoin for your personal life or business, it's time to start asking yourself:
  • Who is Adam Back?
  • Why hasn't he contributed any code for Bitcoin?
  • Why is he lying about Bitcoin and HashCash on his Twitter profile?
  • Why did he fail to understand the economics of Bitcoin from 2009 to 2013?
  • Does he understand the economics of Bitcoin now?
  • If he rejects Satoshi's original vision of "p2p electronic cash" and prefers a centralized, "Level-2" system such as Lightning Network, then shouldn't be doing this on some alt-coin, instead of radically "forking" Bitcoin itself?
  • If he hadn't convinced some venture capitalists to provide $75 million to set him up as President/CEO of Blockstream - would you still be listening to him?
Bitcoin was supposed to be "trustless" and "leaderless".
But now, many people are "trusting" Adam Back as a "leader" - despite the fact that:
  • he has contributed no code to Bitcoin "Core" - or any other Bitcoin code repository (eg: Classic, XT, BU);
  • he never believed in Bitcoin until the price hit $1000;
  • he rejects Satoshi's vision of "p2p electronic cash";
  • he is dishonest about his academic achievements;
  • he is dishonest about the Lightning Network's lack of decentralization.
Maybe it's time for everyone to pause, and think about how we got into this situation - and what we can do about it now.
One major question we should all be asking:
Would Adam Back enjoy this kind of prestige and prominence if he didn't have $75 million in venture capital behind him?
There is, of course, a place for everyone in Bitcoin.
But Bitcoin was never about "trusting" any kind of "leader" - especially someone whose main "accomplishments" with Bitcoin have consisted of misunderstanding it for years, and now trying to radically "fork" it away from Satoshi's vision of "p2p electronic cash".
TL;DR:
  • Adam Back's history with Bitcoin is a long track record of failures.
  • If he hadn't convinced some VCs into backing him and his company with $75 million, you probably wouldn't have ever heard of him.
  • So you should not be "trusting" him as the "leader" of Bitcoin.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function | Gregory Maxwell | Apr 05 2017

Gregory Maxwell on Apr 05 2017:
A month ago I was explaining the attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 hashcash which
is exploited by ASICBOOST and the various steps which could be used to
block it in the network if it became a problem.
While most discussion of ASICBOOST has focused on the overt method
of implementing it, there also exists a covert method for using it.
As I explained one of the approaches to inhibit covert ASICBOOST I
realized that my words were pretty much also describing the SegWit
commitment structure.
The authors of the SegWit proposal made a specific effort to not be
incompatible with any mining system and, in particular, changed the
design at one point to accommodate mining chips with forced payout
addresses.
Had there been awareness of exploitation of this attack an effort
would have been made to avoid incompatibility-- simply to separate
concerns. But the best methods of implementing the covert attack
are significantly incompatible with virtually any method of
extending Bitcoin's transaction capabilities; with the notable
exception of extension blocks (which have their own problems).
An incompatibility would go a long way to explain some of the
more inexplicable behavior from some parties in the mining
ecosystem so I began looking for supporting evidence.
Reverse engineering of a particular mining chip has demonstrated
conclusively that ASICBOOST has been implemented
in hardware.
On that basis, I offer the following BIP draft for discussion.
This proposal does not prevent the attack in general, but only
inhibits covert forms of it which are incompatible with
improvements to the Bitcoin protocol.
I hope that even those of us who would strongly prefer that
ASICBOOST be blocked completely can come together to support
a protective measure that separates concerns by inhibiting
the covert use of it that potentially blocks protocol improvements.
The specific activation height is something I currently don't have
a strong opinion, so I've left it unspecified for the moment.
BIP: TBD
Layer: Consensus
Title: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function
Author: Greg Maxwell
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2016-04-05
License: PD
==Abstract==
This proposal inhibits the covert exploitation of a known
vulnerability in Bitcoin Proof of Work function.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
"SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
==Motivation==
Due to a design oversight the Bitcoin proof of work function has a potential
attack which can allow an attacking miner to save up-to 30% of their energy
costs (though closer to 20% is more likely due to implementation overheads).
Timo Hanke and Sergio Demian Lerner claim to hold a patent on this attack,
which they have so far not licensed for free and open use by the public.
They have been marketing their patent licenses under the trade-name
ASICBOOST. The document takes no position on the validity or enforceability
of the patent.
There are two major ways of exploiting the underlying vulnerability: One
obvious way which is highly detectable and is not in use on the network
today and a covert way which has significant interaction and potential
interference with the Bitcoin protocol. The covert mechanism is not
easily detected except through its interference with the protocol.
In particular, the protocol interactions of the covert method can block the
implementation of virtuous improvements such as segregated witness.
Exploitation of this vulnerability could result in payoff of as much as
$100 million USD per year at the time this was written (Assuming at
50% hash-power miner was gaining a 30% power advantage and that mining
was otherwise at profit equilibrium). This could have a phenomenal
centralizing effect by pushing mining out of profitability for all
other participants, and the income from secretly using this
optimization could be abused to significantly distort the Bitcoin
ecosystem in order to preserve the advantage.
Reverse engineering of a mining ASIC from a major manufacture has
revealed that it contains an undocumented, undisclosed ability
to make use of this attack. (The parties claiming to hold a
patent on this technique were completely unaware of this use.)
On the above basis the potential for covert exploitation of this
vulnerability and the resulting inequality in the mining process
and interference with useful improvements presents a clear and
present danger to the Bitcoin system which requires a response.
==Background==
The general idea of this attack is that SHA2-256 is a merkle damgard hash
function which consumes 64 bytes of data at a time.
The Bitcoin mining process repeatedly hashes an 80-byte 'block header' while
incriminating a 32-bit nonce which is at the end of this header data. This
means that the processing of the header involves two runs of the compression
function run-- one that consumes the first 64 bytes of the header and a
second which processes the remaining 16 bytes and padding.
The initial 'message expansion' operations in each step of the SHA2-256
function operate exclusively on that step's 64-bytes of input with no
influence from prior data that entered the hash.
Because of this if a miner is able to prepare a block header with
multiple distinct first 64-byte chunks but identical 16-byte
second chunks they can reuse the computation of the initial
expansion for multiple trials. This reduces power consumption.
There are two broad ways of making use of this attack. The obvious
way is to try candidates with different version numbers. Beyond
upsetting the soft-fork detection logic in Bitcoin nodes this has
little negative effect but it is highly conspicuous and easily
blocked.
The other method is based on the fact that the merkle root
committing to the transactions is contained in the first 64-bytes
except for the last 4 bytes of it. If the miner finds multiple
candidate root values which have the same final 32-bit then they
can use the attack.
To find multiple roots with the same trailing 32-bits the miner can
use efficient collision finding mechanism which will find a match
with as little as 216 candidate roots expected, 224 operations to
find a 4-way hit, though low memory approaches require more
computation.
An obvious way to generate different candidates is to grind the
coinbase extra-nonce but for non-empty blocks each attempt will
require 13 or so additional sha2 runs which is very inefficient.
This inefficiency can be avoided by computing a sqrt number of
candidates of the left side of the hash tree (e.g. using extra
nonce grinding) then an additional sqrt number of candidates of
the right side of the tree using transaction permutation or
substitution of a small number of transactions. All combinations
of the left and right side are then combined with only a single
hashing operation virtually eliminating all tree related
overhead.
With this final optimization finding a 4-way collision with a
moderate amount of memory requires ~224 hashing operations
instead of the >228 operations that would be require for
extra-nonce grinding which would substantially erode the
benefit of the attack.
It is this final optimization which this proposal blocks.
==New consensus rule==
Beginning block X and until block Y the coinbase transaction of
each block MUST either contain a BIP-141 segwit commitment or a
correct WTXID commitment with ID 0xaa21a9ef.
(See BIP-141 "Commitment structure" for details)
Existing segwit using miners are automatically compatible with
this proposal. Non-segwit miners can become compatible by simply
including an additional output matching a default commitment
value returned as part of getblocktemplate.
Miners SHOULD NOT automatically discontinue the commitment
at the expiration height.
==Discussion==
The commitment in the left side of the tree to all transactions
in the right side completely prevents the final sqrt speedup.
A stronger inhibition of the covert attack in the form of
requiring the least significant bits of the block timestamp
to be equal to a hash of the first 64-bytes of the header. This
would increase the collision space from 32 to 40 or more bits.
The root value could be required to meet a specific hash prefix
requirement in order to increase the computational work required
to try candidate roots. These change would be more disruptive and
there is no reason to believe that it is currently necessary.
The proposed rule automatically sunsets. If it is no longer needed
due to the introduction of stronger rules or the acceptance of the
version-grinding form then there would be no reason to continue
with this requirement. If it is still useful at the expiration
time the rule can simply be extended with a new softfork that
sets longer date ranges.
This sun-setting avoids the accumulation of technical debt due
to retaining enforcement of this rule when it is no longer needed
without requiring a hard fork to remove it.
== Overt attack ==
The non-covert form can be trivially blocked by requiring that
the header version match the coinbase transaction version.
This proposal does not include this block because this method
may become generally available without restriction in the future,
does not generally interfere with improvements in the protocol,
and because it is so easily detected that it could be blocked if
it becomes an issue in the future.
==Ba...[message truncated here by reddit bot]...
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

