Jeff Garzik Bitcoin News

TIL: These days Jeff Garzik is working on an AML wallet called Vulcan, a bitcoin wallet based on copay where the government (Australian right now) has to cosign every transaction.
submitted by the_bob to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Jeff Garzik on Twitter: "There are several #bitcoin mobile wallets. Are there any that can pay another app on the phone via IPC, e.g. Bitcoin Wallet app -> Uber app?"

Jeff Garzik on Twitter: Uber app?"" title="Jeff Garzik on Twitter: "There are several #bitcoin mobile wallets. Are there any that can pay another app on the phone via IPC, e.g. Bitcoin Wallet app -> Uber app?"" /> submitted by Egon_1 to btc [link] [comments]

Jeff Garzik: "Accepting new rules by default is just plain bad governance." - Jeff Garzik: "SegWit8MB will under absolutely no circumstances set the hardfork bit, to make sure as many clients & wallets accept the new rules by default." /r/Bitcoin

Jeff Garzik: submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Jeff Garzik: "Accepting new rules by default is just plain bad governance." - also Jeff Garzik: "SegWit8MB will under absolutely no circumstances set the hardfork bit, to make sure as many clients & wallets accept the new rules by default." /r/Bitcoin

Jeff Garzik: submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

TIL: These days Jeff Garzik is working on an AML wallet called Vulcan, a bitcoin wallet based on copay where the government (Australian right now) has to cosign every transaction. /r/Bitcoin

TIL: These days Jeff Garzik is working on an AML wallet called Vulcan, a bitcoin wallet based on copay where the government (Australian right now) has to cosign every transaction. /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Jeff Garzik on Twitter: "There are several #bitcoin mobile wallets. Are there any that can pay another app on the phone via IPC, e.g. Bitcoin Wallet app -> Uber app?"

Jeff Garzik on Twitter: Uber app?"" title="Jeff Garzik on Twitter: "There are several #bitcoin mobile wallets. Are there any that can pay another app on the phone via IPC, e.g. Bitcoin Wallet app -> Uber app?"" /> submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

United Bitcoin claims to have Jeff Garzik and Matthew Roszak as part of their tech dev team. This screams scam. I highly doubt these two have anything to do with this! • r/BitcoinScamCoins

United Bitcoin claims to have Jeff Garzik and Matthew Roszak as part of their tech dev team. This screams scam. I highly doubt these two have anything to do with this! • BitcoinScamCoins submitted by increaseblocks to btc [link] [comments]

*Must read for newcomers* My friend worked in the Bitcoin industry (broker) for a couple of years and has been involved in the crypto world since 2014. This is what he had to say about the recent politics of btc when someone asked him on our crypto trading channel

(He first sent this article, then followed up with this reply when someone told him he had no idea what he just read)
"There was a big scaling debate and in the end there were two sides. Those that wanted to scale using bigger blocksize (short term solution that doesn't work long term and also causes more centralization) vs those who wanted to scale using changes in the code to make the network more efficient aka SEGWIT+second layer scaling solutions (bitcoin becomes massive settlement layer, and second layer solutions can take care of verifying your $3.25 coffee payment).
On the big block side you had (most) miners because they were only able to see the short term benefits of increased blocksize and they do not care about network centralization. Also, a chinese miner controlling a sizeable chunk of the network's hashrate had access to (and was in the process of patenting) this technology called ASICBOOST which is an exploit in bitcoin code that allows you to "cheat" and get extra hashing power out of your miners. Essentially they had an unfair advantage and the KEY is that the segwit upgrade fixes this exploit. Alongside these miners you had a couple of misguided (but incredibly wealthy because of early adoption) individuals who either have a reason to see bitcoin fail (like they are heavily invested in altcoins now) or they are too pigheaded to back down when wrong (or some of them I'm sure are not actually intelligent enough to understand they are wrong).
On the Segwit side you had all the core developers (the guys who worked side by side with satoshi to build all this and have been contributing to the code for years every day), the majority of the userbase, AND the vast majority of bitcoin companies. The two sides were basically arguing over who had control over bitcoin - was it the miners, or was it the users? Was it those who chose which software to run (users) or was it those who verified transactions for that software (miners)? (The answer as you will see shortly is Users). So basically these miners were stalling the upgrade because it would mean the end of their unfair (AND patented) advantage. This massive stalemate in the debate caused a community led uprising known as the User Activated Soft Fork movement (UASF). These guys basically said "We're switching our nodes to Segwit software starting Aug 1 and we will be rejecting all mined blocks that do not comply with the new code". This forced the miners' hand as they realized they would either be forked off the network or have to go along with the new upgrade to make sure everything continued to go smoothly (including their profits).
The movement gained enough support to freak out some big money bitcoin CEOs who got together in a room with the miners and made a deal behind closed doors known as the New York Agreement (NYA). This is where Segwit2x was born. The key to note here is that not a single core dev was invited to this meeting (in fact, not a single competent dev in general was invited). The terms of the deal were: You guys agree to implement Segwit now, and then we'll agree to an increase in block size later (November). Deal was made and obviously the majority of the user community was in an uproar because bitcoiners hate closed door deals (and they should for good reason).
That being said, it got Segwit activated because it gave miners an easy way to safe face and go with segwit and the community instead of seeing their profits get wrecked by a messy chainsplit. However, do you remember that sneaky miner who had patented the ASICBOOST technology? Well he was part of the NYA and he decided to fork off anyway and create Bitcoin Cash. So stop right here and realize that the only reason we have bitcoin cash is so that some miner with a ton of hashing power could keep his unfair advantage over the network (he stills mainly mines bitcoin by the way because he would go out of business if he switched entirely to bitcoin cash). Also at this point, technically the NYA was broken because the whole point of it was to avoid a chainsplit and go with segwit followed by a block size increase whereas bitcoin cash was a clear chainsplit.
So for a few months everything was ok because we had Segwit, core devs were still with us, and (supposedly) anyone who wanted bigger blocks had forked off to bitcoin cash right? Wrong. See it turns out that those guys who made that backroom deal with the miners also had their own interests which involve removing the current core developers from their (imagined) seat of power. It is classic old school business politics - they don't care that core the devs are based around principles of meritocracy and peer review. They just want to have more of a say in the direction bitcoin takes. At this point, you might be thinking, "Ok but its fair for companies who use a product to have a say in its development, right?" NO. Not when the "product" at stake is meant to be an incredibly secure, incorruptible ledger that can hold trillions of dollars in wealth and still be hosted online accross the world.
The fact is that no one understands the code better than the core developers and no one has more of an interest in seeing bitcoin stay decentralized and secure than these guys do. These guys literally cum buckets everyday to how much they love coding bitcoin. If Satoshi is Cypher Jesus then these guys are his Apostles. And on the other hand you have some severely misguided corporate buffoons who think they have the knowledge to negotiate a compromise with a group who has nothing but short term profit in their sights. And when the core developers are like "wtf dude?" and the community stands behind them, then these guys resort to essentially trying to kick core out of bitcoin by starting a new chain. A new chain which was based on a compromise that no one wants or needs anymore. And the excuse these CEO's are hiding behind is "We don't want to go back on our word." Classic business mindset vs coding mindset.
ur word." Classic business mindset vs coding mindset.
Now we come to the current situation where there are basically 4 sides
  1. Core developers, and those supporting them
  2. The (remaining) signers of the NYA and those supporting Segwit2x
  3. Malicious third parties who just want to see bitcoin fail (invested in altcoins/bitcoin cash or they are the Joker and just want to see shit burn)
  4. Innocent bystanders
The core developers are continuing to code and improve bitcoin and they are working on second layer solutions. They haven't stopped development and have actually made a TON of beneficial changes to the code since the Segwit upgrade allowed them to. Being non-political or atleast being shit politicians, these guys do not know how to handle themselves with other people and either don't speak much or come off as pretentious d*bags (trust me I used to hate them before I smartened up).
The remaining NYA signers. I say remaining because alot of companies left when they saw the massive backlash from the community. The only signers left are miners and then a group of around 30 companies which all have ties to Barry Silbert's holding company Digital Currency Group and suprise surprise who do you think got that NYA meeting together in the first place? Silly Silbert indeed. He's basically trying to do a sort of corporate take over of bitcoin where he decides who is writing the code and how they write it. Oh also I should note here that these guys have 1 developer working on the Segwit2x code. Yes 1, Jeff Garzik. Coding ability? Mediocre at best. All he did was copy and paste the entire bitcoin core code (because its open source) and changed the one little value that dictates block size. He changed a 1 to a 2 haha! And when he tried to make other changes he made critical mistakes that had to be fixed by CORE DEVELOPERS hahahaha! So how the f* does that even compare to an army of geeks who have been coding bitcoin for years and coding in general for decades who are all constantly trying to find mistakes in each others' work. SO people supporting Segwit2x are either severely misguided, hate core devs, or don't have all the information to make an informed decision.
Now the malicious actors. These are people who have a vested interest in seeing bitcoin crumble. I'm talking about big altcoin investors and bitcoin cash supporters (yes the guys who have ASICBOOST and want are the reason for this whole mess in the first place). And Segwit2x has presented them with a beautiful vector of attack. Divide and conquer. Right? And whereas with bitcoin cash there was replay protection (meaning the split was pretty clean and bitcoin was largely unaffected) this time they haven't got any planned - so should things go through as planned, things could get messy.
Then you have all those innocent bystanders who don't really know what to think anymore. Things have gotten so convoluted and complicated that it is hard to follow who wants what anymore. These are the people who will get the most fucked by something like Segwit2x because they won't understand the risks as it is happening and they won't have the knowledge to know which wallets to support. Imagine Segwit2x happens and one wallet sticks with the core version of bitcoin and the other wallet supports the segwit2x version but they both just say "Bitcoin".
That is why people are soooooooooooooo strongly opposed to Segwit2x more than anything. It is nothing more and nothing less than a hostile takeover attempt. And at this point that should be more than clear because why else would you still support the compromise made with miners who broke the compromise by creating bitcoin cash? No one wanted Segwit2x in the first place. People wanted bigger blocks, or segwit, not both. Segwit2x was never a faction in the debate. It was a faction that was spawned by those who created the NYA because they saw an opportunity take control of the software development from a group of developers who have been working on it for years and who strongly oppose corporate interests getting involved in bitcoin development."
(I will name and shame the main malicious\misguided actors and add details based on personal discussion with him and add articles for further reading)
Barry Silbert
Erik Vorhees
Jeff Garzik
Roger Ver
Jihan Wu (the miner mentioned) - only wants more money and power
there you guys have it, a comprehensive rundown of bitcoin politics from the point of view of someone who supports the original vision of Satoshi Nakamoto to the core. I hope it informs those of you who got confused by the FUD.
Bitcoin belongs to the community, always and forever
submitted by HavocMMA to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Reminder: Cobra-Bitcoin assisted and supported Theymos with agenda driven moderation that was designed to stop Bitcoin from functioning as a cash system.

Theymos implicitly said that Cobra was working with him to implement their agenda driven moderation campaign:
You must be naive if you think it'll have no effect. I've moderated forums since long before Bitcoin (some quite large), and I know how moderation affects people. Long-term, banning XT from /Bitcoin will hurt XT's chances to hijack Bitcoin. There's still a chance, but it's smaller. (This is improved by the simultaneous action on,, and
(emphasis added)
Notes for those out of the loop:
So: 16th June 2015 was when Bitcoin XT was upgraded to include the change that would increase the block size thus allowing Bitcoin to continue to function as a cash system in the future.
Here is a snapshot of the wallet page on 16th July 2015. Notice the absence of Bitcoin XT (a popular, safe and compatible version of Bitcoin).
If you have any doubt that Cobra-Bitcoin supported Theymos and agreed with him please see Cobra's comments in this December 2015 pull request (archived backup) to learn about what Cobra thought about Bitcoin XT.
I made this post because Cobra-Bitcoin is making positive remarks about Bitcoin Cash from time to time. People need to understand that this snake cannot be trusted. I also wanted to share a little of Bitcoin's history with the new comers here.
submitted by hapticpilot to btc [link] [comments]

Reminder: Bitcoin (BTC) is Being Hot-Wired for Settlement

I think it's important that we occasionally point out the fundamental problems with the philosophy driving BTC's development. Explaining the benefits of Bitcoin in general without pointing out the problems with the current banking system would be... awkward. Similarly, it's difficult to explain the benefits of BCH without pointing out the problems with BTC. So here's why I think BTC is doomed to failure, and why BCH will not suffer the same fate.


