Wallet – BitcoinBlog.de – das Blog für Bitcoin und andere ...

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.

Portabilidad

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: https://cryptographicasset.com/jeff-garzik-explica-la-criptomoneda-metronome/
submitted by LosDodgersDodgers to CryptoMexico [link] [comments]

My hat goes off to the NYA signers and their support for bigger blocks in the face of fanatical thugs who operate by threatening, lying, manipulating and censoring

The following companies and services have pledged to adopt bigger blocks by supporting SegWit2X. We should all in turn make sure to support these companies.
Wallets
Exchanges
Miners
Other
submitted by increaseblocks to btc [link] [comments]

Blockstream: There's no upgrade, just some companies leaving to make an altcoin.

https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/898080796073836544
David A Johnston: Next upgrade to the #Bitcoin Network scheduled for block 494,784, Good times for #blockchain technology.
Samson Mow‏: This is false. There's no upgrade, just some companies leaving #Bitcoin to make an altcoin.
Carl Schroeder‏: Who's that?
Samson Mow‏: Signers of the New York Agreement. Bloq, Blockchain, Shapeshift, etc.
Blockstream CSO forgot to mention it is actually over 80% of hash power leaving, and most importantly "Digital Currency Group" which Samsung Mow doesn't even dare to insult and became less cocky than usual.
https://medium.com/@DCGco/bitcoin-scaling-agreement-at-consensus-2017-133521fe9a77
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
Looks like the clowns at Blockstream know they're fucked and they're trying to pump the satellite bullshit to fool some VC to fund them one more round before it's all over:
"A small plane crashes in the Sahara. The only survivor, a venture capitalist from San Francisco, treks for days in his Allbirds looking for water." - Blockstream Satellite
https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/898088453916602368
submitted by X-88 to btc [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]

PSA: Breadwallet users at risk of losing funds after the launch of segwit2x altcoin. REMOVE YOUR FUNDS.

Breadwallet users at risk losing funds after the launch of the segwit2x altcoin
Breadwallet may no longer act as Bitcoin wallet after the release of the segwit2x altcoin.
Proof
This statement by Aaron Voisine (aaronvoisine, CEO of breadwallet):
"Breadwallet follows the majority of hashing power on the original PoW algorithm, segwit2x or no, it follows the Nakamoto consensus."
This blog post published today confirms:
"if a fork were to happen it will automatically follow the longest chain with the most proof of work."
What this means
In short: after the launch of the segwit2x altcoin, breadwallet turns into a segwit2x wallet.
In November this year, an altcoin called segwit2x (aka S2X aka B2X) will be launched. This altcoin is being created by Bloq, a company of which Jeff Garzik is the co-founder and BitPay is a partner. Segwit2x-coin is differs from Bitcoin in that it has double the block size. Currently, 90% of all hash power is pledging that it will quit mining Bitcoin and start mining segwit2x-coin after its launch. This intention is signalled by writing "NYA" (New-York Agreement) into blocks as can be seen here.
This means that the majority of the hashpower will be mining segwit2x after its launch and that breadwallet will no longer be a Bitcoin wallet but changes into a segwit2x-coin wallet.
Consequences
Breadwallet funds will be at risk. After the launch of the segwit2x altcoin, the following serious issues exist while using breadwallet.
Scenario 1
Bitcoin permanently keeps the majority of the hash power. In that case, breadwallet continues to functions as a normal BTC wallet.
Scenario 2
The segwit2x altcoin permanently receives the majority of the SHA-256 hash power.
Scenario 3
The segwit2x altcoin initially receives the majority of the hash power. At some later point in time, the Bitcoin blockchain regains the majority of the hash power.
Scenario 4
The segwit2x altcoin and Bitcoin alternately receive the majority of the hash power.
Consequences are left as an exercise for the reader.
Additional notes
Breadwallet incorrectly believes that the chain with the most hashpower is Bitcoin. In reality, fully validating nodes define the Bitcoin blockchain. What constitutes "Bitcoin" is well established amongst the great majority of the cryptocurrency community. It is the coin as defined by the Bitcoin whitepaper (by Satoshi Nakamoto) and as implemented by the software published by a group of developers commonly referred to as "Bitcoin Core" and which is published on the bitcoin.org website. Within the cryptocurrency community, there can be no doubt about what Bitcoin is.
The claim that segwit2x is "Bitcoin" is therefore a fraudulent claim. Companies trying to sell segwit2x-coin as Bitcoin are likely to be committing fraud in many jurisdictions.
Recommended reading
Bitcoin Core: "Correcting misinformation on Segwit2x and btc1".
submitted by trilli0nn to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Cryptocurrencies are largely negative as Bakkt announces official December launch of Bitcoin futures trading