For every 1 BTC in the world, there's 333 ounces of gold. True "bitcoin-gold parity" is 1 BTC = 333 ounces of gold or 1 mBTC = 1/3 oz gold. Today's 1 mBTC average fee (forced on us by Greg Maxwell / Adam Back / AXA) is the new 10,000 BTC pizza. Congratulations! You just paid 1/3 oz gold in txn fees!

Summary
http://www.numbersleuth.org/worlds-gold/
Details
http://www.numbersleuth.org/worlds-gold/
For every 1 BTC on the planet, there's 333 ounces of gold.
There's only 15 MILLION BTC in the world (plus new BTC mining of 12.5 * 6 * 24 * 365 = 657,000 new BTC mined each year - ie 4.38% annual bitcoin "inflation" - during the current 4-year "halving" period which runs from approximately August 2016 to August 2020).
There's 165,000 metric tons * 32,150 troy ounces per ton = 5 BILLION troy ounces of gold in the world (plus new gold mining of 2,500 metric tons * 32,150 troy ounces per ton = 80.375 million new troy ounces of new gold being mined each year - ie 1.52% annual gold "inflation").
If you like to think of Bitcoin as "digital gold", and you want to be able to do rough but realistic comparisons and computations quickly in your head, then you should adopt the following guidelines:
A whole bitcoin is really big! Stop thinking in terms of whole Bitcoins, and start thinking in terms of milli-Bitcoins - ie mBTC (0.001 BTC).
Always remember that a whole bitcoin is very "big" - it contains 1,000 mBTC (milli-Bitcoins, where 1 mBTC = 0.001 BTC).
The following comparison (motto / slogan) is what you should always say to yourself in your head:

For every 1 BTC in the world, there are 333 ounces of gold.