“Settlement” is the process of finalizing a trade. It’s when the “actual payment” happens. For example, a group of friends may typically exchange IOUs to help pay for meals, and may eventually settle by paying each other the outstanding balances with cash. Similarly, in a gold-based economy, banks may occasionally settle differences in digital account balances between each other by physically delivering gold. In both cases, the common form of “money” used in day-to-day transactions is in a sense just pretend. The IOUs in the case of the group of friends, and the bank account balances in the latter case are forms of substitute money that are just representative of the eventual genuine payment that should be made at some point in future.
Substitute money like this has certain benefits however, usually around being faster and easier to use than the underlying hard-money. When there are two forms of money being used like this, we can say that typical transactions occur on the “payment” or “second” layer, with occasional settlements occurring on the “settlement” or “base” layer.

Money substitutes can sidestep benefits of the base money

In a hypothetical economy where all payments are made with gold and silver coins, it’s nearly impossible to inflate the money supply. It’s also very difficult to censofreeze payments, confiscate coins, or spy on transactions. These sorts of interference require on-the-ground police action. However, precious metal coins are awkward to use, store, and authenticate. Being physical rather than digital objects, they require much more effort to store, transport and inspect. As a result, people will naturally move to store their coins in bank accounts and instead transact by transferring amounts between their bank accounts electronically. The amounts recorded in these bank account balances become a substitute money, and transactions between the accounts constitute a new payment layer. However, unlike the base money, this substitute money can be easily inflated, censored, confiscated and spied on; both by the bank itself and by government authorities.
From the perspective of a totalitarian government and/or the existing financial establishment, it is extremely important that that day-to-day transactions should occur on a payment system that can be centrally controlled; such as through electronic bank accounts. The assets that can be bought with this payment system, or the types of money that may serve as underlying settlement has little significance. Even if there are strong guarantees that bank account amounts can be redeemed/settled in precious metal coins, this is of little concern to authorities so long as the only way to make use of the value in these coins is to later sell them again using the normal electronic payment networks.
All of the powers to inflate, censor, confiscate and spy have much more power when applied to payment layers rather than settlement layers. For example, imagine if Bitcoin were to become a settlement money backing the value stored in all existing bank accounts. People would continue to transact using exactly the same electronic payment systems (including credit cards) and may be about as likely to settle in high-fee Bitcoin as they would be to settle to gold coins (if this were still an option). Yes, withdrawal of the hard money might be an option for those paranoid enough to keep their coins under their mattress / in their hardware wallet, but the promise of Bitcoin having any kind of practical impact on the financial freedom of people worldwide would be an utter failure.
So, in order to maintain control, the incumbent financial establishment need only direct/manipulate development such that Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer behind a more easily controlled payment layer. They do not necessarily need to corrupt Bitcoin itself.

Bitcoin is being hot-wired for settlement

Back in 2015, by far the most common understanding of Bitcoin was that it would function as a peer-to-peer electronic cash, suitable for small casual payments. That is, it would become so cheap, fast and seamless to use that people would always prefer to transact with it directly like cash, rather than using a substitute money on a secondary payment layer.
So, when the article “Bitcoin is Being Hot-Wired for Settlement” by Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen appeared, the title came across as a little paranoid. Yes, there were a few people working on Bitcoin who would prefer if it became relegated to a settlement layer for a different (perhaps more easily controlled) payment network, but the most common attitude by far was that technical scaling challenges would ultimately be resolved (with no fundamental barriers to this), and that Bitcoin would become an effective cash-like money for the world. There were simply far too many people involved who understood the importance of maintaining the cash-like qualities of Bitcoin for it to be successfully lured into becoming a mere settlement layer.
Fast forward three years, and we find the article’s warning shockingly prescient.
Part of the reason that this transformation in the direction of development has been successful is due to the promise that the Lightning Network (LN) will be an effective second layer that maintains all of the same assurances as the underlying bitcoins. The current widespread assumption in the BTC community is that the LN will eventually be used directly by everyone as a payment layer for Bitcoin. It can be shown (although it’s debatable) that control over the bitcoins in a LN node are as good as or better than control over the underlying bitcoins. Unlike in the second layer examples I gave earlier, bitcoins in the LN can not be inflated, are no more easily confiscated or censored and may be even harder to spy on than base layer bitcoins. With this understanding, many/most developers in the BTC community support the LN and are comfortable constraining the Bitcoin base layer such that bitcoins are not used directly for payments.

The Lightning Network is not for you

Back in 2015 and earlier, the idea that there was an agenda to transform Bitcoin into a settlement network (that had a hope of succeeding) was seen as a paranoid conspiracy theory. Now, people might doubt that the idea was ever even contentious. Similarly, I predict that there is an agenda to ensure that the Lightning Network will not be used by end users. It will function as a very effective way to securely transact bitcoins, but it will never be user friendly. It will always either require an unreasonable amount of always-on server hardware, or will simply be too complex and costly to set up for the average user. I predict instead that the LN will merely be an electronic transfer mechanism for institutions such as banks. End users will then only transact with bitcoins via bank transfers. For example, most people will have a Bitcoin bank (e.g. Coinbase) account, and will transact simply by instructing their bank to transfer money to the receiver’s account. Their bank may then occasionally settle by paying the receiver’s bank through the LN. At this point, the relegation of Bitcoin to being a genuine settlement layer will be complete.
With end users only ever seeing the digital numbers on their Bitcoin bank accounts, the number of “bitcoins” in the system can be freely inflated using much the same mechanisms as occur today with commercial bank created money. All the usual forms of confiscation, censorship and spying will continue.

Wasn’t this bound to happen anyway?

While BTC is being intentionally engineered to discourage direct use, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is instead being engineered explicitly to encourage it. BCH aims to maintain reliably small transaction fees and fast, friction-free transactions at the base layer. In this environment, there will be far less incentive for people to move to corruptible second layers. Furthermore, BCH was created in reaction to BTC’s design decision to become a settlement layer, and as a result, BCH’s most defining feature is its dedication to maintaining the cash-like qualities of Bitcoin. Therefore it is significantly less likely to become corrupted the same way as BTC, and has the community most dedicated to bringing a good truly peer-to-peer electronic cash to the world.
submitted by frictionfreebase to btc [link] [comments]

Jeff Garzik explica la criptomoneda Metronome

Lanzado en 2018, Metronome es una criptomoneda autónoma desarrollada originalmente por Bloq y su grupo BloqLabs, ambos dirigidos por el ex desarrollador principal de Bitcoin y el arquitecto jefe de Metronome Jeff Garzik. Metronome ofrece su uso como una reserva de valor, unidad de cuenta y pagos. Según Metronome, la moneda nativa, MET, se ha distribuido de manera justa – el equipo no tuvo acceso a los tokens antes que el público en general.
Metronome cuenta con contratos inteligentes y APIs para que sea autónomo, confiable y portátil. Aunque Garzik está interesado en el diseño de bitcoin, Metronome se basa más en Ethereum.
Los usuarios que cuentan con wallets desktop de Metronome para Windows, MacOS y Linux pueden enviar y recibir MET y ether (ETH) y / o Ethereum Classic (ETC); participar en subastas diarias (más sobre eso a continuación); e intercambiar MET por el token nativo de la cadena en la que se encuentra el MET, y viceversa, con el Convertidor de divisas autónomo de Metronome en lugar de un exchange. Metronome está investigando activamente Qtum y RSK.
“Estas billeteras móviles han sido diseñadas y auditadas para reflejar los mismos estándares de excelencia que el sistema Metronome”, dijo Jeff Garzik, arquitecto jefe de Metronome, en un comunicado de prensa. “Nuestra comunidad ha estado pidiendo una forma de llevar la experiencia completa de Metronome a dispositivos móviles, y estamos orgullosos de haberlo entregado”. La billetera ha sido auditada por profesionales de la industria tanto dentro como fuera de la industria blockchain, como Zeppelin Solutions y Gustav Simonsson.
El trabajo de Garzik en Metronome ha tomado las lecciones aprendidas desde el lanzamiento inicial de Bitcoin y las ha incorporado al diseño de la criptomoneda.
“Intentas hervir todo eso en una experiencia de usuario comprensible”, dijo. “Si tomamos todas las lecciones aprendidas de todas las blockchains y todas las monedas desde 2009, desde el lanzamiento de Bitcoin hasta hoy, ¿cuáles son algunos de los riesgos a los que nos ajustaríamos? ¿Cuáles son algunos de los atributos que construiríamos en esa moneda? ¿Cuáles son algunas de las características faltantes que desearía que no estén en un Bitcoin o Ethereum o en la moneda tres, cuatro, cinco, seis “, dijo, mientras hablaba acerca de Metronome en el Consenso de CoinDesk 2019.” ¿Qué es lo fundamental en una criptomoneda? ¿Qué lo convierte en una moneda diseñada para durar? Obviamente está el componente de deposito de valor. Pero, ¿cómo se asegura de que mantiene su integridad en muchos eventos como los forks de cadena o ataques de doble gasto, 51% de los ataques, etc.?”

Salto de cadena

Una parte crítica de la arquitectura de Metronome es su función de salto de cadena. “Esa es la característica que realmente demuestra la historia de Metronome”, dice Garzik. “Es el único token que puede sobrevivir a la defunción de un blockchain y el salto de cadena es la característica que le permite alejarse de riesgo [en orden] a riesgo, para poder adaptarse a otro almacén de seguridad o a otro blockchain”.
Los usuarios pueden usar tokens MET en diferentes blockchains. Pueden mover sus tokens MET de un blockchain a otro. Pueden moverlo del blockchain de Ethereum a Ethereum Classic y, en el futuro, a QTUM. MET está diseñado para usar otros blockchains, como Ethereum, Ethereum Classic y Bitcoin, simplemente como rieles de seguridad.
“Estamos demostrando que un blockchain es este almacén de seguridad para estos tokens”, dijo Garzik.
Garzik advierte rápidamente que esto no es un intercambio, que es un evento imponible. “Cuando pasas de bitcoin a litecoin, de bitcoin a ethereum, has vendido bitcoin”, dice. “Y, en la mayoría de las jurisdicciones fiscales, usted tiene una base de costo imponible impuesto con esa transacción”.
Con la función de salto de cadena de Metronome, está moviendo el activo en sí de un blockchain a otro. “[Es] como levantar una barra de oro y mover la barra de oro de un almacén a otro”, explica Garzik. “Estás moviendo tus tokens de Metronome de un blockchain a otro”. Eso no es una venta o intercambio, dijo, antes de explicar la analogía de la barra de oro y el almacén de seguridad.
“Utilizamos blockchain únicamente para asegurar el sistema de Metronome [y] el token de Metronome”, dijo. “¿Por qué querrías moverlo de un blockchain a otro? Un ejemplo del mundo real es que diferentes blockchains tienen diferentes tarifas de transacción. Bitcoin y Ethereum tienen un nivel de tarifa de transacción más alto que Ethereum Classic. Si está haciendo muchas transacciones de Metronome, lo que podría ser inteligente es mover su MET de una cadena de Bitcoin o Ethereum de alta seguridad a una seguridad tal vez un poco más baja, pero Ethereum Classic más barato [para] hacer muchas transacciones, pagando tarifas muy bajas y luego volver a la cadena de seguridad más alta. Ese es un caso de uso del mundo real “. Garzik menciona quizás un caso de uso más acuciante. ¿Qué pasa si un blockchain determinado va a dejar de existir?
“¿Qué pasa si hay algunos problemas serios en el camino?”, Preguntó retóricamente a la audiencia. “Puedes ajustarte a ese riesgo a alejarte de esa cadena. Y 1,000 MET sigue siendo 1,000 MET. Al igual que cuando recoges una barra de oro y la mueves de un almacén a otro, todavía tienes una barra de oro y no hubo eventos imponibles. Del mismo modo, cuando mueve Met de una cadena de bloques a otra, sigue siendo MET. Todavía tiene el mismo valor que antes. Es solo un tiempo de liquidación más rápido, tarifas de transacción más bajas o evitar un desastre en blockchain, un drama en blockchain o algo así “.
A diferencia de los intercambios atómicos o los intercambios atómicos, que involucran dos monedas y crean responsabilidad gravable para cualquiera que las tenga, un salto en cadena no es un evento imponible, dice Garzik. Un intercambio atómico es un intercambio entre pares de criptomonedas de una parte a otra sin la necesidad de un servicio de terceros, como un exchange. Los intercambios atómicos, que también se conocen como comercio entre cadenas, pueden ejecutarse directamente entre blockchains separados con diferentes monedas nativas o pueden ejecutarse fuera del blockchain.
“Metronome puede saltar de un blockchain a otro por razones de gobernanza, pero lo que es muy, muy consecuente en el aspecto económico es lo que no sucede”, dijo Garzik. “No vas de un activo a otro. Por lo tanto, no hay evento imponible”.
Garzik argumenta que, por esta razón, Metronome es menos costoso de mantener, porque cada vez que los usuarios se mueven de un almacén a otro, saltan de una cadena a otra sin un evento imponible para registrar. “Simplemente está moviendo sus activos a una nueva ubicación”, dice Garzik.