Crypto News

Sources:
https://www.ccn.com/caspian-ico-raises-19-5-million-for-institutional-crypto-trading-platform/ https://www.coindesk.com/fidelitys-blockchain-incubator-lead-just-went-full-crypto/ https://www.coindesk.com/htc-will-start-shipping-the-exodus-blockchain-phone-in-decembe https://cointelegraph.com/news/nyse-parent-company-reveals-launch-date-for-bitcoin-futures-on-bakkt-platform https://www.theice.com/publicdocs/futures_us/exchange_notices/ICE_Futures_US-Notice_BitcoinLaunch102218.pdf https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-futures-will-go-live-on-ices-crypto-trading-platform-in-decembe https://www.ccn.com/nyse-owners-bitcoin-futures-market-will-open-in-mid-decembe https://www.coindesk.com/payments-startup-square-is-open-sourcing-its-bitcoin-cold-storage-solution/ https://cointelegraph.com/news/national-bank-of-canada-pilots-blockchain-to-combat-complex-processes https://www.ccn.com/sec-suspends-cryptocurrency-related-otc-stock-for-false-claims/ https://cointelegraph.com/news/us-sec-suspends-securities-trading-of-nevada-based-firm-for-false-crypto-claims https://cointelegraph.com/news/govt-owned-holding-company-subsidiary-invests-in-binances-singapore-expansion https://www.coindesk.com/singapores-sovereign-fund-venture-wing-invests-in-binance/
submitted by QuantalyticsResearch to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Full English Transcript of Gavin's AMA on 8BTC, April 21st. (Part 1)