This is because it is based on comparing roughly similar number of units in the world:
So 3 mBTC (3 milli-Bitcoins) corresponds to 1 troy ounce of gold - and will probably someday be worth as much, after we get rid of the price suppression caused by Greg Maxwell / Adam Back / AXA.
It's nice to see comparisons of "1 BTC = 1 ounce of gold!!1!" in the mainstream and the Bitcoin media - but talking about "bitcoin-gold parity" now is actually a meaningless, confusing, financially ingorant and deceptive distraction.
This is because the only thing that has happened is that the price of 1 BTC (which is a lot of mBTC, it's 1000 mBTC!) has surpassed the price of 1 troy ounce of gold - which isn't really very meaningful, because it doesn't match similar-number-of-units-to-similar-number-of-units.
True "bitcoin-gold parity" will arrive:
So, the true "bitcoin-gold parity" isn't here yet - but it's almost certainly going to be here in a few years.
The Bitcoin price "only" needs to rise about 333x - ie it "only" needs to double 8-9 more times (because 28 = 256 and 29 = 512) - which is actually quite doable in the next few years.
"1 mBTC fees" are the new "10,000 BTC pizza."
Remember, today's ridiculously and artificially high "1 mBTC average transaction fee" will probably eventually be worth 1/3 ounce of gold.
Congratulations! You just spent 1/3 of an ounce of gold to send a "cheap" Bitcoin transaction!
In a few years, we will all look back with regret on the "one-dollar average Bitcoin transaction fees" which we have now started (over-)paying in the artificial "fee market" of 2017 which was artificially forced on us by the evil central bankers of AXA and Blockstream's toxic, deceptive, economically ignorant CEO Dr Adam Back u/adam3us and CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc.
"I'm angry about AXA scraping some counterfeit money out of their fraudulent empire to pay autistic lunatics millions of dollars to stall the biggest sociotechnological phenomenon since the internet and then blame me and people like me for being upset about it." ~ u/dresden_k
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5xjkof/im_angry_about_axa_scraping_some_counterfeit/
Adam Back & Greg Maxwell are experts in mathematics and engineering, but not in markets and economics. They should not be in charge of "central planning" for things like "max blocksize". They're desperately attempting to prevent the market from deciding on this. But it will, despite their efforts.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/46052e/adam_back_greg_maxwell_are_experts_in_mathematics/
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/
Greg Maxwell u/nullc says "The next miner after them sets their minimum [fee] to some tiny value ... and clears out the backlog and collects a bunch of funds that the earlier miner omitted" - like it's a BAD THING. Greg is proposing a SUPPLY-LIMITING AND PRICE-FIXING CARTEL, like it's a GOOD THING.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5i4885/greg_maxwell_unullc_says_the_next_miner_afte
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mlo0z/greg_maxwell_used_to_have_intelligent_nuanced/
The biggest threat to Bitcoin is Blockstream President Adam "Phd" Back. He never understood Bitcoin, but he wants to control it and radically change it. It is time for Bitcoin users, developers and miners to reject his dangerous ideas and his attempts to centrally control our community and our code.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4degqk/the_biggest_threat_to_bitcoin_is_blockstream/
4 weird facts about Adam Back: (1) He never contributed any code to Bitcoin. (2) His Twitter profile contains 2 lies. (3) He wasn't an early adopter, because he never thought Bitcoin would work. (4) He can't figure out how to make Lightning Network decentralized. So... why do people listen to him??
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47fr3p/4_weird_facts_about_adam_back_1_he_neve
Artificially Limiting the Blocksize to Create a “Fee Market” = Another Variety of Lifting the 21 Million Bitcoin Cap - Bitcoin Economics
Chinese version:
www.8btc.com/tan90d124
We will look back on 2017 and realize that every time we did a bitcoin transaction, we were paying 1/3 of an ounce of precious gold in insanely overpriced fees - similar to the notoriously overpriced "10,000 BTC pizza" of yesteryear.
Changing to a very high fee model is a betrayal of investors, a vast diminishment of sound money, as every holder must spend in order to benefit from all their holding. Such a betrayal, if it ever must happen, needs to be a disastrous last resort, certainly not a first resort. ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fpk9m/changing_to_a_very_high_fee_model_is_a_betrayal/
Don't fall for the economic ignorance of the corrupt AXA-fiat-funded Blockstream CEO Dr Adam Back and CEO Greg Maxwell and their artificial, insanely overpriced "fee markets".
Remember, every time you send 3 transactions - you just paid ridiculous, artificially overpriced fees to miners which will someday probably be worth a whole ounce of precious gold.
What can we do?
We can and should reject the artificial fee markets created by AXA and Blockstream CEO Adam Back and CTO Greg Maxwell and their crippled Blocktream Core / SegWit code with its centrally planned 1MB and 1.7MB blocksize.
If you want Bitcoin's price and volume to rise, and Bitcoin's fees to decrease - while miners can still make lots of money from the block reward based on high prices and high volume, now you can!
Now you can support lower fees and higher volume and prices (and plenty of profits for miners - due to higher bitcoin price, and more, cheaper transactions per block), simply by running better Bitcoin software - such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
Bitcoin Unlimited is better than Bitcoin Core and SegWit - because Bitcoin Unlimited supports market-based blocksize - in line with Satoshi's original vision for Bitcoin, supporting higher volume and prices, and lower fees.
1 BTC = 64 000 USD would be > $1 trillion market cap - versus $7 trillion market cap for gold, and $82 trillion of "money" in the world. Could "pure" Bitcoin get there without SegWit, Lightning, or Bitcoin Unlimited? Metcalfe's Law suggests that 8MB blocks could support a price of 1 BTC = 64 000 USD
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5lzez2/1_btc_64_000_usd_would_be_1_trillion_market_cap/
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
Miners provide a cheap commodity (blockspace) - and they work for you.
From the block reward alone, miners are earning 12.5 Bitcoins - or 12,500 mBTC, every ten-minute block, during this current 4-year "halving" period.
At some point in the not-too-distant future, today's 10-minute block reward of 12.5 bitcoins could easily be worth 12,500 / 3 = 4,163 friggin' ounces of gold!
Doing 10 minutes of work to compete to earn 12.5 BTC or 12,500 mBTC (ie, the future equivalent of 4,163 ounces of gold) is a lot of fuckin' money - based on the block reward alone, and not even counting any fees, which are just "gravy".
This is why Satoshi was right when he intended the block reward alone to be sufficient for mining during this four-year "halving" period - and during the next few four-year halving periods as well.
Remember, 1 BTC is a lot.
  • 1 BTC = 1,000 mBTC
  • 1 BTC corresponds to 333 ounces of gold
  • 3 mBTC corresponds to 1 ounce of gold.
Miners don't need fees to get rich, during the next few decades of four-year "halving" periods where each 10-minute block reward alone (without fees) lets a miner earn:
  • 50,000 mBTC per block until 2012 (probably eventually worth 16,650 ounces of gold);
  • 25,000 mBTC per block until 2016 (probably eventually worth 8,325 ounces of gold);
  • 12,500 mBTC per block until 2020 (probably eventually worth 4,163 ounces of gold);
  • 6,250 mBTC per block until 2024 (probably eventually worth 2,081 ounces of gold);
  • 3,125 mBTC per block until 2028 (probably eventually worth 1,041 ounces of gold);
  • 1,562.5 mBTC per block until 2032 (probably eventually worth 520 ounces of gold);
  • 781.25 mBTC per block until 2036 (probably eventually worth 260 ounces of gold);
  • 390.625 mBTC per block until 2040 (probably eventually worth 130 ounces of gold);
  • 195.3125 mBTC per block until 2044 (probably eventually worth 65 ounces of gold);
The above "ounces of gold" are what a miner can earn every ten minutes with Bitcoin - before even including any fees.
Miners are being short-sighted and greedy by trying to get more money from (artificially) higher bitcoin fees right now. They're shooting themselves in the foot.
They should instead focus on getting more money from higher bitcoin price - which will happen with market-based blocksize (which will actually also bring more fees, because there will be more transactions per block).
I think that it will be easier to increase the volume of transactions 10x than it will be to increase the cost per transaction 10x. - jtoomim (miner, coder, founder of Classic)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/48gcyj/i_think_that_it_will_be_easier_to_increase_the/
The Nine Miners of China: "Core is a red herring. Miners have alternative code they can run today that will solve the problem. Choosing not to run it is their fault, and could leave them with warehouses full of expensive heating units and income paid in worthless coins." – tsontar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xhejm/the_nine_miners_of_china_core_is_a_red_herring/
Coders shouldn't get "more power" deciding the economic properties of Bitcoin. The entire Bitcoin community should decide.
The economics of Bitcoin already worked fine when Satoshi first released it - and have worked fine for the past 8 years.
Starting in late 2014, a bunch of central bankers including the insurance giant AXA (the second-most-connected fiat finance institution in the world) gave $76 million to a bunch of anti-market central planners (Blockstream CEO Adam Back, Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell) - and now every time we want to do a transaction, we have to pay an insanely, astronomically, artificially high fee corresponding to 1/3 ounce of gold.
Coders should provide the economic features that the Bitcoin community wants - and the economic features that Satoshi originally designed.