Garzik cree que la portabilidad es una gran parte de la historia de Metronome. “[Es] una gran parte de la historia de gobernanza propiamente de Metronome”, dijo. “Construimos esto para ser una moneda autónoma. Eso significa que nadie lo controla, ni siquiera los autores. Y una parte clave de ese autogobierno es que usted, el titular de Metronome, puede votar con su billetera [sobre qué blockchain de Metronome] debe ser para asegurar sus activos. Eso le da libertad de elección, le da la posibilidad de buscar la cadena más fuerte, la cadena menos costosa en términos de tarifas de transacción, [y] la mejor cadena en términos de liquidación”.
Los que poseen MET disfrutan de libertad de elección. “Es una reserva de valor y MET sigue siendo MET sin importar en qué cadena se encuentre”.
La billetera vendrá con una función de puerto integrada para cambiar entre blockchains. La mayoría de los usuarios de blockchain podrían no obtener mucho valor de esta función. “La mayoría de los usuarios se apegarán a una cadena la mayor parte del tiempo, en ausencia de emergencias y recuperación de desastres. Los traders definitivamente usarán bastante la función de portabilidad. Creo que si usted tiene algunos sistemas automatizados, usará la portabilidad para optimizar, por ejemplo, tarifas más bajas si está haciendo muchas transacciones MET, y luego pasar a [Bitcoin o Ethereum] para un tren de mayor seguridad.”

Continuar Lleyendo:
submitted by LosDodgersDodgers to CryptoMexico [link] [comments]

The Truth About Bitcoin's Loss of Market Share

There are multiple reddit users like mrxsdcuqr7x284k6 claiming or implying in this thread that Bitcoin's huge loss of market share is not a result of the Bitcoin Core small block policy.
I don't know what the exact market share of Bitcoin would be right now if Bitcoin was not successfully derailed by people like Greg Maxwell & Theymos who fought hard to stop even small block size increases. What I do know is that the huge loss of market share Bitcoin has undergone and the growth of other crypto currencies is largely the result of what they did.
Anyone who is honest & intelligent and was around before, during and after Bitcoin lost massive market share, knows that the cause of this massive loss of market share and the growth of many other cryptos was a direct result of the artificial constraining of the transaction processing capacity of Bitcoin.
This is not merely a hindsight claim. Vast numbers of Bitcoiners TOLD EVERYONE that this is what would happen if the block size was not increased.
The only people who didn't see this coming (or claimed they didn't see it coming) are the Bitcoin Core supporters from that time who promoted Greg Maxwell's alternative design for Bitcoin.

So what was the Bitcoin Core message of 2015?

Check this 2015 Bitcoin Core blog post:
Note it says:
We don’t expect fees to get as high as the highest seen in this table; they are just provided for reference.
What is the highest listed fee in the table? $0.756
What were the highest median fees during December of 2017? OVER $30
Over just the last 6 months there have been multiple median fee spikes that go above this supposed "high" value of $0.756

What was the message of the Bitcoiners who wanted to follow Satoshi's plan during 2015?

Here's Mike Hearn in 2015 in an interview saying that the people that don't want to the block size to be increased want users to migrate to other system when the block size fills up. Whether the people he is referring to actually did want that or not is irrelevant. This is just one example (of 1000s that could be dug up) of Bitcoiners stating plainly that failure to bump the block size will lead to people migrating to other systems.
Here is what Mike Hearn predicted would happen if the block size isn't raised:
The aftermath
Bitcoin would eventually recover. Users who became frustrated at the extreme unreliability would give up and stop trying to spend their coins. Many coins would make it to an exchange wallet and stay there. Node operators would make their nodes auto-restart. SPV wallets would find some trustworthy central authority to get fee data from.
Most importantly, the overload would eventually go away …. because the users would go away. The backlog would clear. Fees would fall to the minimum again.
So life would go on.
Bitcoin would survive.
But it would have lost critical momentum. It would have become the MySpace of digital currencies. The faithful would have lost a lot of faith, and businesses that were trying to bring Bitcoin to the mainstream would “pivot” towards something else. People who were motivated by Making The World A Better Place™ would conclude the ordinary people around them would never use their products, and so they’d leave.
There are many details in Mike's blog post that he predicted wrong, but it's clear that he knew that the Bitcoin network would be degraded because of this fully saturated, small block policy. He knew users would leave the system.
Here's Jeff Garzik in 2015 warning people about the economic change event that will occur if the block size is not increased.
What did Gavin Andresen say would likely happen as a result of the small block policy? He said:
If the number of transactions waiting gets large enough, the end result will be an over-saturated network, busy doing nothing productive. I don’t think that is likely– it is more likely people just stop using Bitcoin because transaction confirmation becomes increasingly unreliable.
These are just a tiny sample of comments from prominent Bitcoiners. They are not anomalous. They are representative of what everyone fighting against this small-block policy was saying.
Please don't let these ignorant fools & gaslighting snakes deceive you or others.
I remember exactly what happened back then. I also know exactly what Bitcoin is and which chain is Bitcoin.
submitted by hapticpilot to btc [link] [comments]

The Great Bitcoin Bull Market Of 2017 by Trace Mayer

By: Trace Mayer, host of The Bitcoin Knowledge Podcast.
Originally posted here with images and Youtube videos.
I just got back from a two week vacation without Internet as I was scouring some archeological ruins. I hardly thought about Bitcoin at all because there were so many other interesting things and it would be there when I got back.
Jimmy Song suggested I do an article on the current state of Bitcoin. A great suggestion but he is really smart (he worked on Armory after all!) so I better be thorough and accurate!
Therefore, this article will be pretty lengthy and meticulous.
As I completely expected, the 2X movement from the New York Agreement that was supposed to happen during the middle of my vacation flopped on its face because Jeff Garzik was driving the clown car with passengers willfully inside like Coinbase,, Bitgo and Xapo and there were here massive bugS and in the code and miners like Bitmain did not want to allocate $150-350m to get it over the difficulty adjustments.
I am very disappointed in their lack of integrity with putting their money where their mouths are; myself and many others wanted to sell a lot of B2X for BTC!
On 7 December 2015, with Bitcoin trading at US$388.40, I wrote The Rise of the Fourth Great Bitcoin Bubble. On 4 December 2016, with Bitcoin trading at US$762.97, I did this interview:

As of 26 November 2017, Bitcoin is trading around US$9,250.00. That is an increase of about 2,400% since I wrote the article prognosticating this fourth great Bitcoin bull market. I sure like being right, like usual (19 Dec 2011, 1 Jul 2013), especially when there are financial and economic consequences.
With such massive gains in such a short period of time the speculative question becomes: Buy, Hold or Sell?
Bitcoin is the decentralized censorship-resistant Internet Protocol for transferring value over a communications channel.
The Bitcoin network can use traditional Internet infrastructure. However, it is even more resilient because it has custom infrastructure including, thanks to Bitcoin Core developer Matt Corrallo, the FIBRE network and, thanks to Blockstream, satellites which reduce the cost of running a full-node anywhere in the world to essentially nothing in terms of money or privacy. Transactions can be cheaply broadcast via SMS messages.
The Bitcoin network has a difficulty of 1,347,001,430,559 which suggests about 9,642,211 TH/s of custom ASIC hardware deployed.
At a retail price of approximately US$105/THs that implies about $650m of custom ASIC hardware deployed (35% discount applied).
This custom hardware consumes approximately 30 TWh per year. That could power about 2.8m US households or the entire country of Morocco which has a population of 33.85m.
This Bitcoin mining generates approximately 12.5 bitcoins every 10 minutes or approximately 1,800 per day worth approximately US$16,650,000.
Bitcoin currently has a market capitalization greater than $150B which puts it solidly in the top-30 of M1 money stock countries and a 200 day moving average of about $65B which is increasing about $500m per day.
Average daily volumes for Bitcoin is around US$5B. That means multi-million dollar positions can be moved into and out of very easily with minimal slippage.
When my friend Andreas Antonopolous was unable to give his talk at a CRYPSA event I was invited to fill in and delivered this presentation, impromptu, on the Seven Network Effects of Bitcoin.
These seven network effects of Bitcoin are (1) Speculation, (2) Merchants, (3) Consumers, (4) Security [miners], (5) Developers, (6) Financialization and (7) Settlement Currency are all taking root at the same time and in an incredibly intertwined way.
With only the first network effect starting to take significant root; Bitcoin is no longer a little experiment of magic Internet money anymore. Bitcoin is monster growing at a tremendous rate!!