Part 2
Part 3
Raw transcript on Google Docs (English+Chinese): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p3DWMfeGHBL6pk4Hu0efgQWGsUAdFNK6zLHubn5chJo/edit?usp=sharing
Translators/Organizers: emusher, kcbitcoin, nextblast, pangcong, Red Li, WangXiaoMeng. (Ranked in alphabetical order)
1.crypto888
Q: What is your relationship with Blockstream now? Are you in a Cold War? Your evaluation on BS was pretty high “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation.” But now, what’s your opinion on BS?
A: I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream.
We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
2. Ma_Ya
Q: 1) Why insist on hard fork at only 75%? You once explained that it is possible to be controlled by 5% if we set the threshold at 95%. I agree, but there should be some balance here. 75% means a high risk in splitting, isn’t it too aggressive? Is it better if we set it to 90%?
A: 1)The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network.
Q: 2) How to solve the potentially very large blocks problem Classic roadmap may cause, and furthur causing the centralization of nodes in the future?
A: 2)Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night).
I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second.
Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned.
Q: 3) Why do you not support the proposal of RBF by Satoshi, and even plan to remove it in Classic completely?
A: 3) Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time.
When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before.
Q: 4) . Your opinion on soft fork SegWit, sidechain, lighnting network. Are you for or against, please give brief reasons. Thanks.
A: 4) The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful.
I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good.
I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them.
Q: 5) Can you share your latest opinion on Brainwallet? It is hard for new users to use long and complex secure passphrase, but is it a good tool if it solves this problem?
A: 5) We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things.
We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
3. BiTeCui
Q: Gavin, do you have bitcoins now? What is your major job in MIT? Has FBI ever investigated on you? When do you think SHA256 might be outdated, it seems like it has been a bit unsafe?
A: Yes, a majority of my own person wealth is still in bitcoins -- more than a financial advisor would say is wise.
My job at MIT is to make Bitcoin better, in whatever way I think best. That is the same major job I had at the Bitcoin Foundation. Sometimes I think the best way to make Bitcoin better is to write some code, sometimes to write a blog post about what I see happening in the Bitcoin world, and sometimes to travel and speak to people.
The FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) has never investigated me, as far as I know. The closest thing to an investigation was an afternoon I spent at the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC. They were interested in how I and the other Bitcoin developers created the software and how much control we have over whether or not people choose to run the software that we create.
“Safe or unsafe” is not the way to think about cryptographic algorithms like SHA256. They do not suddenly go from being 100% secure for everything to completely insecure for everything. I think SHA256 will be safe enough to use in the all ways that Bitcoin is using it for at least ten years, and will be good enough to be used as the proof-of-work algorithm forever.
It is much more likely that ECDSA, the signature algorithm Bitcoin is using today, will start to become less safe in the next ten or twenty years, but developer are already working on replacements (like Schnorr signatures).
4. SanPangHenBang
Q: It’s a pleasure to meet you. I only have one question. Which company are you serving? or where do you get your salary?
A: The Media Lab at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) pays my salary; I don’t receive regular payments from anybody else.
I have received small amounts of stock options in exchange for being a techical advisor to several Bitcoin companies (Coinbase, BitPay, Bloq, Xapo, Digital Currency Group, CoinLab, TruCoin, Chain) which might be worth money some day if one or more of those companies do very well. I make it very clear to these companies that my priority is to make Bitcoin better, and my goal in being an advisor to them is to learn more about the problems they face as they try to bring Bitcoin to more of their customers.
And I am sometimes (once or twice a year) paid to speak at events.
5.SaTuoXi
Q: Would you mind share your opinion on lightning network? Is it complicated to implement? Does it need hard fork?
A: Lightning does not need a hard fork.
It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly.
I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
6. pangcong
Q: 1) There has been a lot of conferences related to blocksize limit. The two took place in HongKong in Decemeber of 2015 and Feberary of 2016 are the most important ones. Despite much opposition, it is undeniable that these two meetings basically determines the current status of Bitcoin. However, as the one of the original founders of Bitcoin, why did you choose to not attend these meetings? If you have ever attended and opposed gmax’s Core roadmap (SegWit Priority) in one of the meetings, we may be in a better situation now, and the 2M hard fork might have already begun. Can you explain your absence in the two meetings? Do you think the results of both meetings are orchestrated by blockstream?
A: 1) I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached.
A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015.
The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents.
I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit.
Q: 2) We have already known that gmax tries to limit the block size so as to get investment for his company. However, it is obvious that overthrowing Core is hard in the short term. What if Core continues to dominate the development of Bitcoin? Is it possible that blockstream core will never raise the blocksize limit because of their company interests?