Coders should not have "more power" to change Bitcoin's economic parameters - suppressing Bitcoin volume and price and artificially increasing the fees - basically destroying Bitcoin's original value proposition as "sound money".
For 55.2% of Bitcoin addresses, fees are now bigger than the amount of Bitcoin they have. Where will YOU be when YOUR savings are wiped out by fees?
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5xsxhu/for_552_of_bitcoin_addresses_fees_are_now_bigge
The market - and Satoshi - knows more than any of today's coders, when it comes to Bitcoin's economic qualities, like volume and price and fees.
Core/Blockstream wants "centrally planned" (tiny) Bitcoin's volume - which actually leads to "centrally planned" (high) fees and "centrally planned" (suppressed) price - and over half of Bitcoin's currently addresses now becoming essentially unspendable, as shown in the link above.
Nobody has been able to convincingly answer the question, "What should the optimal block size limit be?" And the reason nobody has been able to answer that question is the same reason nobody has been able to answer the question, "What should the price today be?" – tsontar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xdc9e/nobody_has_been_able_to_convincingly_answer_the/
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/
Core/Blockstream's code is starting to cause an economic disaster for Bitcoin.
Core/Blockstream's code imposes a centrally planned 1MB blocksize (or SegWit's centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize) - inevitably leading to frequent backlogs and high fees and decreased price and adoption - plus years of distracting, needless bikeshedding about blocksize.
Core/Blockstream's proposed SegWit would be yet more unwanted and inefficient "central planning" - plus new, radical, irresponsible changes to Bitcoin's original economic design - imposing a centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize - plus adding lots of dangerous and unnecessary technical debt (eg, making all transactions "anyone-can-spend").
Segregated Witness: A Fork Too Far by Jaqen Hash'ghar
Segregated Witness is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its eight year history. The push for the SW soft fork puts Bitcoin miners in a difficult and unfair position to the extent that they are pressured into enforcing a complicated and contentious change to the Bitcoin protocol, without community consensus or an honest discussion weighing the benefits against the costs. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW.
While increasing the transaction capacity of Bitcoin has already been significantly delayed, SW represents an unprofessional and ineffective solution to both transaction malleability and scaling. As a soft fork, SW introduces more technical debt to the protocol and fundamentally fails to achieve its design purpose. As a hard fork, combined with real on-chain scaling, SW can effectively mitigate transaction malleability and quadratic signature hashing. Each of these issues are too important for the future of Bitcoin to gamble on SW as a soft fork and the permanent baggage that comes with it.
It is far better to work towards a clean technical solution to malleability and scaling than to further encumber the Bitcoin protocol with permanent technical debt.
https://medium.com/the-publius-letters/segregated-witness-a-fork-too-far-87d6e57a4179#.jc04xwtmt
Core/Blockstream's current code with its centrally planned 1MB blocksize:
  • is artificially suppressing Bitcoin volume;
  • is artificially suppressing Bitcoin price;
  • is artificially causing congestion on the network - driving away users;
  • is artificially increasing Bitcoin fees;
  • has artificially made over half of all current Bitcoin addresses effectively "unspendable".
Some people might laugh and say that those addresses represent "only" a total of 1,600 BTC - but remember, that corresponds to "only" 1,600 * 333 = 532,800 or over half a million ounces of gold being made "unspendable" - all because of the economic ignorance and central planning of Adam Back and Greg Maxwell and AXA.
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
If there are only 20 seats on the bus and 25 people that want to ride, there is no ticket price where everyone gets a seat. Capacity problems can't be fixed with a "fee market", they are fixed by adding seats, which in this case means raising the blocksize cap. – Vibr8gKiwi
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3yeypc/if_there_are_only_20_seats_on_the_bus_and_25/
Letting FEES float without letting BLOCKSIZES float is NOT a "market". A market has 2 sides: One side provides a product/service (blockspace), the other side pays fees/money (BTC). An "efficient market" is when players compete and evolve on BOTH sides, approaching an ideal FEE/BLOCKSIZE EQUILIBRIUM.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dz7ye/letting_fees_float_without_letting_blocksizes/
Core/Blockstream's proposed "solution" (SegWit), would be a disaster:
  • imposing yet another centrally planned blocksize (1.7MB);
  • adding dangerous and unnecessary "technical debt" by making all transactions "anyone-can-spend" - simply because Core is afraid that a proper upgrade (a hard fork) would remove them from their position of power.
Core/Blockstream is pro-AXA and pro-central-bankers - and anti-market and anti-Bitcoin.
The only reason you're now paying the future equivalent of 1/3 of an ounce of gold every time you do a Bitcoin transaction is because of the toxic alliance between $76 million in "fantasy fiat" from evil central bankers like AXA combined with the centralized economic planning and ignorance of Blockstream CEO Adam Back and CTO Greg Maxwell.
Adam Back u/adam3us and Greg Maxwell u/nullc are among the most economically ignorant and damaging people in the Bitcoin community.
  • They don't understand anything about how Bitcoin and markets actually work in the real world.
  • They want to impose their own centrally planned numbers, which they pulled out of their ass (1MB current blocksize, 1.7MB SegWit blocksize), instead of letting the market (miners) continue to determine the blocksize - the way Bitcoin worked so successfully for the past 8 years.
  • Adam Back was one of the first people that Satoshi told about Bitcoin - but Adam didn't understand it then, and he didn't buy any until it was at its first major all-time high of over 1,100 USD. So he missed being an early adopter - because he doesn't understand economics and markets.
  • Adam Back thinks he's important because he invented hashcash - and he says very misleading things like "Bitcoin is hashcash plus inflation control" which is ignorant and/or insulting on his part.
    • The proper terminology should not be "inflation control" - it should be "distributed permissionless Nakamoto Consensus based on Satoshi's brilliant solution to the long-standing Byzantine Generals trustless coordination problem" - which Adam Back not only did not invent - but he also apparently does not fully understand, because he's trying to abolish Nakamoto Conensus_ for the blocksize, and replace it with his centrally planned blocksize.
  • Greg Maxwell knows cryptography and C++ - but this should not give him "special powers" to dictate the economic parameters of Bitcoin. Only the market can do this.
  • Bitcoin will be worth much, much more once it is liberated from the toxic influence and price suppression and central planning of economic idiots like Adam Back and Greg Maxwell.
Fortunately, you don't need to run Core/Blockstream's crippled code any more.
  • We can revert to Satoshi's original 32MB blocksize (which would probably provide enough transaction capacity to support "million-dollar bitcoin" - far beyond "bitcoin-gold parity").
  • Or we can install Bitcoin Unlimited which would also allow the Bitcoin blocksize (and Bitcoin volume and price and fees) to be determined by the market.
Market-based blocksize will naturally lead to:
  • higher volume
  • higher price,
  • lower fees
  • plenty of profits for miners (from the block reward alone, based on much higher Bitcoin price - plus also based on more total fees for miners and lower individual fees for users - due to greater volume, due to more transactions per block).
Conclusion
21 months ago, Gavin Andresen published "A Scalability Roadmap", including sections called: "Increasing transaction volume", "Bigger Block Road Map", and "The Future Looks Bright". This was the Bitcoin we signed up for. It's time for us to take Bitcoin back from the strangle-hold of Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43lxgn/21_months_ago_gavin_andresen_published_a/
Bitcoin Unlimited is the real Bitcoin, in line with Satoshi's vision. Meanwhile, BlockstreamCoin+RBF+SegWitAsASoftFork+LightningCentralizedHub-OfflineIOUCoin is some kind of weird unrecognizable double-spendable non-consensus-driven fiat-financed offline centralized settlement-only non-P2P "altcoin"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57brcb/bitcoin_unlimited_is_the_real_bitcoin_in_line/
AXA/Blockstream are suppressing Bitcoin price at 1000 bits = 1 USD. If 1 bit = 1 USD, then Bitcoin's market cap would be 15 trillion USD - close to the 82 trillion USD of "money" in the world. With Bitcoin Unlimited, we can get to 1 bit = 1 USD on-chain with 32MB blocksize ("Million-Dollar Bitcoin")
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u72va/axablockstream_are_suppressing_bitcoin_price_at/
If you want Bitcoin to continue to succeed, and if you want the price to continue going towards the moon, and if you want to stop paying exorbitant artificially high fees corresponding to 1/3 ounce of gold, and if you want miners to still get rich from the block reward (while they also earn some extra money based on higher total fees due to more transactions per block, while users pay lower individual fees per transaction)...
...then the best roadmap would be:
  • Reject Core/Blockstream's current centrally planned blocksize of 1MB, and their proposed SegWit 1.7MB centrally planned blocksize with its unnecessary, dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics;
  • Continue using using Satoshi's original market-based blocksize, by installing Bitcoin Unlimited - which lets miners continue to set the blocksize as they always have, using emergent consensus.
~ You Do The Math - u/ydtm
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