For the Bitcoin price to remain at $9,250 it requires approximately US$16,650,000 per day of capital inflow from new hodlers.
Bitcoin is both a Giffen good and a Veblen good.
A Giffen good is a product that people consume more of as the price rises and vice versa — seemingly in violation of basic laws of demand in microeconomics such as with substitute goods and the income effect.
Veblen goods are types of luxury goods for which the quantity demanded increases as the price increases in an apparent contradiction of the law of demand.
There are approximately 16.5m bitcoins of which ~4m are lost, ~4-6m are in deep cold storage, ~4m are in cold storage and ~2-4m are salable.
And forks like BCash (BCH) should not be scary but instead be looked upon as an opportunity to take more territory on the Bitcoin blockchain by trading the forks for real bitcoins which dries up more salable supply by moving it, likely, into deep cold storage.
According to Wikipedia, there are approximately 15.4m millionaires in the United States and about 12m HNWIs ($30m+ net worth) in the world. In other words, if every HNWI in the world wanted to own an entire bitcoin as a 'risk-free asset' that cannot be confiscated, seized or have the balance other wise altered then they could not.
For wise portfolio management, these HNWIs should have at least about 2-5% in gold and 0.5-1% in bitcoin.
Why? Perhaps some of the 60+ Saudis with 1,700 frozen bank accounts and about $800B of assets being targetted might be able to explain it to you.
In other words, everyone loves to chase the rabbit and once they catch it then know that it will not get away.
There are approximately 150+ significant Bitcoin exchanges worldwide. Kraken, according to the CEO, was adding about 6,000 new funded accounts per day in July 2017.
Supposedly, Coinbase is currently adding about 75,000 new accounts per day. Based on some trade secret analytics I have access to; I would estimate Coinbase is adding approximately 17,500 new accounts per day that purchase at least US$100 of Bitcoin.
If we assume Coinbase accounts for 8% of new global Bitcoin users who purchase at least $100 of bitcoins (just pulled out of thin error and likely very conservative as the actual number is perhaps around 2%) then that is approximately $21,875,000 of new capital coming into Bitcoin every single day just from retail demand from 218,750 total new accounts.
What I have found is that most new users start off buying US$100-500 and then after 3-4 months months they ramp up their capital allocation to $5,000+ if they have the funds available.
After all, it takes some time and practical experience to learn how to safely secure one's private keys.
To do so, I highly recommend Bitcoin Core (network consensus and full validation of the blockchain), Armory (private key management), Glacier Protocol (operational procedures) and a laptop (secure non-specialized hardware).
There has been no solution for large financial fiduciaries to invest in Bitcoin. This changed November 2017.
LedgerX, whose CEO I interviewed 23 March 2013, began trading as a CFTC regulated Swap Execution Facility and Derivatives Clearing Organization.
The CME Group announced they will begin trading in Q4 2017 Bitcoin futures.
The CBOE announced they will begin trading Bitcoin futures soon.
By analogy, these institutional products are like connecting a major metropolis's water system (US$90.4T and US$2 quadrillion) via a nanoscopic shunt to a tiny blueberry ($150B) that is infinitely expandable.
This price discovery could be the most wild thing anyone has ever experienced in financial markets.
The same week Bitcoin was released I published my book The Great Credit Contraction and asserted it had now begun and capital would burrow down the liquidity pyramid into safer and more liquid assets.
Thus, the critical question becomes: Is Bitcoin a possible solution to the Great Credit Contraction by becoming the safest and most liquid asset?
At all times and in all circumstances gold remains money but, of course, there is always exchange rate risk due to price ratios constantly fluctuating. If the metal is held with a third-party in allocated-allocated storage (safest possible) then there is performance risk (Morgan Stanley gold storage lawsuit).
But, if properly held then, there should be no counter-party risk which requires the financial ability of a third-party to perform like with a bank account deposit. And, since gold exists at a single point in space and time therefore it is subject to confiscation or seizure risk.
Bitcoin is a completely new asset type. As such, the storage container is nearly empty with only $150B.
And every Bitcoin transaction effectively melts down every BTC and recasts it; thus ensuring with 100% accuracy the quantity and quality of the bitcoins. If the transaction is not on the blockchain then it did not happen. This is the strictest regulation possible; by math and cryptography!
This new immutable asset, if properly secured, is subject only to exchange rate risk. There does exist the possibility that a software bug may exist that could shut down the network, like what has happened with Ethereum, but the probability is almost nil and getting lower everyday it does not happen.
Thus, Bitcoin arguably has a lower risk profile than even gold and is the only blockchain to achieve security, scalability and liquidity.
To remain decentralized, censorship-resistant and immutable requires scalability so as many users as possible can run full-nodes.
Some people, probably mostly those shilling alt-coins, think Bitcoin has a scalability problem that is so serious it requires a crude hard fork to solve.
On the other side of the debate, the Internet protocol and blockchain geniuses assert the scalability issues can, like other Internet Protocols have done, be solved in different layers which are now possible because of Segregated Witness which was activated in August 2017.
Whose code do you want to run: the JV benchwarmers or the championship Chicago Bulls?
As transaction fees rise, certain use cases of the Bitcoin blockchain are priced out of the market. And as the fees fall then they are economical again.
Additionally, as transaction fees rise, certain UTXOs are no longer economically usable thus destroying part of the money supply until fees decline and UTXOs become economical to move.
There are approximately 275,000-350,000 transactions per day with transaction fees currently about $2m/day and the 200 DMA is around $1.08m/day.
What I like about transaction fees is that they somewhat reveal the financial health of the network.
The security of the Bitcoin network results from the miners creating solutions to proof of work problems in the Bitcoin protocol and being rewarded from the (1) coinbase reward which is a form of inflation and (2) transaction fees which is a form of usage fee.
The higher the transaction fees then the greater implied value the Bitcoin network provides because users are willing to pay more for it.
I am highly skeptical of blockchains which have very low transaction fees. By Internet bubble analogy, may have millions of page views but I am more interested in EBITDA.
Bitcoin and blockchain programming is not an easy skill to acquire and master. Most developers who have the skill are also financially independent now and can work on whatever they want.
The best of the best work through the Bitcoin Core process. After all, if you are a world class mountain climber then you do not hang out in the MacDonalds play pen but instead climb Mount Everest because that is where the challenge is.
However, there are many talented developers who work in other areas besides the protocol. Wallet maintainers, exchange operators, payment processors, etc. all need competent developers to help build their businesses.
Consequently, there is a huge shortage of competent developers. This is probably the largest single scalability constraint for the ecosystem.
Nevertheless, the Bitcoin ecosystem is healthier than ever before.
There are no significant global reserve settlement currency use cases for Bitcoin yet.
Perhaps the closest is Blockstream's Strong Federations via Liquid.
There is a tremendous amount of disagreement in the marketplace about the value proposition of Bitcoin. Price discovery for this asset will be intense and likely take many cycles of which this is the fourth.
Since the supply is known the exchange rate of Bitcoins is composed of (1) transactional demand and (2) speculative demand.
Interestingly, the price elasticity of demand for the transactional demand component is irrelevant to the price. This makes for very interesting dynamics!
On 4 May 2017, Lightspeed Venture Partners partner Jeremy Liew who was among the early Facebook investors and the first Snapchat investor laid out their case for bitcoin exploding to $500,000 by 2030.
On 2 November 2017, Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein (, "Now we have paper that is just backed by fiat...Maybe in the new world, something gets backed by consensus."
On 12 Sep 2017, JP Morgan CEO called Bitcoin a 'fraud' but conceded that "( could reach $100,000".
Thus, it is no surprise that the Bitcoin chart looks like a ferret on meth when there are such widely varying opinions on its value proposition.
I have been around this space for a long time. In my opinion, those who scoffed at the thought of $1 BTC, $10 BTC (Professor Bitcorn!), $100 BTC, $1,000 BTC are scoffing at $10,000 BTC and will scoff at $100,000 BTC, $1,000,000 BTC and even $10,000,000 BTC.
Interestingly, the people who understand it the best seem to think its financial dominance is destiny.
Meanwhile, those who understand it the least make emotionally charged, intellectually incoherent bearish arguments. A tremendous example of worldwide cognitive dissonance with regards to sound money, technology and the role or power of the State.
Consequently, I like looking at the 200 day moving average to filter out the daily noise and see the long-term trend.
Well, that chart of the long-term trend is pretty obvious and hard to dispute. Bitcoin is in a massive secular bull market.
The 200 day moving average is around $4,001 and rising about $30 per day.
So, what do some proforma situations look like where Bitcoin may be undervalued, average valued and overvalued? No, these are not prognostications.
Maybe Jamie Dimon is not so off his rocker after all with a $100,000 price prediction.
We are in a very unique period of human history where the collective globe is rethinking what money is and Bitcoin is in the ring battling for complete domination. Is or will it be fit for purpose?
As I have said many times before, if Bitcoin is fit for this purpose then this is the largest wealth transfer in the history of the world.
Well, this has been a brief analysis of where I think Bitcoin is at the end of November 2017.
The seven network effects are taking root extremely fast and exponentially reinforcing each other. The technological dominance of Bitcoin is unrivaled.
The world is rethinking what money is. Even CEOs of the largest banks and partners of the largest VC funds are honing in on Bitcoin's beacon.
While no one has a crystal ball; when I look in mine I see Bitcoin's future being very bright.
Currently, almost everyone who has bought Bitcoin and hodled is sitting on unrealized gains as measured in fiat currency. That is, after all, what uncharted territory with daily all-time highs do!
But perhaps there is a larger lesson to be learned here.
Riches are getting increasingly slippery because no one has a reliable defined tool to measure them with. Times like these require incredible amounts of humility and intelligence guided by macro instincts.
Perhaps everyone should start keeping books in three numéraires: USD, gold and Bitcoin.
Both gold and Bitcoin have never been worth nothing. But USD is a fiat currency and there are thousands of those in the fiat currency graveyard. How low can the world reserve currency go?
After all, what is the risk-free asset? And, whatever it is, in The Great Credit Contraction you want it!
What do you think? Disagree with some of my arguments or assertions? Please, eviscerate them on Twitter or in the comments!
submitted by bitcoinknowledge to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The cat is out of the bag, /r/Bitcoin censorship is falling apart

The Blockstream/Bitcoin Core gang calling bitpay/bitcore/copay malware is attracting a lot of attention from users and the strategy is back firing.
muyuu [score hidden] 11 hours ago:
Finally. Copay malware also out of the wallet list in
[–]jimmytruelove [score hidden] 11 hours ago
What's this?? What CoPay malware?? I use CoPay I'm worried
[–]blurrech[S] [score hidden] 10 hours ago
The only mention of malware on that page is a duplicate issue. Supporting one side or other in a proposed hard fork does not make a wallet malware.
This is needless scaremongering. The BCH fork proved the resilience of the blockchain to minority forks - when the 8% not backing segwit2x become a minority chain, everything will be fine.
[–]jimmytruelove [score hidden] 10 hours ago
Can you explain in layman's terms what's wrong with CoPay?
I have 3 wallets on their desktop and iOS client with a not small amount of BTC...
I tried reading through the link above but unfortunately I don't understand.
13057123841 [score hidden] 10 hours ago
Come November they won't be running Bitcoin.
SpeedflyChris [score hidden] 10 hours ago
You're assuming that the non-2x version of Bitcoin will be considered the "main" version come november. At present a significant part of the hashrate is slated to leave.
13057123841 [score hidden] 9 hours ago
That doesn't matter.
The shill accounts at /Bitcoin keep trying to spin and spin but the truth keep coming out. The majority of miners/companies/wallets are ditching Bitcoin Core and they still try to downplay it, crooks being crooks to the end.
Blockstream: There's no upgrade, just some companies leaving to make an altcoin.
This is what they call "some companies":
Bitcoin Scaling Agreement at Consensus 2017
The group of signed companies represents a critical mass of the bitcoin ecosystem. As of May 25, this group represents:
58 companies located in 22 countries
83.28% of hashing power
5.1 billion USD monthly on chain transaction volume
20.5 million bitcoin wallets
I am really surprised that paleh0rse isn't banned on /Bitcoin yet, that guy kept telling the truth over there at North Corea, salute, my friend.
submitted by X-88 to btc [link] [comments]

SegWit would make it HARDER FOR YOU TO PROVE YOU OWN YOUR BITCOINS. SegWit deletes the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - like MERS (Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems) deleted the "chain of (legal) title" for Mortgage-Backed Securities (MBS) in the foreclosure fraud / robo-signing fiasco

Summary (TL;DR)