A: 2) I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically.
He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time.
Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
7. HeiYanZhu
Q: I would like to ask your opinion on the current situation. It’s been two years, but a simple 2MB hard fork could not even be done. In Bitcoin land, two years are incredibly long. Isn’t this enough to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy?
A: I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things.
Q: How can a multi-billion network with millions of users and investors be choked by a handful of people? How can this be called decentrilized and open-source software anymore? It is so hard to get a simple 2MB hard fork, but SegWig and Lighting Network with thousands of lines of code change can be pushed through so fast. Is this normal? It is what you do to define if you are a good man, not what you say.
A: I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer.
The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning.
Q: The problem now is that everybody knows Classic is better, however, Core team has controlled the mining pools using their powers and polical approaches. This made them controll the vast majority of the hashpower, no matter what others propose. In addition, Chinese miners have little communication with the community, and do not care about the developement of the system. Very few of them knows what is going on in the Bitcoin land. They almost handed over their own power to the mining pool, so as long as Core controls the pools, Core controls the whole Bitcoin, no matter how good your Classic is. Under this circumstance, what is your plan?
A: Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy.
Q: From this scaling debate, do you think there is a huge problem with Bitcoin development? Does there exsit development centrilization? Does this situation need improvment? For example, estabilish a fund from Bitcoin as a fundation. It can be used for hiring developers and maintainers, so that we can solve the development issue once and for all.
A: I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks.
And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing).
I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features).
I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
8.jb9802
You are one of the most-repected person in Bitcoin world, I won’t miss the chance to ask some questions. First of all, I am a Classic supporter. I strongly believe that on-chain transcations should not be restrained artificially. Even if there are transcations that are willing to go through Lighting Network in the future, it should be because of a free market, not because of artificial restrication. Here are some of my questions:
Q: 1) For the past two years, you’ve been proposing to Core to scale Bitcoin. In the early days of the discussion, Core devs did agree that the blocksize should be raised. What do you think is the major reason for Core to stall scaling. Does there exist conflict of interest between Blockstream and scaling?
A: 1) There might be unconscious bias, but I think there is just a difference of opinion on priorities and timing.
Q: 2) One of the reason for the Chinese to refuse Classic is that Classic dev team is not technically capable enough for future Bitcoin development. I also noticed that Classic does have a less frequent code release compared to Core. In your opinion, is there any solution to these problems? Have you ever thought to invite capable Chinese programers to join Classic dev team?
A: 2) The great thing about open source software is if you don’t think the development team is good enough (or if you think they are working on the wrong things) you can take the software and hire a better team to improve it.
Classic is a simple 2MB patch on top of Core, so it is intentional that there are not a lot of releases of Classic.
The priority for Classic right now is to do things that make working on Classic better for developers than working on Core, with the goal of attracting more developers. You can expect to see some results in the next month or two.
I invite capable programmers from anywhere, including China, to help any of the teams working on open source Bitcoin software, whether that is Classic or Core or Unlimited or bitcore or btcd or ckpool or p2pool or bitcoinj.
Q: 3) Another reason for some of the Chinese not supporting Classic is that bigger blocks are more vulnerable to spam attacks. (However, I do think that smaller blocks are more vlunerable to spam attack, because smaller amount of money is needed to choke the blockchain.) What’s our opinion on this?
A: 3) The best response to a transaction spam attack is for the network to reject transactions that pay too little fees but to simply absorb any “spam” that is paying as much fees as regular transactions.
The goal for a transaction spammer is to disrupt the network; if there is room for extra transactions in blocks, then the network can just accept the spam (“thank you for the extra fees!”) and continue as if nothing out of the ordinary happened.
Nothing annoys a spammer more than a network that just absorbs the extra transactions with no harmful effects.
Q: 4) According to your understanding on lighting network and sidechains,if most Bitcoin transactions goes throught lighting network or sidechains, it possible that the fees paid on the these network cannot reach the main-chain miners, which leaves miners starving. If yes, how much percent do you think will be given to miners.
A: 4) I don’t know, it will depend on how often lightning network channels are opened and closed, and that depends on how people choose to use lightning.
Moving transactions off the main chain and on to the lightning network should mean less fees for miners, more for lightning network hubs. Hopefully it will also mean lower fees for users, which will make Bitcoin more popular, drive up the price, and make up for the lower transaction fees paid to miners.