What is aeternity, in layman’s terms.

THE BLOCKCHAIN IS THE INTERNET OF VALUE THAT GIVES US THE ABILITY TO NOT ONLY TRANSMIT THE INFORMATION BUT VALUE IN THE BLINK OF AN EYE TO ANYONE ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD.
Aeternity is a new blockchain that has solved issues like scalability, privacy and transaction speed. Aeternity has learned from first generation Blockchains and it introduces three key elements that make it ready for mass adoption.
  1. State Channels
State channels are based on the concept that only stakeholders involved in the smart contract should know the about details. Parties lock a state on the blockchain and perform transactions between themselves, off-chain. The final state is then logged on the blockchain.
As State Channels are mostly off-chain giving advantages like improved scalability, since most of the computation is done off-chain, and enhanced privacy since details of transactions are known to involved parties only.
In Ethereum, if you know any Ethereum address, you can see the history of past transactions and details of contract using blockchain explorers like Etherscan.io.
Aeternity solve this issue of privacy using state channels.
Transactions on Ethereum takes time due to congestion on blockchain and it’s worse in case of Bitcoin. Aeternity is lightning fast thanks to the use of state channels.
  1. Hybrid Proof of work and Proof of Stake
Mining in case of big currencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum are limited to big whales only, who can afford expensive ASIC mining hardware. Aeternity opens his gates of mining for everyone by decentralizing mining, you can mine Aeternity on your laptop and even on your Smartphone.
The consensus is achieved by proof of work, while governance mechanism runs on proof of stake model that is based on prediction markets.
Proof-of-Work (PoW) is corner stone of cryptocurrencies, it allows a verifier to check with negligible effort that a miner has expended a large amount of computational effort.
Bitcoin uses Hashcash while Ethereum uses Ethash PoW. Aeternity will implement Cuckoo Cycle, the first graph-theoretic Proof-of-Work (PoW), and the most memory bound, yet with instant verification. Cuckoo Cycles aim is make mining possible on normal hardware like laptops and mobile devices.
  1. The oracle machine
Aeternity lets you connect real-world data to smart contracts. Any real-world data can be integrated such as voting result, commodity prices (like oil and gas), weather conditions. This opens up the field for major use cases like supply chain management, insurances, gaming and so on. In case of Ethereum or Bitcoin, everything remains confined within the walls of the blockchain and there is no connection between real-world data and blockchain.
Combining these three elements Aeternity breaks the bottleneck for even further adoption of blockchain technology. Just like Ethereum blockchain covers shortcoming of bitcoin blockchain, Aeternity is one step ahead of Ethereum.
Aeternity (AE) stands at 75 position on table of cryptocurrencies, trading at 1.64 USD. It’s available at good investment rate. Make a smart move now, remember today’s 15000 USD Bitcoin was 0.008 USD in 2009.
Competition Article written by jmac
Article posted on aenews - https://www.aenews.io/what-is-aeternity
submitted by aenews_io to Aeternity [link] [comments]