Many people who study the financial crisis which started in 2008 know about "MERS", or "Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems" - a company / database containing over 62 million mortgages.
(The word "mortgages" may be unfamiliar to some non-English speakers - since it is not a cognate with most other languages. In French, they say "hypothèques", or "hipotecas" in Spanish, "Hypotheken" in German, etc).
The goal of MERS was to "optimize" the process of transferring "title" (legal ownership) of real-estate mortgages, from one owner to another.
But instead, in the 2010 "foreclosure crisis", MERS caused tens of billions of dollars in losses and damages - due to the "ususual" way it handled the crucial "ownership data" for real-estate mortgages - the data at the very heart of the database.
How did MERS handle this crucial "ownership data" for real-estate mortgages?
The "brilliant" idea behind MERS to "optimize" the process of conveying (transferring) mortgages was to separate - and eventually delete - all the data proving who transferred what to whom!
Hmm... that sounds vaguely familiar. What does that remind me of?
SegWit separating and then deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for bitcoins sounds a lot like MERS separating and then deleting the "chain of (legal) title" for mortgages.
So, SegWit and MERS have a lot in common:
Of course, the "experts" (on Wall Street, and at AXA-owned Blockstream) present MERS and SegWit as "innovations" - as a way to "optimize" and "streamline" vast chains of transactions reflecting ownership and transfer of valuable items (ie, real-estate mortgages, and bitcoins).
But, unfortunately, the "brilliant bat-shit insane approach" devised by the "geniuses" behind MERS and SegWit to do this is to simply delete the data which proved ownership and transfer of these items - information which is essential for legal purposes (in the case of mortgages), or security purposes (in the case of bitcoins).
So, the most pernicious aspect of SegWit may be that it encourages deleting all of Bitcoin's cryptographic security data - destroying the "chain of signatures" which (according to the white paper) are what define what a "bitcoin" actually is.
Wow, deleting signatures with SegWit sounds bad. Can I avoid SegWit?
Yes you can.
To guarantee the long-term cryptographic, legal and financial security of your bitcoins:


MERS = "The dog ate your mortgage's chain of title".
SegWit = "The dog ate your bitcoin's chain of signatures."
Wall Street-backed MERS = AXA-backed SegWit
It is probably no coincidence that:
How is AXA related to Blockstream?
Insurance multinational AXA, while not a household name, is actually the second-most-connected "fiat finance" firm in the world.
AXA's former CEO Pierre Castries was head of the secretive Bilderberg Group of the world's ultra-rich. (Recently, he moved on to HSBC.)
Due to AXA's massive exposure to derivatives (bigger than any other insurance company), it is reasonable to assume that AXA would be destroyed if Bitcoin reaches trillions of dollars in market cap as a major "counterparty-free" asset class - which would actually be quite easy using simple & safe on-chain scaling - ie, just using bigger blocks, and no SegWit.
So, the above facts provide one plausible explanation of why AXA-owned Blockstream seems to be quietly trying to undermine Bitcoin...
Do any Core / Blockstream devs and supporters know about MERS - and recognize its dangerous parallels with SegWit?
It would be interesting to hear from some of the "prominent" Core / Blockstream devs and supporters listed below to find out if they are aware of the dangerous similarities between SegWit and MERS:
Finally, it could also be interesting to hear from:
Core / Blockstream devs might not know about MERS - but AXA definitely does
While it is likely that most or all Core / Blockstream devs do not know about the MERS fiasco... is 100% certain that people at AXA (the main owners of Blockstream) do know about MERS.
This is because the global financial crisis which started in 2008 was caused by:
The major financial media and blogs (Naked Capitalism, Zero Hedge, Credit Slips, Washington's Blog, etc.) covered MERS extensively:
So people at all the major "fiat finance firms" such as AXA would of course be aware of CDOs, MBSs and MERS - since these have been "hot topics" in their industry since the start of the global financial crisis in 2008.
Eerie parallels between MERS and SegWit
Read the analysis below of MERS by legal scholar Christopher Peterson - and see if you notice the eerie parallels with SegWit (with added emphasis in bold, and commentary in square brackets):
Loans originated with MERS as the original mortgagee purport to separate the borrower’s promissory note, which is made payable to the originating lender, from the borrower’s conveyance of a mortgage, which purportedly is granted to MERS. If this separation is legally incorrect - as every state supreme court looking at the issue has agreed - then the security agreements do not name an actual mortgagee or beneficiary.
The mortgage industry, however, has premised its proxy recording strategy on this separation, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s holding that “the note and mortgage are inseparable.” [Compare with the language from Satoshi's whitepaper: "We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures."]
If today’s courts take the Carpenter decision at its word, then what do we make of a document purporting to create a mortgage entirely independent of an obligation to pay? If the Supreme Court is right that a “mortgage can have no separate existence” from a promissory note, then a security agreement that purports to grant a mortgage independent of the promissory note attempts to convey something that cannot exist.
Many courts have held that a document attempting to convey an interest in realty fails to convey that interest if the document does not name an eligible grantee. Courts around the country have long held that “there must be, in every grant, a grantor, a grantee and a thing granted, and a deed wanting in either essential is absolutely void.”
The parallels between MERS and SegWit are obvious and inescapable.
Note that I am not arguing here that SegWit could be vulnerable to attacks from a strictly legal perspective. (Although that may be possible to.)
I am simply arguing that SegWit, because it encourages deleting the (cryptographic) signature data which defines "bitcoins", could eventually be vulnerable to attacks from a cryptographic perspective.
But I heard that SegWit is safe and tested!
Yeah, we've heard a lot of lies from Blockstream, for years - and meanwhile, they've only succeeded in destroying Bitcoin's market cap, due to unnecessarily high fees and unnecessarily slow transactions.
Now, in response to those legal-based criticisms of SegWit in the article from nChain, several so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" have tried to rebut that those arguments from nChain were somehow "flawed".
But if you read the rebuttals of these "Bitcoin legal experts", they sound a lot like the clueless "experts" who were cheerleading MERS for its "efficiency" - and who ended up costing tens billions of dollars in losses when the "chain of title" for mortgages held in the MERS database became "clouded" after all the crucial "ownership data" got deleted in the name of "efficiency" and "optimization".
In their attempt to rebut the article by nChain, these so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" use soothing language like "optimization" and "pragmatic" to try to lull you into believing that deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" for your bitcoins will be just as safe as deleting the "chain of (legal) notes" for mortgages:
The (unsigned!) article on CoinDesk attempting to rebut Nguyen's article on nChain starts by stating:
Nguyen's criticisms fly in the face of what has emerged as broad support for the network optimization, which has been largely embraced by the network's developers, miners and startups as a pragmatic step forward.
Then it goes on to quote "Bitcoin legal experts" who claim that using SegWit to delete Bitcoin's cryptographic signatures will be just fine:
Marco Santori, a fintech lawyer who leads the blockchain tech team at Cooley LLP, for example, took issue with what he argued was the confused framing of the allegation.
Santori told CoinDesk:
"It took the concept of what is a legal contract, and took the position that if you have a blockchain signature it has something to do with a legal contract."
Stephen Palley, counsel at Washington, DC, law firm Anderson Kill, remarked similarly that the argument perhaps put too much weight on the idea that the "signatures" involved in executing transactions on the bitcoin blockchain were or should be equivalent to signatures used in digital documents.
"It elides the distinction between signature and witness data and a digital signature, and they're two different things," Palley said.
"There are other ways to cryptographically prove a transaction is correctly signed other than having a full node," said BitGo engineer Jameson Lopp. "The assumption that if a transaction is in the blockchain, it's probably valid, is a fairly good guarantee."
Legal experts asserted that, because of this design, it's possible to prove that the transaction occurred between parties, even if those involved did not store signatures.
For this reason, Coin Center director Jerry Brito argued that nChain is overstating the issues that would arise from the absence of this data.
"If you have one-time proof that you have the bitcoin, if you don't have it and I have it, logically it was signed over to me. As long as somebody in the world keeps the signature data and it's accessible, it's fine," he said.
There are several things you can notice here:
  • These so-called "Bitcoin legal experts" are downplaying the importance of signatures in Bitcoin - just like the "experts" behind MERS downplayed the importance of "notes" for mortgages.
  • Satoshi said that a bitcoin is a "chain of digital signatures" - but these "Bitcoin legal experts" are now blithely asserting that we can simply throw the "chain of digital signatures" in the trash - and we can be "fairly" certain that everything will "probably" be ok.
  • The "MERS = SegWit" argument which I'm making is not based on interpreting Bitcoin signatures in any legal sense (although some arguments could be made along those lines).
  • Instead, I'm just arguing that any "ownership database" which deletes its "ownership data" (whether it's MERS or SegWit) is doomed to end in disaster - whether that segregated-and-eventually-deleted "ownership data" is based on law (with MERS), or cryptography (with SegWit).
Who's right - Satoshi or the new "Bitcoin experts"?
You can make up your own mind.
Personally, I will never send / receive / store large sums of money using any "SegWit" bitcoin addresses.
This, is not because of any legal considerations - but simply because I want the full security of "the chain of (cryptographic) signatures" - which, according to the whitepaper, is the very definition of what a bitcoin "is".
Here are the words of Satoshi, from the whitepaper, regarding the "chain of digital signatures":
We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
Does that "chain of digital signatures" sound like something you'd want to throw in the trash??
  • The "clever devs" from AXA-owned Blockstream (and a handful of so-called "Bitcoin legal experts) say "Trust us, it is safe to delete the chain of signatures proving ownership and transfer of bitcoins". They're pushing "SegWit" - the most radical change in the history of Bitcoin. As I have repeatedly discussed, SegWit weakens Bitcoin's security model.
  • The people who support Satoshi's original Bitcoin (and clients which continue to implement it: Bitcoin ABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin, Bitcoin Classic - all supporting "Bitcoin Cash" - ie "Bitcoin" without SegWit) say "Trust no one. You should never delete the chain of signatures proving ownership and transfer of your bitcoins."
  • Satoshi said:

We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures.

  • So, according to Satoshi, a "chain of digital signatures" is the very definition of what a bitcoin is.
  • Meanwhile according to some ignorant / corrupt devs from AXA-owned Blockstream (and a handful of "Bitcoin legal experts") now suddenly it's "probably" "fairly" safe to just throw Satoshi's "chain of digital signatures" in the trash - all in the name of "innovation" and "efficiency" and "optimization" - because they're so very clever.
Who do you think is right?
Finally, here's another blatant lie from SegWit supporters (and small-block supporters)
Let's consider this other important quote from Satoshi's whitepaper above:
A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership.
Remember, this is what "small blockers" have always been insisting for years.
They've constantly been saying that "blocks need to be 1 MB!!1 Waah!1!" - even though several years ago the Cornell study showed that blocks could already be 4 MB, with existing hardware and bandwidth.
But small-blockers have always insisted that everyone should store the entire blockchain - so they can verify their own transactions.
But hey, wait a minute!
Now they turn around and try to get you to use SegWit - which allows deleting the very data which insisted that you should download and save locally to verify your own transactions!
So, once again, this exposes the so-called "arguments" of small-blocks supporters as being fake arguments and lies:
  • On the one hand, they (falsely) claim that small blocks are necessary in order for everyone to be run "full nodes" because (they claim) that's the only way people can personally verify all their own transactions. By the way, there are already several errors here with what they're saying:
    • Actually "full nodes" is a misnomer (Blockstream propaganda). The correct terminology is "full wallets", because only miners are actually "nodes".
    • Actually 1 MB "max blocksize" is not necessary for this. The Cornell study showed that we could easily be using 4 MB or 8 MB blocks by now - since, as everyone knows, the average size of most web pages is already over 2 MB, and everyone routinely downloads 2 MB web pages in a matter of seconds, so in 10 minutes you could download - and upload - a lot more than just 2 MB. But whatever.
  • On the other hand, they support SegWit - and the purpose of SegWit is to allow people to delete the "signature data".
    • This conflicts with their argument the everyone should personally verify all their own transactions. For example, above, Coin Center director Jerry Brito was saying: "As long as somebody in the world keeps the signature data and it's accessible, it's fine."
    • So which is it? For years, the "small blockers" told us we needed to all be able to personally verify everything on our own node. And now SegWit supporters are telling us: "Naah - you can just rely on someone else's node."
    • Plus, while the transactions are still being sent around on the wire, the "signature data" is still there - it's just "segregated" - so you're not getting any savings on bandwidth anyways - you'd only get the savings if you delete the "signature data" from storage.
    • Storage is cheap and plentiful, it's never been the "bottleneck" in the system. Bandwidth is the main bottleneck - and SegWit doesn't help that at all, because it still transmits all the data.
So if you're confused by all the arguments from small-blockers and SegWitters, there's a good reason: their "arguments" are total bullshit and lies. They're attempting to contradict and destroy:
  • Satoshi's original design of Bitcoin as a "chain of digital signatures":
"We define an electronic coin as a chain of digital signatures. Each owner transfers the coin to the next by digitally signing a hash of the previous transaction and the public key of the next owner and adding these to the end of the coin. A payee can verify the signatures to verify the chain of ownership."
  • Satoshi's plan for scaling Bitcoin by simply increasing the goddamn blocksize:
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
  • The the notorious mortgage database MERS, pushed by clueless and corrupt Wall Street bankers, deleted the "chain of (legal) title" which had been essential to show who conveyed what mortgages to whom - leading to "clouded titles", foreclosure fraud, and robo-signing.
  • The notorious SegWit soft fork / kludge, pushed by clueless and corrupt AXA-owned Blockstream devs, allows deleting the "chain of (cryptographic) signatures" which is essential to show who sent how many bitcoins to whom - which could lead to a catastrophe for people who foolishly use SegWit addresses (which can be avoided: unsafe "SegWit" bitcoin addresses start with a "3" - while safe, "normal" Bitcoin addresses start with a "1").
  • Stay safe and protect your bitcoin investment: Avoid SegWit transactions.
[See the comments from me directly below for links to several articles on MERS, foreclosure fraud, robo-signing, "clouded title", etc.]
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

I think its time we have an educated discussion what the cause and effects are of a post August 1st BIP148 world. There are some serious concerns that need to be addressed and we will not overcome these issues unless we educate ourselves and start actively coming up with solutions.