Q: 5) The concept of lighting network and sidechains have been out of one or two years already, when do you think they will be fully deployed.
A: 5) Sidechains are already “fully deployed” (unless you mean the version of sidechains that doesn’t rely on some trusted gateways to move bitcoin on and off the sidechain, which won’t be fully deployed for at least a couple of years). I haven’t seen any reports of how successful they have been.
I think Lightning will take longer than people estimate. Seven months ago Adam Back said that the lightning network might be ready “as soon as six months from now” … but I would be surprised if there was a robust, ready-for-everybody-to-use lightning-capable wallet before 2018.
Q: 6)Regarding the hard fork, Core team has assumed that it will cause a chain-split. (Chinese miners are very intimitated by this assumption, I think this is the major reason why most of the Chinese mining pools are not switching to Classic). Do you think Bitcoin will have a chain-split?
A: 6) No, there will not be a chain split. I have not talked to a single mining pool operator, miner, exchange, or major bitcoin business who would be willing to mine a minority branch of the chain or accept bitcoins from a minority branch of the main chain.
Q: 7) From your point of view, do you think there is more Classic supporters or Core supporters in the U.S.?
A: 7) All of the online opinion pools that have been done show that a majority of people worldwide support raising the block size limit.
9. btcc123
Q: Which is more in line with the Satoshi’s original roadmap, Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core? How to make mining pools support and adopt Bitcoin Classic?
A: Bitcoin Classic is more in line with Satoshi’s original roadmap.
We can’t make the mining pools do anything they don’t want to do, but they are run by smart people who will do what they think is best for their businesses and Bitcoin.
10.KuHaiBian
Q: Do you have any solution for mining centralization? What do you think about the hard fork of changing mining algorithms?
A: I have a lot of thoughts on mining centralization; it would probably take ten or twenty pages to write them all down.
I am much less worried about mining centralization than most of the other developers, because Satoshi designed Bitcoin so miners make the most profit when they do what is best for Bitcoin. I have also seen how quickly mining pools come and go; people were worried that the DeepBit mining pool would become too big, then it was GHash.io…
And if a centralized mining pool does become too big and does something bad, the simplest solution is for businesses or people to get together and create or fund a competitor. Some of the big Bitcoin exchanges have been seriously considering doing exactly that to support raising the block size limit, and that is exactly the way the system is supposed to work-- if you don’t like what the miners are doing, then compete with them!
I think changing the mining algorithm is a complicated solution to a simple problem, and is not necessary.
11. ChaLi
Q: Last time you came to China, you said you want to "make a different". I know that in USA the opposition political party often hold this concept, in order to prevent the other party being totally dominant. Bitcoin is born with a deep "make a different" nature inside. But in Chinese culture, it is often interpreted as split “just for the sake of splitting”, can you speak your mind on what is your meaning of "make a different"?
A: I started my career in Silicon Valley, where there is a lot of competition but also a lot of cooperation. The most successful companies find a way to be different than their competitors; it is not a coincidence that perhaps the most successful company in the world (Apple Computer) had the slogan “think different.”
As Bitcoin gets bigger (and I think we all agree we want Bitcoin to get bigger!) it is natural for it to split and specialize; we have already seen that happening, with lots of choices for different wallets, different exchanges, different mining chips, different mining pool software.
12. bluestar
Q: 1) The development of XT and Classic confirmed my thoughts that it is nearly impossible to use a new version of bitcoin to replace the current bitcoin Core controlled by Blockstream. I think we will have to live with the power of Blockstream for a sufficient long time. It means we will see the deployment of SegWit and Lighting network. If it really comes to that point, what will you do? Will you also leave like Mike Hearn?
A: 1) With the development of Blockchain, bitcoin will grow bigger and bigger without any doubts, And also there will be more and more companies related to the bitcoin network. When it comes to money, there will be a lot of fights between these companies. Is it possible to form some kind of committee to avoid harmful fights between these companies and also the situation that a single company controlling the direction of the bitcoin development? Is there any one doing this kind of job right now?
Q: 2) My final question would be, do you really think it is possible that we can have a decentralized currency? Learning from the history, it seems like every thing will become centralized as long as it involves human. Do you have any picture for a decentralized currency or even a society? Thanks.
A: 2) I think you might be surprised at what most people are running a year or three from now. Perhaps it will be a future version of Bitcoin Core, but I think there is a very good chance another project will be more successful.
I remember when “everybody” was running Internet Explorer or Firefox, and people thought Google was crazy to think that Chrome would ever be a popular web browser. It took four years for Chrome to become the most popular web browser.
In any case, I plan on working on Bitcoin related projects for at least another few years. Eventually it will become boring or I will decide I need to take a couple of years of and think about what I want to do next.