Wixlar Coin ICO – ICO Overview with Rating and Full Details

Wixlar is a Global Decentralized Digital Currency based on the BlockChain Technology which is instant, secure, and private and with low fee transactions. With Wixlar coins, you can buy and sell products or services online and offline. Wixlar Group offers some of the latest advanced technological services through a Global Decentralized Network. About Wixlar If you watch our website and especially on the Videos Section and the Academy Section then you will realize that we have been actively sponsoring and participating in major global events since August 2017 as well as already existing physical offices that invited and accommodated businessmen and companies from different parts of the world that will be partnering with Wixlar. As far as the team, you can watch the professionalism of the introduction video and the high standard of individuals, financial advisors, lawyers, accountants, developers and merchants that are a part of Wixlar Group. Wixlar is the CryptoCurrency that is Decentralized using Hybrid Proof of Work and Proof of Stake launching with respect to anonymity, security, and Efficiency. L Wixlar started from Professionals points of view to solve some difficulties happening in the normal transactions such like duration of transactions, transaction fees and transaction limitations that might affect many persons and businesses in their daily work. Wixlar Coins take its power from the people that are using it and also believing in its value today and in the future. How does the project create value to the ecosystem and differs from competing projects?
What makes Wixlar unique than any other Cryptocurrency? 1. Wixlar Security: using Extreme Hashing Functions to solve any security issue with BlockChain Voting and Alerts to assure each block in the meantime. 2. Wixlar Spread: from the 1st day, Wixlar wallets are being downloaded among some of the well-known global network marketers and businessmen & women that were waiting for such cryptocurrency to launch in order to spread their business and success faster among the world. 3. Wixlar Future: the roadmap for Wixlar has been set to assure certain value for Wixlar Coin to achieve on exact dates according to some events, co-operation and long-term partnership with well-known brands and companies to take each value according to real business profit. 4. Wixlar Vision: people are no need to carry pocket money, easily you can pay for everything in your life from restaurants, cafe's, food, drinks, clothes, transportation, software, games, ... etc using Wixlar Wallet. 5. Wixlar Services: Wixlar offers more than 12 Services to the public such as Wallets, Master Card, Exchanges, Smart Contract, Letter of Credit, Cloud Storage, E-Shop, Academy, Rewards, Partnerships, Lottery, and Free-Lancing. Wixlar Cryptocurrency ICODrip is an amazing ico rating website that reviews each project submitted to them and tries to give the best ICOs and token sale information so that investors choosing to invest in any of the projects can make the best investment decision. The platform has a list of the active ICO, pre-ICOs, and the upcoming ICOs such as Wixlar ICO. The platform updates the list regularly according the latest news for each cryptocurrency. How to buy Wixlar Coin in the initial coin offering? Wixlar Cryptocurrency ICO is live; feel free to buy directly at https:// wixlarcoin.com using Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Dash, and Monero, Verge or Bank wire transfer or Credit/Debit cards. How can to get Wixlar Cryptocurrency for Free? Register your Wixlar ICO Account for Free today at https://wixlarcoin.com to book your coins and to enjoy the 10% “Thank You” Commission by sharing your referral link with friends.
Take Advantage of the Wixlar ICO! With the CryptoCurrency Market Capitalization of over $570 Billion USD, the ICO will support funding the Wixlar Group in order to start the Road Map of Wixlar Coins and expand faster in the CryptoCurrency Market. A minimum of 60% of all funds raised in the ICO will be used for building technology projects, funding small businesses and attracting more merchants, partners, and investors. This way when Wixlar Coin goes live, it will rapidly rise in price. Allocation of Wixlar Coins The number of Wixlar Coins is limited to 5,330,000,000 Coins, out of which 30% will be available for the ICO. Bonuses available from the first day of the ICO Wixlar Coins can be purchased using Bank Wire Transfer, Visa/Master Card, BitCoin BTC, Ethereum ETH and LiteCoin LTC. All funds will be received and held in multi-signature wallets to accomplish each step on the Road Map. Wixlar ICO occurs in 5 stages In each stage, you are eligible to buy early Wixlar Coins with special bonuses than the next stage. Going through the Wixlar Road Map, After the ICO is completed, Wixlar Wallets will be available and the Coin will be listed on the Global Exchanges beside some of our services that includes Wixlar Master Card, Wixlar Free-Lancing, Wixlar E-Shop, Wixlar Smart Contract, Wixlar Letter of Credit and many more. Before you can understand ethereum, it helps to first understand the internet. Today, our personal data, passwords and financial information are all largely stored on other people's computers - in clouds and servers owned by companies like Amazon, Facebook or Google. Even this CoinDesk article is stored on a server controlled by a company that charges to hold this data should it be called upon. This setup has a number of conveniences, as these companies deploy teams of specialists to help store and secure this data, and remove the costs that come with hosting and uptime. But with this convenience, there is also vulnerability. As we've learned, a hacker or a government can gain unwelcome access to your files without your knowledge, by influencing or attacking a third-party service - meaning they can steal, leak or change important information. Ethereum is one of the newest technologies to join this movement.
While bitcoin aims to disrupt PayPal and online banking, ethereum has the goal of using a blockchain to replace internet third parties -- those that store data, transfer mortgages and keep track of complex financial instruments. Ethereum, if all goes according to plan, would return control of the data in these types of services to its owner and the creative rights to its author. The idea is that one entity will no longer have control over your notes and that no one could suddenly ban the app itself, temporarily taking all of your notebooks offline. Only the user can make changes, not any other entity. In theory, it combines the control that people had over their information in the past with the easy-to-access information that we're used to in the digital age. Each time you save edits or add or delete notes, every node on the network makes the change. About the Blockchain & Bitcoin Conference Switzerland On September 19-20, 2018 the company "Smile-Expo" will arrange the second blockchain conference in Geneve. Conference gathered the brightest experts of the industry, well-known specialists, and gurus of the crypto market, developers, and entrepreneurs, representatives of payment systems, and lawyers who shared their way of thinking concerning blockchain technology development across the globe. Crypto market analysis, business solutions within FinTech achievements, Blockchain and Bitcoin prospects, cutting-edge technologies and technical aspects of working with the smart technology, the latest regulatory changes, Bitcoin mining and exchange – all these topics and more will be raised at the Blockchain & Bitcoin Conference Geneva on September 19-20, 2018. Exhibition area Explore new blockchain software and technological solutions in the exhibition area at Blockchain & Bitcoin Conference Switzerland. Developers will present their recent creations and answer questions regarding their functional features as well as we're glad to discuss cooperation opportunities. The exhibition area is a comfortable space for business communications, allowing all attendees to find new business partners and determine further ways of business growth. Land Securities Group, the largest UK Property Firm is adopting the Blockchain Technology in the near future.
The Largest UK Commercial Property Development and Investment Company L has said that the blockchain will ‘absolutely’ play a role in its business. Land Securities Group, or Landsec, owns and manages over 26,000,000 square feet of commercial property, from London’s offices and high street shops to those of major shopping centers and retail parks. It also owns the advertising Piccadilly Lights in Piccadilly Circus, London. In a CNBC interview, Robert Noel, CEO of Landsec, was asked whether the blockchain would be used in the company. He said: Absolutely … If you look at the way what we provide, which is services to business, and those services are around contract, anything that speeds up archaic land law, and contract law, and leasing law will be welcomed. With the use of the technology in Landsec’s services, it could help to speed up processes, particularly those that require the signing of contracts and extensive paperwork. This, in turn, would help to cut down on the amount of time needed to go back and forth between varying parties. Through the blockchain, each party involved would have access to an immutable copy of the contract, which is automatically executed when each party completes their part of the process. Noel claims, though, that the technology won’t mean a reduction in actual lawyers for the company. Nowadays, as the distributed ledger gains in prominence within a range of industries and varying use cases, industries are realizing the benefits that it can provide. So much so, that law firms are experimenting with the technology to determine its impact on manual processes that they currently perform. Following the success of different ICOs of many Crypto Currencies The Billionaire Mark Cuban on Bloomberg announces the extreme investments this year of how much money being invested in supporting the Blockchain Technology. Watch the video throughout to be in touch with the Crypto Industry and its huge growth. Wixlar Group is so proud to provide its unique services and extraordinary applications for its customers that would raise the performance and the creativity of the cryptocurrencies' markets. Start using Wixlar Today! Wixlar offers its customers on the beta testing mode, the ability to buy the tickets of the Events using Wixlar Coins. Wixlar Cryptocurrency is planning to follow a lot of international events offering instant transactions and low fee payments.
Buy Tickets Today through your online Wixlar Wallet https://WixlarCoin.com The Munich Oktoberfest is probably the world’s largest folk festival. Over the past decade it has attracted an average of around six million visitors a year, who between them consume almost seven million liters of beer and munch their way through thousands of grilled sausages, chickens, giant pretzels and - for those really wanting to soak it all up - wild oxen. The festival, which spans just over two weeks, is held annually in a meadow just outside Munich’s city center. In addition to eating, drinking, and dancing, visitors can enjoy colorful parades, a variety of fairground rides, and for those, not themselves in traditional Bavarian gear, admire those that are. Its fame and popularity mean that Oktoberfest is a huge crowd-puller and as a rule accommodation and transport have to be booked well in advance. Blockchain Middle East Forum Dubai Event Dubai announced its intention to turn itself into the first blockchain-powered government in the world by 2020. These ambitions are part of the emirate’s goal of becoming a global business hub with next-generation technology playing a key role in delivering this vision. As a result, a number of Middle East companies both private and the public have made substantial progress on understanding the opportunities, application, and preparations of adopting the blockchain technology within their organization. With this in mind, we are excited to announce the return of the Blockchain Middle East Forum which offers unique networking opportunities for attendees to connect with industry leaders and innovators who are looking to explore the distributed ledger technology.