So I think that there are some misconceptions that needs to be cleared up regarding the difference between signaling intent and actual activation of SegWit.
As I understand it come August 1st there will be orphanage of blocks that do not signal SW. This means that from August 1st until November 1st(+ retarget period) when segwit is actually enforced there will be a several month period in which the transaction format stays the same yet there will be two branches of "Bitcoin" being mined both conducting transactions that are compatible across both chains with no guarantee as to which transaction will make it into which blockchain.
If there is no clean way to divide your transactions to ensure with a 100% guarantee that it will make it into bip148 chain vs legacy chain be then we will have systematic chaos. There is also a possibility of massive losses. What if your receiving funds from a legacy chain address to your wallet that gets picked up in the bip148 block but not the legacy chain and the bip148 chain dies off? That tx never happened and you lose your money. Not to mention even if we assume a best-case scenario in which every single miner currently signaling segwit mines the bip148 chain we will see blocks confirm at approximately 30 minutes vs 10 minutes. Now if we're not delusional thinkers we will accept that we will not have a maximum output of miners and instead there will be a faction that goes one way or the other leaving us with probably much less than 30% of hashrate. 1hr blocks is my best guess. We currently go sometimes 40 minutes to 1 hour with bad luck from miners with the current hashrate. That means that we may see four to six hour block confirmation times with bad luck on bip148 miners, assuming my best case guess of hashrate. Of course you have to mention that it will sometimes go the other way and we will get 5 to 10 minutes Blok confirmation times as well.
Either way the more I look at the basic assumptions of how this will play out the more cautious I am about it. In order for this to succeed it has always relied on large economic actors transacting on bip148 supporting nodes, and I don't see how this can be done without widely deployed ecological support from both wallets and exchanges.
I still support bip148 but we need solutions for replay attack protection immediately and that won't happen unless we educate developers on the present issue and make them understand that this caveat is currently a do-or-die situation.
I mentioned the issue to the mycelium developer and he said that they are essentially looking into it but gave no further information. I hope that electrum and all other wallet providers are also looking into this issue as well as exchanges, but I also fear that there is a status quo divided between wallets and exchanges.
It seems to me that according to the communications published by Major wallet developers they are all favorable to bip148, but so far exchanges have been very wary to make any public statements regarding this proposal. This makes sense because they wish to protect their customers and their Investments and that means maintaining the status quo and not encouraging something that would cause disruption and possibly large economic losses.
Unless we can get replay attack protection integrated into the proposal or broadly across the ecosystem fast then it doesn't seem that the exchanges are going to give their customers a choice on this issue.
Without their support I fail to see how this will be successful. shaolinfry stated right in the bip148 submission that economic support is a do or die scenario. I'm of the position that if we cannot rally the appropriate amount of economic support before August 1st that we should withdraw software supporting this proposal as to not ensure chaos within the network.
Honestly this reminds me a lot of the Bernie or bust movement. I liked the movement because it was a Grassroots movement that was trying to stand up to the status quo. And in order for your movement to succeed you have to approach it with a cult-like fever as to instill upon other people within the public your cultish fever towards accomplishing a goal that seems pretty obvious as to be with in the best interest of the community (SegWit). But if your movement only divides society and allows another incumbent to dominate, or even worse a new player to step in and take over the system that is even worse, then all your movement has succeeded in doing is to worsen the situation at the exact polar opposite of what you were trying to accomplish, which was to better the system.
These sociological effects are difficult to examine from a personal perspective when you're in entrenched in the ideology, but post-event you can look backwards and say "wow I really fucked up". I think that's what Bernie or bust people are unanimously saying right now, or at the very least they're thinking it inside their heads even if they don't want to admit it to all of their friends and families because they wish to save face.
Think if all the Bernie or bust crowd voted for Hilary right now? We would have a different president. And regardless of your particular political alignment this demonstrates how when you have a minority faction within a system who are cultish in their approach how they can skew the race and change the outcome. Please don't downvote me because you think I'm talking trash on your favorite politician, I am not I am merely representing the social divides and how they can change outcomes.
bip148 is that cultish social divide right now and I would like to see more discussion on the realistic outcomes that we will see after August 1st and how we will navigate these outcomes. We cannot succeed by pushing our heads in the sand and ignoring the problems that this movement currently faces, and we should be willing to shift our position if in the face of overwhelming evidence we see that this will lead to a negative and not positive outcome.
The way I see it there are solutions to these problems but with time being limited I'm not sure how realistic it is to implement these Solutions to Rally the support needed for a transition in the right direction.
Solutions for success -
1) replay attack protection 2) major exchange support (get a single one and it will snowball) 3) a compatible proposal like what Jeff garzik is working on or bip91/COOP that has compatibility with current bip148 installations.
If we cannot accomplish one and two then I do not think that we should support mining a bip148 chain. If number 3 occurs then I think it will make the situation significantly less risky if there is wide support across the ecosystem that actually installs that software. If it is installed then it is assumed that it will signal SW which would then create a majority of the ecosystem signaling SW which would be compatible with bip148 because the blocks would not be orphaned. I think it would result in a minority chain that would be quickly abandoned since miners follow the money and a non-SW signaling fork wont be of any value if say, 75%+ of the ecosystem is not only mining SW signaling blocks orphaning non SW blocks.
submitted by Cryptolution to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The two phases of SegWit2X and what you can do to participate. (ELI5 style)

A lot of miners in China said yesterday that they will begin signalling for SegWit2X on Monday.
Here's what you need to know (before we get 200 ELI5 posts asking for this).
SegWit2X is both an agreement between many businesses and a software release intended to support the spirit of that agreement.
The agreement calls for two things to happen at two different times. First, to activate SegWit through a miner activated soft fork as soon as possible with 80% of the miners supporting it. Second, sometime later, to activate a 2 MB blocksize hard fork.
The software approach to achieve this, led by Jeff Garzik, is attempting to write one software package to accomplish both.
As an aside, if you told me I needed to deliver one complicated software feature soon and another complicated feature later, I would not try to deliver both simultaneously for the deadline of the first one. That seems like it would be obvious to a 5 year old. But to be fair to Jeff Garzik, there's politics involved in this thing being driven by people who don't understand software development, so that bit of stupidity is understandable. But this just shows why 5 year olds are smarter than a group of executives in suits.
For all of you though, SegWit2X has two very different things it's going to do at two different points in time.
First, the miners are going to try to activate SegWit alone, before the August 1st deadline set by the user lead movement known as UASF.
What do you have to do about the SegWit part of SegWit2X? You have two choices. One is to do nothing. SegWit is backwards compatible to all wallets. If you have a wallet that will support SegWit itself you also don't need to do anything because SegWit2X is actually trying to activate SegWit using the same code on your wallet. However, to ensure you are also enforcing SegWit activation you may choose to run either a UASF enforcing node or, if they make one available, a SegWit2X enforcing node.
Again, an aside from me, UASF nodes have had very few lines of code changed and the only change is that after August 1st, a block must signal in favour of SegWit to continue to be considered valid. SegWit2X has had a whole lot of changes - it is trying to see if 80% of miners are signaling in favour SegWit2X and if they are then it is going to try to reject blocks that don't signal for SegWit (and it has all sorts of hardforking code inside of it too that is meant to be dormant until some time in the future). I myself will be running a UASF node the whole time. I think that's reliable software. I know what it's going to do when it activates. And, the more of us that run it, the more incentive there is for none of the miners to betray their pledge to activate SegWit. I would not be surprised if many of the miners who have pledged support of SegWit2X actually instead choose to run the UASF because it does the same thing with way less risk of failure.
After SegWit is activated the first phase of SegWit2X will be complete. People will rejoice in the streets and there will be much merriment. Everyone on both sides of the scaling debate will declare victory. The price of bitcoin might go lunar.
Next comes phase 2, the 2MB hard fork.
Where you didn't have to do anything at all to get SegWit, you will have to take action to support a hard fork. In fact, a hard fork requires every single node to take action. Unlike a soft fork, a hard fork is not backwards compatible. SegWit2X will need to release software for every user to download and install and run for the 2MB hard fork to be universally supported.
The software task ahead of the SegWit2X team (which is really just poor Jeff Garzik and a few kind and not-so-kind code reviewers) is very hard. Testing a hard fork is extremely difficult. And testing on a test network is not the same as testing on the real world network. As bitcoin is constantly under attack by all sorts of parties, preventing an early activation or some kind of mis-activation can also be hard. The Bitcoin Unlimited hard fork client accidentally forked when it wasn't supposed to, for example, and it has a software development team larger than one person. Also Jeff only yesterday found out from a kind reddit user that the code he wrote to activate a hard fork didn't actually do that. If at this point you're thinking maybe you want a more careful approach to a hard fork you're on the same page as me. I do not oppose bigger blocks. I just want a very safe approach to any hard fork, if we're going to have one.
Anyhow, since this is bitcoin, you can expect all kinds of campaigns after the activation of SegWit to tell you that you have to upgrade and to tell you that you must not upgrade. There's even one proposal out today by one of the core developers that suggests that big blocks can be mined without a hard fork using a technology called a drivechain. The community will review that too and maybe something like that will satisfy everyone who matters in this decision.
The good news for everyone is that we are breaking through this scaling debate. Bitcoin will always be under attack and in debate. Don't sweat it. It can't be stopped.
This is already a lot of ELI5 information, so I'm going to wrap it up here.
Any questions?
submitted by logical to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin devs do NOT have consensus on blocksize