As for fights between companies: there are always fights between companies, in every technology. There are organizations like the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) that try to create committees so engineers at companies can spend more time cooperating and less time fighting; I’m told by people who participate in IETF meetings that they are usually helpful and create useful standards more often than not.
Finally, yes, I do think we can have a “decentralized-enough” currency. A currency that might be controlled at particular times by a small set of people or companies, but that gives everybody else the ability to take control if those people or businesses misbehave.
13. satoshi
Hi Gavin, I have some questions:
Q: 1) I noticed there are some new names added to the classic team list. Most people here only know you and Jeff. Can you briefly introduce some others to the Chinese community?
A: 1)
Tom Zander has been acting as lead developer, and is an experienced C++ developer who worked previously on the Qt and Debian open source projects.
Pedro Pinheiro is on loan from Blockchain.info, and has mostly worked on continuous integration and testing for Classic.
Jon Rumion joined recently, and has been working on things that will make life for developers more pleasant (I don’t want to be more specific, I don’t want to announce things before they are finished in case they don’t work out).
Jeff has been very busy starting up Bloq, so he hasn’t been very active with Classic recently. I’ve also been very busy traveling (Barbados, Idaho, London and a very quick trip to Beijing) so haven’t been writing much code recently.
Q: 2) if bitcoin classic succeeded (>75% threshold), what role would you play in the team after the 2MB upgrade finished, as a leader, a code contributor, a consultant, or something else?
A: 2)Contributor and consultant-- I am trying not to be leader of any software project right now, I want to leave that to other people who are better at managing and scheduling and recruiting and all of the other things that need to be done to lead a software project.
Q: 3) if bitcoin classic end up failed to achieve mainstream adoption (<75% 2018), will you continue the endeavor of encouraging on-chain scaling and garden-style growth of bitcoin?
A: 3) Yes. If BIP109 does not happen, I will still be pushing to get a good on-chain solution to happen as soon as possible.
Q: 4) Have you encountered any threat in your life, because people would think you obviously have many bitcoins, like what happened to Hal Finney (RIP), or because some people have different ideas about what bitcoin's future should be?
A: 4) No, I don’t think I have received any death threats. It upsets me that other people have.
Somebody did threaten to release my and my wife’s social security numbers and other identity information if I did not pay them some bitcoins a couple of years ago. I didn’t pay, they did release our information, and that has been a little inconvenient at times.
Q: 5) Roger Ver (Bitcoin Jesus) said bitcoin would worth thousands of dollars. Do you have similar thoughts? If not, what is your opinion on bitcoin price in future?
A: 5) I learned long ago to give up trying to predict the price of stocks, currencies, or Bitcoin. I think the price of Bitcoin will be higher in ten years, but I might be wrong.
Q: 6) You've been to China. What's your impression about the country, people, and the culture here? Thank you!
A: 6) I had a very quick trip to Beijing a few weeks ago-- not nearly long enough to get a good impression of the country or the culture.
I had just enough time to walk around a little bit one morning, past the Forbidden City and walk around Tianmen Square. There are a LOT of people in China, I think the line to go into the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall was the longest I have ever seen!
Beijing reminded me a little bit of London, with an interesting mix of the very old with the very new. The next time I am in China I hope I can spend at least a few weeks and see much more of the country; I like to be in a place long enough so that I really can start to understand the people and cultures.
14. Pussinboots
Q: Dear Gavin, How could I contact you, we have an excellent team and good plans. please confirm your linkedin.
A: Best contact for me is [email protected] : but I get lots of email, please excuse me if your messages get lost in the flood.
15. satoshi
Q: Gavin, you've been both core and classic code contributor. Are there any major differences between the two teams, concerning code testing (quality control) and the release process of new versions?
A: Testing and release processes are the same; a release candidate is created and tested, and once sufficiently tested, a final release is created, cryptographically signed by several developers, and then made available for download.
The development process for Classic will be a little bit different, with a ‘develop’ branch where code will be pulled more quickly and then either fixed or reverted based on how testing goes. The goal is to create a more developer-friendly process, with pull requests either accepted or rejected fairly quickly.
16. tan90d
I am a bitcoin enthusiast and a coin holder. I thank you for your great contribution to bitcoin. Please allow me to state some of my views before asking:
  1. I'm on board with classic
  2. I support the vision to make bitcoin a powerful currency that could compete with Visa
  3. I support segwit, so I'll endorse whichever version of bitcoin implementation that upgrades to segwit, regardless of block size.
  4. I disagree with those who argue bitcoin main blockchain should be a settlement network with small blocks. My view is that on the main chain btc should function properly as a currency, as well as a network for settlement.
  5. I'm against the deployment of LN on top of small block sized blockchain. Rather, it should be built on a chain with bigger blocks.
  6. I also won’t agree with the deployment of many sidechains on top of small size block chain. Rather, those sidechains should be on chain with bigger blocks.
With that said, below are my questions:
Q: 1) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 1) If the block limit is not raised, then no, I don’t think transaction fees will be that high.