What you can expect from the Blockchain Middle East Forum • Blockchain revolution: Learn how Blockchain is reshaping the Middle Eastern business market and how your business can stay ahead of the game • Building a Blockchain culture: Recognize how to build ecosystems of open innovation within your organization to reduce conflict and uncertainty • Learning from across the globe: Learn from international experts from the Netherlands and Ireland and discover how they are successfully adopting Blockchain within their organizations • The value of Blockchain: Understand the importance of assessing the economic viability of Blockchain solutions alongside your current business process to increase overall ROI • Creating the right path for your business: Assess Blockchain technologies and identify the least disruptive Blockchain adoption path that will support business growth and expansion of your business network • Shaping tomorrow: Discuss how the Middle Eastern market will respond to the introduction of Blockchain and learn what the future holds “The delegates attending were the right ones and we are following up on commercial discussions - a valuable opportunity.” Partner and Global Head of Operational Consulting, Analysis Mason “The whole event was very well attended and organized; there was a right balance between presentations and interactive sessions.” Director, Davis Langdon The Blockchain Middle East Forum offers you the perfect platform to showcase your solution to your target market and meet and network with senior-level decision makers who are leading the way in the industry. The Blockchain Middle East Forum specializes in providing business development, marketing, and sales solutions that are tailored to specifically deliver on your business objectives. We pay patient attention to what our exhibition and sponsorship customers want, expect, need and value. Every sponsor wants to create customers, develop qualified sales leads, convert leads into sales and retain customers.
Proof of Work and Proof of Stake In 2009, BitCoin as the first decentralized currency was implemented in practice by Satoshi Nakamoto that combined primitives to manage ownership of BitCoins through Public key cryptography with hashing algorithms is order to keep a track or blockchain of who owns coins, known as "proof of work." Proof of work solved two main problems which are provided simple algorithm that allows network nodes to vote or verify some updates of the bitcoin ledger and allowed a free entry to this process to solve the problem of who gets to influence the consensus with preventing attacks. Proof of work succeed in that by substituting a formal barrier to participation, such as each single node power in the verifying process is depending on the computing power that the node brings. After that, problem of huge power and electricity fees began to appear in order to continue working with the proof of work which led to a new alternative approach called proof of stake that is calculating the weight of a node according to its currency staking or holding only which means more power and electricity saving. The discussion showing the benefits of the two approaches proof of work and proof of stake and both approaches can be used for any cryptocurrency. Each Transaction is being placed using a wallet (web wallet, Windows wallet, APPLE Wallet, Mobile Wallet) as a block in the blockchain in order to be verified or voted among the nodes in the network, that is the Miners work in the Proof of Work and Stakers work in the Proof of stake. Transactions can be processed in less time according to many people who are interested in mining and staking and allowing themselves to become a verifying node in the network to gain some profit which makes the network alive as long as there are active nodes in the network. Anyone can check the blockchain and the number of blocks processed through the blockexplorer but for security reasons, no one can know the exact owner or receiver of any transactions which provides privacy and anonymity for network users.
BitCoin and Crypto Concepts Introduction to BitCoin and Crypto Currencies Concepts The Decentralized Digital Currency Concept has been under study for decades where there might be no authority in the middle of transactions. BitCoin as the first cryptocurrency succeed to provide anonymous transactions without exposing the identity of the sender or receiver which led to a real practical way to provide security to users and anonymity control across the Globe. Crypto Currencies came to life after huge efforts through continuous researches History of CryptoCurrencies The anonymous 1980s and 1990s electronic cash protocols were mostly dependable on a crypt-graphic primitive called Chaumian Blinding that provided new currencies with privacy control, however, their underlying protocols failed to gain attraction because they were depending on a Centralized Authority. In 1998, Wei Dai's b-money succeed to become the first proposal to introduce an innovation idea depending on creating money through solving computational puzzles and Decentralized, however that proposal did not show actually how a decentralized environment can be implemented. In 2005, Hal Finney introduced a new concept of "reusable proofs of work" which is a whole system uses combined ideas from b-money and Adam Back's computationally Hashcash puzzles in order to create a new concept for CryptoCurrency, however it failed shortly because it relied on trusted computing mechanism as a backend. In 2009, BitCoin as the first decentralized currency was implemented in practice by Satoshi Nakamoto that combined primitives to manage ownership of BitCoins through public key cryptography with a hashing algorithm in order to keep a track or blockchain of who owns coins, known as "proof of work."
Proof of Stake Proof of Work POW and Proof of Stake POS Each system has its own pros and cons, each cryptocurrency's owners choose whether to use POW or POS or even Hybrid POW/POS that uses proof of work in the beginning of the coins until specific number of coins is mined then the system will be converted automatically to proof of stake where miners are becoming stakers that stake or hold coins in their wallets in order to vote or verify on transactions. Wixlar A Future Technology in Crypto Currencies Transactions, Portable Wallets and Decentralized Applications After twelve years of experience in business trades with global companies and seven years of cryptocurrency research, Wixlar Group Co. LTD decided to launch Wixlar Coins as a decentralized cryptocurrency Hybrid POW/POS with an enhanced secured hashing algorithm to become one of the easiest ways to make safe transactions with small businesses or big businesses or even for using Wixlar Coins to buy or sell any products or services online and offline (https://wixlar.com). 2 Wixlar Services Wixlar Group offers some of the latest advanced technological services through a Global Decentralized Network based on the BlockChain Technology to the Public, Individuals and Companies (https://wixlar.com/services) such as Wallets, Master Card, Exchanges, Smart Contract, Letter of Credit, Cloud Storage, E-Shop, Academy, Rewards, Partnerships, Lottery and Free-Lancing. 2.1 Wixlar Wallets Wixlar Coins are securely stored in your personal wallet on your computer, tablet, phone or laptop (Windows, Linux, Mac, Android, and Paper Wallet). You can Download your wallet and immediately start sending and receiving payments with a click of a button (https://wixlar.com/wallets). 2.2 Wixlar MasterCard Wixlar offers a Global MasterCard to Wixlar Coin Holders to easily convert your Wixlar Coins into Dollars or Euros. This way you can withdraw Dollars or Euros from any ATM anywhere in the world or even purchase goods as a normal MasterCard (https://wixlar.com/mastercard).
2.3 Global Exchanges Wixlar Coins can be exchanged into any other currency like $, €, £, ¥ etc, and into any other cryptocurrency like BTC, ETH, BCC, LTC etc, through different legal exchanges (https://WixlarCoin.com/exchanges). 2.4 Wixlar Smart Contract Through Wixlar Wallets, our users are able to create their own tokens, assets or shares through Wixlar Smart Contracts in order to take their business to the next level through Wixlar Block-chain Technology (https://wixlar.com/smart-contract). 2.5 Innovative Letter of Credit In Wixlar Letter of Credit, the Seller accepts to receive Wixlar Coins after shipping the goods to the Buyer. The Buyer approves to send the exact amount of goods in Wixlar Coins to our Wixlar Commercial Department that holds that balance and send a notification to the seller to ship the goods. Once the goods are received or shipped according to the mutual agreement between the buyer and the seller, Wixlar Commercial Department will release the Wixlar Coins to the Seller (https://WixlarCoin.com/letter-of-credit). 2.6 Decentralized Cloud Storage The advantage of Wixlar Cloud Storage is that it splits apart, encrypts and distributes your files across a decentralized network through the BlockChain Technology. The Decentralization eliminates any failure or theft of your files, unlike traditional cloud storage providers. You hold your personal private key in order to get access and control your files. Wixlar Decentralized Cloud secures your sensitive data through a fuzzy logic hashing algorithm that makes it much more secure (https://wixlar.com/cloud-storage). 2.7 Wixlar E-shop Wixlar Group is excited to announce the manufacturing of its own products such as Wixlar Phone, Wixlar Tablet, Wixlar Smart Watch, Wixlar Laptop and much more. Customers are able to purchase the latest technology products through the Wixlar E-Shop with the best prices and highest quality. By purchasing any product from the Wixlar E-shop, you are having an immediate integration of your Digital Currency Wallet in your product (https://wixlar.com/e-shop).
2.8 Wixlar Academy Wixlar Academy takes the next step of our users’ and partners’ success through researches. Imagine yourself getting educated about smart technology and being certified! Wixlar Academy opens the door for everyone to reveal the open-source of the knowledge in the most recent niche topics through global authors sharing all information in the same place with references and proves about each topic. There are some incentives for the global authors according to the amount of the interactions between them and the readers of their topics. Wixlar Academy is your open-source for education with references, beside some of the exciting announcements for the Wixlar Events and Partners (https://WixlarCoin.com/academy). 2.9 Wixlar Partners Wixlar Group is excited to co-operate with partners internationally. Merchants and sellers globally accept Wixlar Coins as a payment method on their website (https://WixlarCoin.com/partners). 2.10 Wixlar Lottery A new concept for a better life! Imagine using your Wixlar Coins to get a lottery ticket on your dream Car, Yacht or Villa and winners are picked up through a fuzzy logic faith system that guarantees highest quality processing and fastest lottery entry through Wixlar Coins (https://WixlarCoin.com/lottery). 2.11 Wixlar Free-Lancing Wixlar Free Lancing Platform is a global online marketplace used by freelancers to offer tasks and services to customers worldwide. Everyone can become a freelancer on Wixlar Free Lancing Platform and getting paid in Wixlar Coins (https://WixlarCoin.com/free-lancing). 2.12 Wixlar Rewards Looking for a way to get Wixlar Coins for Free through some easy tasks and assignments, Wixlar Rewards are here for you (https://WixlarCoin.com/rewards).
2.12.1 Marketers and Authors Rewards Marketers and Authors that achieve certain targets will be rewarded with Wixlar Coins; Stake Holders with a certain amount of Wixlar Coins can be eligible for one of the top rewards such as Wixlar Smart Phone, Wixlar Smart Tablet, and Wixlar Smart Watch. 2.12.1 Stake Holders Rewards Some investors like to put their money in a trusted place to get an annual interest. Wixlar Group made it easy! Any user can stake any amount of coins available in his/her wallet for a duration in order to get a 10% extra Wixlar coins annually. In that case, Wixlar Coins became a great saving to investors among the variable price of the coins according to the supply and demand, plus the annual interest (staking rate). Wixlar is the only Digital Currency offering more than 12 Services to the public, individuals, and companies. Wixlar TV: Wixlar TV Channel broadcasting live 24/7 with the latest news in business and technology. Wixlar is the only Digital Currency offering more than 12 Services to the public, individuals and companies and Wixlar TV Channel broadcasting live 24/7 with the latest news in business and technology. Streaming Life internationally at https://WixlarCoin.com/wixlartv If you watch our website https://WixlarCoin.comand especially on the Videos Section https://wixlar.com/videos/ and the Academy Section https://wixlar.com/academy/ then you will realize that we have been actively sponsoring and participating in major global events since August 2017 as well as already existing physical offices that invited and accommodated businessmen and companies from different parts of the world that will be partnering with Wixlar. As far as the team, you can watch the professionalism of the introduction video and the high standard of individuals, financial advisors, lawyers, accountants, developers and merchants that are a part of Wixlar Group.
submitted by wixlarcoin to u/wixlarcoin [link] [comments]