I am making this post to show to the public what the most active developers in Bitcoin, more specifically Bitcoin Core, think about block size increases. Contrary to what the public may think, there is no consensus amongst the developers regarding Gavin Andresen’s proposal to increase the block size to 20mb (Thanks to Peter Todd who brought this up during his Bitdevs NYC talk which I attended). The only devs that have come out in strong favor of this proposal is Gavin and Mike Hearn.
The rest are against any increase, prefer a smaller increase, or have not expressed an opinion either way but is asking for further research, development, and answers before we proceed. I believe that the public opinion has been highly swayed by Gavin, and we should strongly consider what others who have spent numerous hours on the protocol have to say on the topic. If any information here is inaccurate , or if there are others who I’ve missed , please let me know and I will edit them in. I’ve probably missed a lot of good comments from other developers because it is scattered all over the internet and my google-fu is not good (And please excuse my ham fisted way of labeling developer contribution by the # of commits on github. ).
I also apologize in advance if any developers feel like they are being called out. But I believe strongly that it's important to have public statements that have been made on the internet to be consolidated in one place for such an important topic. Especially when we have dangerous misconceptions where users think that increasing blocksize is a single parameter optimization with no costs like increasing the size of your race car engine. The topic of block size is not a technical issue, it is a political issue at heart. There are real trade offs involved, with people and entities who stands to gain on both sides of the debate.
For 20mb increase
Gavin Andresen
Current Affiliations: MIT Digital Currency Initiative, Coinbase
Bitcoin core: top 5 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.
Mike Hearn
Current Affiliations: Lighthouse
Bitcoin core: top 100 core developer by # of commits. Creator of Bitcoinj .
Skeptics of 20mb increase (Note that some people here do favor a block size increase, but none has strongly committed to 20 megabytes as the exact size.)
Pieter Wuille
Current Affiliations: Blockstream
Bitcoin core: top 5 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.
Comments:[email protected]/msg07466.html
Wladaimir J. Van der Laan
Current Affiliations: MIT Digital Currency Initiative
Bitcoin core: top 5 developer by # of commits. Has commit access.
Comments:[email protected]/msg07472.html
Gregory Maxwell
Current Affiliations: Blockstream
Bitcoin core: top 20 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.
Jeff Garzik
Current Affiliations: BitPay
Commit access: top 20 core developer by # of commits. Has commit access.
Matt Corallo
Current Affiliations: Blockstream
Bitcoin Core : top 10 core developer by # of commits
Peter Todd
Current Affiliations: Viacoin,Dark Wallet, Coinkite, Smartwallet, Bitt
Bitcoin Core: top 20 core developer by # of commits
Luke Dashjr
Current Affiliations: Eligius Mining Pool
Bitcoin Core: top 10 core developer by # of commits
Bryan Bishop
Current Affiliations: LedgerX
Bitcoin Core: various @
submitted by kaykurokawa to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Most Eventful Day in Bitcoin History

Bitcoin's network split called off

The proposed software upgrade or “hard fork” to occur on Nov. 16 was canceled on Nov. 8, due to disagreements between many prominent CEOs and key players in the Bitcoin space.
The SegWit 2X fork would have increased the block size from 1 to 2 megabytes and thereby double transaction capacity on the network. This upgrade was aimed at helping the scalability of Bitcoin. However, following a lack of consensus within the community, implementing the hard fork was suspended. In fact, it has always been a controversial topic — many Bitcoin companies have not actively supported the move. The main fear was that it would split the community into two branches.
Mike Belshe, CEO and co-founder of a major Bitcoin wallet provider BitGo, announced the cancellation in an email on November 8. One of the leaders of the Segwit2x project, he argued that the scaling proposal is too controversial to move forward:
Although we strongly believe in the need for a larger block size, there is something we believe is even more important: keeping the community together. Unfortunately, it is clear that we have not built sufficient consensus for a clean block size upgrade at this time. Continuing on the current path could divide the community and be a setback to Bitcoin’s growth.
BitGo’s Mike Belshe, Xapo’s Wences Casares, Bitmain’s Jihan Wu, Bloq’s Jeff Garzik, Blockchain’s Peter Smith and Shapeshift’s Erik Voorhees all signed the statement.
Quickly following this news, Bitcoin’s price hit an all-time high as people were glad that the community divide seemed over. However, that euphoria soon faded as the reality kicked in that fundamental issues with Bitcoin remained.

What does this mean for the future of Bitcoin?

Well, no one really knows, but here's a bit of insight as to what we think could happen.
In 2017, the Bitcoin network capacity hit the “invisible wall.” Fees skyrocketed, and Bitcoin became unreliable, with some users unable to get their transactions confirmed, even after days of waiting. Today, people are paying up to $25 USD for a transaction to be processed, which says a lot about the usefulness of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin usage stopped growing; its market share among other cryptocurrencies plummeted from 95 to 40 percent as many users, merchants, businesses and investors abandoned it.
The cancellation of SegWit 2X leaves two competing bitcoin chains now: Bitcoin SegWit 1X (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH). With SegWit, data is stored differently in each block, which improves the capacity of the blockchain, however only marginally compared to the capacity available with the Bitcoin Cash blockchain.
The improvement in capacity from SegWit 1X is 70 percent with no plans for any more significant updates within at least the next 18 to 24 months. The SegWit upgrade is a small capacity increase at best, and it's already showing it's not going to handle exponential growth or worldwide adoption.
Bitcoin Cash was born on August 1, 2017, as a result of a few major players from the very early days of Bitcoin becoming fed up with the direction the cryptocurrency was headed. Bitcoin Cash immediately raised the transaction capacity by 800 percent as part of a massive on-chain scaling approach. Currently, there is ample capacity for everyone's transactions, and huge developmental progress has been made to allow massive capacity increases up to 1000 times the current BTC SegWit network. This means low fees and fast confirmations for everyone.
However, Bitcoin cash is still quite far behind, so which bitcoin will win?

Let's start at the beginning...

In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, published a paper titled, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” Most people are aware of this, but the exact title needs to be repeated because today, even the most basic facets of Bitcoin are being challenged.
Regardless of “which side” of the scaling debate you are on, it should not be contested that Satoshi always planned for and advocated simple, on-chain scaling. (On-chain scaling is a term that basically means using the Bitcoin network itself to process all transactions.
Unfortunately, this is not the proposed plan of the Bitcoin network’s core development team. They intend to implement a supplementary technology called the “Lightning Network” to process the extra transactions that Bitcoin can't handle. Not yet proven to work, this technology is at least 18 to 24 months away from being ready. It also takes Bitcoin in a much more centralized direction as a small group of people will be running this secondary transaction layer, earning money from fees and controlling how it works.
Giving a small group of people this sort of control sounds pretty familiar, don't you think? Reminds us of a thing called the USD? We need to get away from this.
We KNOW that on-chain transactions work; they've worked for 9 years, and scaling on Bitcoin Cash is working.

Now to today...

It seems more and more users, merchants, businesses and investors are beginning to realize this. Today, we've seen the biggest “pump” in cryptocurrency history, with Bitcoin Cash going from a low at $1,280 USD to a high of $2,799 USD. Peaking at a whopping $41 Billion USD market cap, almost tripling in 36 hours, and to top it off, the trading volume was $11.5 billion USD in 24 hours.
We've never seen numbers like this, and it's happening for a reason. The potential for Bitcoin was so great; however, it went off in the wrong direction due to a small group of people who wanted to control it.
Today, Bitcoin Cash has made huge progress on the “flippening,” a term used by many in the community referring to the possible future event when Bitcoin Cash overtakes Bitcoin to become the most valuable cryptocurrency in terms of market capitalization.
If the flippening occurs, there's a very bright future for Bitcoin Cash. The aim is for it to become a world currency used by billions of people, one that does not discriminate based on levels of wealth, one that is equally usable to those earning $1 a day or companies earning billions.
Right now, one billion people are living in slums. They cannot hope to escape without some international form of trade. This can be achieved with access to secure and low cost money, which is what Bitcoin Cash delivers. We hope that in the next decade, Bitcoin Cash starts to offer hope and a way out of poverty.
*This article was written by one of the crypto consultants at decrypt
submitted by decrypt-how to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

An Overview of What's Happening.

This is an overview for those who may have not been following events closely, so unfortunately a TL;DR is not possible. However, I have added headings to make navigation easier. Depending on your interest, you can navigate to: The Debate, Decision Time or How to Run a Node
China is having some huge celebrations right now for their new year, which to China is like Christmas for us. So they're enjoying their time with their families and friends, enjoying their food and I should think they are enjoying some wine. I wish them all a very happy new year and may it bring them good health and good fortune.
Hopefully they'll have some time during their holidays to consider the matters summarized here.
The Debate
As you know, we have been having a debate for about three years now and a massive debate for the past 10 months on the question of whether onchain transaction capacity should increase. After two conferences, then a third in Miami, then a fourth in China, a wide economic and mining consensus has been achieved with almost all prominent bitcoin companies supporting classic, with 54% of real hashing power expressing their clear support for classic so far, with 80% of users by most polls and with renown users such as Roger Ver and "loaded" who in combination hold some 340k btc, having expressed support for classic.
We do not however have 100% agreement. Some developers have maintained for quite some time that onchain capacity should not be increased or should be increased by the smallest amount that is absolutely necessary and that most, if not almost all, transactions should instead happen on layer2 settlement systems.
Chief amongst them is Gregory Maxwell who has maintained the same view over the past 3 years and has formed a company with a number of other developers to provide lightning and other products to operate as the settlement system they envision.
Another developer who has maintained the same view is Peter Todd who argued in a propaganda video some three years ago that increasing onchain scalability means nodes will have to be run on datacentres which affects decentralization, therefore everyone should pay $100 or $1000 per onchain transaction instead with most transactions operating through centralized hubs which do not employ proof of work (commentary: no proof of work - no decentralization)
Gavin, Jeff Garzik, many other developers, academics, almost all wallet developers, take a different view. They argue that bitcoin can remain decentralized while scaling onchain. I would add to their argument two points. Bitcoin is efficient because it automates away man. Software is very cheap, employees - the tens of thousands that visa has and the millions that banks have including their rented space etc - are very, very expensive. Calculations have been made which show that to run a node, even if blocks were full right now at 20mb per block, would cost only $100 per year. I'd argue that is a tiny price to pay for the huge benefits that onchain scalability provides. And, even if it costs 1k or 10k, it should be the node operator who pays the market price for the extra security that his node provides, rather than ask users to pay 100 or 1k dollars per transactions instead.
A node provides indirect, but in some circumstances necessary, value to businesses, miners, researchers, hobbyist and whoever wants to run one. Asking 5k nodes to pay 1k makes far more sense than asking 200k transactions a day to pay 100 or 1k per transaction and it is of course way cheaper too.
However, after all the conferences, after all the debates, after all the never ending arguments, they retain their position. Therefore, developer agreement is not possible.
Decision Time
As such, the decision has now been opened to everyone to decide one question alone. Whether you agree with Satoshi's vision that we should scale onchain - and thus support classic - or whether you agree with Gregory's vision of a settlement system, and thus keep running a core node.
The way this works is in stages. Firstly, nodes have to upgrade first so that everyone has the time and opportunity to upgrade and be on the new rules. This is extremely important because old nodes (including core nodes) won't be able to work anymore if classic succeeds. Therefore, the economy (which includes businesses, miners, individuals) has to be given the opportunity to upgrade first, with miners having their vote second by the blocks they mine.
An indirect result of the upgrade process is that it gives an indication of where the sentiment and public opinion stands. Of course, this can be played, so it is not a perfect indication, but there are ways of telling when this indication is played to a significant degree. I'd rather not go into the details just as google doesn't go into the details of how it ranks pages, but this is an important time for bitcoin and the world so I would ask all who have the true interest of bitcoin at heart to refrain from any immature behavior so that we can learn where the community stands, giving the losing side, whichever it may be, the opportunity to accept the will of the people, and the results, thus allowing us to move forward as one.
I'll give some instructions on how to run or upgrade a node in a way that can be counted. First I want to say that you should run a classic node for many reasons, but chiefly three. It implements Satoshi's vision, the vision of that genius who knows how bitcoin works best and who with that knowledge designed it to scale considerably.
The second is in regards to our community. Many individuals, and not just Theymos, have engaged in censorship and banning in almost all the main communication channels, including the Hong Kong conference, the mailing list, the IRC channels and of course on bitcoin. I hope you agree with me that it is extremely important for us to show fundamental disapproval with such unprincipled and immoral behavior by running classic, and not reward them for it.
Thirdly, because cheap, fast and convenient is an incredibly important competitive quality of bitcoin. I would argue that the only reason why the mainstream media and silicon valley is abuzz about bitcoin is because it can save billions in fees and other ways such as making value transfer faster and more convenient. I want to change the world and offer to all bitcoin's supreme qualities of an open, permissionless, decentralized, global ledger, with fast if not almost instant and very cheap transactions, while having a gold like retention of value.
We know this works. It has been working for 7 years and works right now (although blocks are full making it not work as well as it can). Let's keep it working by upgrading to welcome the new wave of people and companies and miners.
How to run a node:
If you are not already running a node, you can download classic here:
For windows, it is as easy as downloading any normal software. You just have to wait for it to synchronize and you are good to go.
You'll then need to open port 8333 for your node to be counted
If you already run a node you can easily upgrade without having to re-download the whole chain.
You can use cloud servers as well if you wish. Cloud nodes do still provide all the functionalities, but the cloud admin may have some control over your node, so it is best you run it on hardware you control. If nonetheless you still wish to use cloud, it is best that you do so through your own account rather than through someone else.
I think that covers all grounds. Obviously the above overview is necessarily reflective of my own views, but nullc and petertodd are welcomed to express their views at this important time and I hope they do not get downvoted simply because we disagree with their views, but allow them to have their say.
submitted by aquentin to btc [link] [comments]