Q: 2) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 2) Yes, the vision is lots of transactions, each paying a very small fee, adding up to a big total for the miners.
Q: 3) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, do you think POW would fail in future, because the mining industry might be accounted too low value compared with that of the bitcoin total market, so that big miners could threaten btc market and gain profit by shorting?
*The questioner further explained his concern.
Currently, its about ~1.1 billion CNY worth of mining facilities protecting ~42 billion CNY worth (6.5 Billion USD) of bitcoin market. The ratio is ~3%. If bitcoin market cap continues to grow and we adopt layered development plan, the mining portion may decrease, pushing the ratio go even down to <1%, meaning we are using very small money protecting an huge expensive system. For example, in 2020 if bitcoin market cap is ~100 billion CNY, someone may attempt to spend ~1 billion CNY bribe/manipulate miners to attack the network, thus making a great fortune by shorting bitcoin and destroying the ecosystem.
A: 3) Very good question, I have asked that myself. I have asked people if they know if there have been other cases where people destroyed a company or a market to make money by shorting it -- as far as I know, that does not happen. Maybe because it is impossible to take a large short position and remain anonymous, so even if you were successful, you would be arrested for doing whatever you did to destroy the company or market (e.g. blow up a factory to destroy a company, or double-spend fraud to try to destroy Bitcoin).
Q: 4) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, will the blocks become too big that kill decentralization?
A: 4) No, if you look at how many transactions the typical Internet connection can support, and how many transactions even a smart phone can validate per second, we can support many more transactions today with the hardware and network connections we have now.
And hardware and network connections are getting faster all the time.
Q: 5) In theory, even if we scale bitcoin with just LN and sidechains, the main chain still needs blocks with size over 100M, in order to process the trading volume matching Visa's network. So does core have any on-chain scaling plan other than 2MB? Or Core does not plan to evolve bitcoin into something capable of challenging visa?
A: 5) Some of the Core developer talk about a “flexcap” solution to the block size limit, but there is no specific proposal.
I think it would be best to eliminate the limit all together. That sounds crazy, but the most successful Internet protocols have no hard upper limits (there is no hard limit to how large a web page may be, for example), and no protocol limit is true to Satoshi’s original design.
Q: 6) If (the majority of) hash rate managed to switch to Classic in 2018, will the bitcoin community witness the deployment of LN in two years (~2018)?
A: 6) The bottleneck with Lightning Network will be wallet support, not support down at the Bitcoin protocol level. So I don’t think the deployment schedule of LN will be affected much whether Classic is adopted or not.
Q: 7) If (majority) hash rate upgraded to blocks with segwit features in 2017 as specified in core's roadmap, would classic propose plans to work on top of that (blocks with segwit)? Or insist developing simplified segwit blocks as described in classic's roadmap?
A: 7) Classic will follow majority hash rate. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else.
Q: 8) If most hash rate is still on core's side before 2018, will you be disappointed with bitcoin, and announce that bitcoin has failed like what Mike did, and sell all your stashed coins at some acceptable price?
A: 8) No-- I have said that I think if the block size limit takes longer to resolve, that is bad for Bitcoin in the short term, but smart engineers will work around whatever road blocks you put in front of them. I see Bitcoin as a long-term project.
Q: 9) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 9) I think Blockstream might lose some employees, but otherwise I don’t think it will matter much. They are still producing interesting technology that might become a successful business.
Q: 10) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 10) I don’t think Blockstream’s fate depends on whether or not BIP109 is adopted. It depends much more on whether or not they find customers willing to pay for the technology that they are developing.
Q: 11) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of companies that support classic, such as Coinbse, bitpay, and Blockchain.info?
A: 11) We have already seen companies like Kraken support alternative currencies (Kraken supports Litecoin and Ether); if there is no on-chain scaling solution accepted by the network, I think we will see more companies “hedging their bets” by supporting other currencies that have a simpler road map for supporting more transactions.
Q: 12) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, will that hinder the development of sidechain tech? What will happen to companies like Rockroot(Rootstock?) ?
A: 12) No, I think the best use of sidechains is for things that might be too risky for the main network (like Rootstock) or are narrowly focused on a small number of Bitcoin users. I don’t think hash rate supporting Classic will have any effect on that.
Q: 13) Between the two versions of bitcoin client, which one is more conducive to mining industry, classic or core?
A: 13) I have been working to make Classic better for the mining industry, but right now they are almost identical so it would be dishonest to say one is significantly better than the other.
17. Alfred
Q: Gavin, can you describe what was in your mind when you first learned bitcoin?
A: I was skeptical that it could actually work! I had to read everything I could about it, and then read the source code before I started to think that maybe it could actually be successful and was not a scam.
submitted by kcbitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