What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin Explained Simply for Dummies ... Bitcoin Mining  HOW TO CASH OUT BITCOIN - TURN BITCOIN ... Online CryptoCurrency Calculator with multi-Cryptocurrencies Simple Bitcoin Converter BITCOIN TO USD [TESTED-WORKING 100%] The Art of Hash War Bitcoin Cash BCH

HashCash has a crypto-currency trading wallet, PayBito that allows consumers to trade in major currencies such as Bitcoin and Ethereum. PayBito is a BIPS compliant secure multi-sig wallet that ensures anti-money laundering and know your customer verifications of both sender and receiver before authorizing the transaction. PALO ALTO, Calif., March 21, 2020 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- HashCash has announced that its upcoming new virtual currency, CFIX, will be available for trading at leading USA based crypto exchange ... PALO ALTO, Calif., Aug. 22, 2020 /PRNewswire-PRWeb/ -- Owing to their scalable offerings, HashCash Consultants has been recognized as the leading provider of blockchain-based real estate exchange ... More or less, all bitcoin mining companies are well-versed in the traditional process of mining bitcoins. But recently, a variety of eco-friendly bitcoin mining techniques have come up in the market which is grabbing the attention of miners from all over the world. The whole story behind bitcoin is to democratize the economy of the whole world ... Hal Finney developed reusable proof of work (RPOW) using hashcash as its proof of work algorithm. ... (25 USD – Bitcoin value was 0.0025 cents for 1 coin). July 11th Bitcoin v0.3. is mentioned on news website Slashdot.org. The number of bitcoin users increases significantly. July 12th Bitcoin exchange rate increases 10 times in ten days, from 0.008 USD per BTC to 0.08 USD per BTC. July 17th ...

[index] [7268] [9842] [12041] [32556] [34106] [13938] [19696] [45265] [41609] [1458]

What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin Explained Simply for Dummies ...

Start trading Bitcoin and cryptocurrency here: http://bit.ly/2Vptr2X Bitcoin is the first decentralized digital currency. All Bitcoin transactions are docume... BITCOIN (BTC) TO PAYPAL USD ($) [TESTED-WORKING 100%] BTC-Bitcoin to $-USD Paypal VIRVOX : https://goo.gl/tQcjE4 BTC WALLET : https://blockchain.info/wallet/ Paypal ... Bitcoin Cash BCH first ever Hash War for a Proof of Work blockchain. This is history in the making. We are watching Nakamoto consensus doing what it is designed to do from day one. For myself, I ... Bitcoin Cash(BCH) hash rate drops 90% after halving. Time to abandon ship? - Duration: 5:52. Cryptocurrency News 2,928 views. 5:52 🔴En DIRECTO ¡BITCOIN (₿) #HALVING PARTY 2020 ... Get a Wirex card using this link to get $5 of FREE bitcoin when you order your card and another $5 of FREE bitcoin when you load it with min. $100 credit: ht...

#