After 8 long years... adding a measly 1MB increase to the blocksize along with segwit is so unpalatable to Theymos, Bashco and his henchmen that they are organizing more media trolling campaigns out of the dragons den to do everything they can to encourage a forced soft fork rather than compromise

These trolling campaigns are getting so out of hand that the most important piece of news today which affects all crypto owners isn't even on the front page. How the US government is trying to make everyone declare all of their crypto assets whenever they cross a border...which will simply violate our rights and achieve NOTHING.
And then.. there are the layer 2 solutions we were promised. 9 years later and nothing. There is no layer 2 solution in sight. RSK is the closest thing and a recent post quoted one of the developers involved as saying that it was still 5 months away from going live. This as we are in (or were) a major bull phase of growth that should have increased more users. But it is clear that if we increase users much past where we are now that the network will be handicapped. The data shows that transaction fees have risen so fast and so high that many wallets would become unspendable and the network largely unusable if it increases much further. That puts a cap on whatever height bitcoin can achieve and it gives other cryptos the chance to grow instead. Look up a chart showing the size of blocks and transaction backlogs relative to the dominance (market cap) of bitcoin to see that interesting bit of data.
The funny thing is... if Gmax and others were simply conspiring to give us a layer 2 solution and purposefully handicapping the network.... I wouldn't even be that mad if they actually delivered on it. But they haven't.
As the great Jeff Garzik said in a recent twitter post:
Lightning is not field-proven. It is irresponsible and risky to predicate Bitcoin growth on L2 solutions not yet deployed and field proven.
submitted by specialenmity to btc [link] [comments]

The Can Only Be One Global Currency.

A. With automation and billions of people joining the global market, more jobs are moving online. People are becoming freelancers. They will be paid to preform micro tasks. Some call this transition as the 'gig economy'.
It wouldn't make any sense to use local currencies, because of conversion fees and added inconvenience. For the global market to operate properly, a stable, trustworthy global currency must be in place.
B. In the new emerging economy Bitcoin has the opportunity to take the role of the global currency. Roughly speaking, this the market bitcoin is aiming to overtake:
Broad Money (includes coins, banknotes, money market accounts, saving, checking and time deposits) : $80.9 Trillion
People will be able to use it for regular needs but also as a store value for a long term. It should provide a real alternative to Gold: $7.8 Trillion.
C. The reality where machines can operate autonomously and transfer value between themselves, is only achievable using smart contracts. Machines will own themselves and you will only pay for operating costs, no company will be able to compete with autonomous self-owning machines.
With the invention of smart contracts, it means that machines can transact between themselves, they can own a wallet, they can pay money to other machines for services, they can rent themselves for the highest bidder.
For example, if a car owns itself, you, the consumer, will only have to pay for the operating costs of the car. No middle man will take a cut for the service, you will get all the benefits of owning a car without all the burdens that come with it.
Now, because there will always be some people that prefer to pay a little extra to ride a new car, it will enable the new cars to pay the manufacturer fee in order to become financially autonomous in the future.
When fees are paid in full by the consumers, the manufacturer will have bigger profit by selling it to an autonomous corporation, that operates on zero profit, rather than selling it for parts. The same model can scale to factories and if you want to go a step further to smart cities.
According to Cisco the internet of everything has a $19 Trillion potential.
Each time you'll purchase something, you'll automatically become a shareholder in that company and will receive dividends. You will be able to rent, trade and split ownership on the most secure blockchain, bitcoin blockchain.
Apps will manage your portfolio on a decentralized exchange. Each and every purchase will become an investment opportunity. People worry about automation. They think there will be no jobs in the future. Jobs will move into creative domain. Creativity, imagination and attention will be extremely valuable.
The maintenance of our biological existence will be cheap, because of how resources will be managed by machines. Most of our time will be spent in VR. Work will become play. Money will be a way to manage attention of others, because attention is a scarce resource. Propagation of information, or culture, will have a price tag.
If one wishes to advertise their ideas and values, one will have to pay directly for attention. The way I see it, the new dynamic will be that of creating of ideas, designing VAR, being paid for creativity, being paid to create tools that can minimize the lag time between imagination and reality, and being paid for attention, to listen to the ideas, to participate in different worlds - to play.
As we're moving in to AVR. Bitcoin will provide the necessary layer of digital scarcity. A layer that will enable people to create fungible digital assets. That means, that all digital goods will be attached to digital assets and treated as commodities.
All commodities will be traded on a decentralized exchange backed by the most secure blockchain. Centralized solutions will be too unreliable and too expensive. Other blockchains will not be able to compete with the network effect and security of bitcoin blockchain.
D. A scarce resource, such as bitcoin, derives its’ value from the utility it provides. The more use cases Bitcoin has, the higher the value it will have.
Bitcoin will not hard fork in order to include the complex smart contract capabilities. Hard forks are extremely risky, community splitting, and should be avoided at all cost. Sidechains would never be able to provide the security of the main blockchain simply by design.
Peter Todd: “(Merge)-mined sidechains have some really ugly security issues; your funds can be stolen in a reorg attack. Embedded consensus systems like counterparty are as secure as the Bitcoin blockchain. “
What about colored coins?
“There's a lot of stuff that's better done with the much simpler colored coin technology, but equally, there's a lot of stuff colored coins just can't do for technical reasons. In short, if you want to play around with Ethereum-style smart contracts in a decentralized system, you need a token of value like XCP.”
The only rational solution is to build on top of bitcoin.
Jeff Garzik: "Counterparty already implemented Ethereum lang on top of Bitcoin block chain. Zero changes or forks required of bitcoin."
Counterparty proved to have a solid track record since 2014. No bail outs, no pre mines, ico/ipo nonsense. The whole “move fast and break stuff” philosophy doesn’t work when you’re dealing with money.
Soon smart contracts will be introduced into bitcoin ecosystem without compromising its’ security. There will be no reason to risk your money in an insecure environment when you’ll be able to use smart contracts at the highest security possible.
Unlike other blockchains, counterparty actually being backed by bitcoin security. When value is transferred on Counterparty, Bitcoin must be used for fees.
Each transaction that is made on counterparty platform is adding value to bitcoin. All Bitcoin addresses are XCP addresses. Counterparty already has a decentralized exchange and a powerful asset management platform in place.
I think the majority of people here understand what it means to have a decentralized exchange that can eventually scale and make centralized exchanges completely obsolete.
All Things will become connected to a super cloud. This will eventually replace internet services (such as google and facebook).
With the super cloud we will be able to overcome the dangers of data centralization and replace the business model of advertising, privacy abuse, and outdated intellectual property laws, with frictionless micro transactions.
Storj, a technology that uses counterparty platform, is the beginning of that.
You’ll be paid in micro transactions by simply renting the bandwidth and disk space of your stuff. Micro payment solution will open the door to all the things I’ve mentioned and more, and it is being implemented as we speak.
Assets that can be attached to digital and non-digital commodity, a robust decentralized exchange, micro payments that can scale to manage the new emerging economy and the super cloud, all of that are tools that are being built on counterparty platform today.
A positive feedback loop, with which each additional layer that is built on top of bitcoin, will increase its’ network effect, and thus get it closer to position itself as dominant and most trusted currency there is.
E. We are in the very early days of crypto. Nothing is decided yet.
Let me say this the first currency to dominate the smart contract market will become the default global currency.
There is no reason not to use a currency as regular money and use a different type of crypto for smart contracts. This will just create unnecessary complexity which the market will go against sooner than later.
The path of the least resistance always wins. The crypto that provides what the market needs will win and will be used for ordinary transactions as well as store of value.
If ethereum dominates the new emerging market it will be used for all the things bitcoin was supposed to be used. Calling bitcoin gold and ethereum oil is nonsensical.
In fact, Coinbase, a company that is funded by ‘smart money’, already treats ethereum as a currency.
The whole facebook/myspace comparison already became a cliché, but it has a grain of truth to it. Willing to admit it or not, Ethereum is in direct competition with bitcoin.
In the end of the day, no matter if we're called bitcoin maximalists or not, make no mistake about it, there is only room for one global currency.
TL:DR This post is a summary of the previous discussions I've had here. In short, Crypto-Diversification is a myth.
submitted by numberswords to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Jeff Garzik - A Bitcoin Status Report #224 Jeff Garzik: Metronome – Of Bitcoin Satellites and Built-to-Last Chain-Hopping Tokens Jeff Garzik SegWit2x Bitcoin ‘Upgrade’ Comments Spark Trolling Campaign The Bitcoin Show: Special Bitcoin Conference Coverage: Jeff Garzik After Bitcoin, Its Blockchain  Jeff Garzik Develops Software

Jeff Garzik The Bitcoin Pioneer Gave Away Over $100 Million Has No Regrets. Jeff Garzik said he gave away 15,678 Bitcoins about seven years ago in Jeff Garzik jgarzik. Follow. Block or report user Block or report jgarzik. Block user . Prevent this user from interacting with your repositories and sending you notifications. Learn more about blocking users. Block user Report abuse. Contact GitHub support about this user’s behavior. Learn more about reporting abuse. Report abuse. 773 followers · 0 following · 24. Bloq, Inc. Atlanta, GA ... Beiträge über Jeff Garzik von Christoph Bergmann. Endlich wieder Newsrückblick! Bloomberg listet nun auch Bitcoin-Preise, jeder Student des Massachusetts Institute for Technology erhält Bitcoins, ein Core-Entwickler will den Bitcoin in den Weltraum bringen und der Name eines dezentralen Marktplatzes ist umstritten. Jeff Garzik, one of the earliest developers of Bitcoin who participated in Bitcoin development between 2010 and 2015, has created and is launching a cryptocurrency named Metronome. The motto of Metronome is “The Built-to-Last Cryptocurrency”, and indeed it is specifically designed to survive as long as blockchains exist. Bitcoin-Qt is the so – called" official " client of the network, which is developed and promoted by Bitcoin Foundation, a non-profit organization uniting core developers and responsible for the community's contacts with corporations and governments.Bitcoin Foundation branches are opened in several dozens of countries around the world.

[index] [7472] [50991] [2283] [5571] [19650] [38292] [37193] [31355] [36320] [33475]

Jeff Garzik - A Bitcoin Status Report

OnChain Scaling Conference presentation - August 30, 2016 "A Bitcoin Status Report" [email protected] Meet Jeff Garzik, the Bitcoin Developer Making Money From Blockchain . Watch the full video to know more insights Subscribe to Times Of India's Youtube chann... Bitcoin News #54 - Lightning on Horizon, LedgerX Does $1m In First Week, Sweden Gov Accepts Bitcoin - Duration: 1:05:35. World Crypto Network 11,194 views 1:05:35 [Bitcoin News] Jeff Garzik SegWit2x Bitcoin ‘Upgrade’ Comments Spark Trolling Campaign ★ Information: Facebook: Coverage from the World's First Bitcoin Conference & World Expo! Jeff Garzik a Linux Kernel and Bitcoin developer speaks about the state of Bitcoin.