Been looking into major altcoins recently... WOW! competition is voracious!

So the current situation is making me increasingly nervous. To the point that I am seriously considering to grab my five year old paper wallets and just dump my coins and not care about bitcoin or crypto-currencies for a while.
For the last week, I have been looking in what is happening in altcoins and I am totally baffled. They do have some strong selling points, some are even a clear direct practical advantage.
Here are a few things that I found and are not to be ignored:
submitted by observerc to btc [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 insight was written by one of the crypto consultants at decrypt
submitted by decrypt-how to btc [link] [comments]

When US Entrepreneur Meets Chinese Crypto Group Chat

When US Entrepreneur Meets Chinese Crypto Group Chat
If you happened to read my previous post, you would know WeChat group chats plays a phenomenal role to connect the Chinese crypto circle. The night of July 12th, a unique interview took place in one of those WeChat groups. You may even say the first of its kind.
On the one end is my friend Matthew Roszak, co-founder and chairman of Bloq; on the other, there are 499 women--all of them blockchain entrepreneurs and journalists from different parts of China.
I worked as the host of the event. Questions were collected from all members in advance. During the next hour and half, we discussed with Matt his experience as an investor, his insights on the future of blockchain, and the launch of his latest project, Metronome.
https://preview.redd.it/m1o89yit3cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=3203cb1edb87872caf7a7468e19fc6fd07d1d86f
Here is the complete interview. I have tried to keep it as close to the chat history as possible, though minor tweaks were made for easier reading. Enjoy!
Matt: So cool to be here -- and talk about my favorite subject in the world :-)
Bianca: It is my favorite subject as well and glad to do this with one of my favorite people in this field.
Matt: I am so thrilled you asked me to be a part of this special chat -- ever since you produced that blockchain documentary, your star has been rising higher and higher -- congrats Bianca! I see so many amazing women entrepreneurs on this channel -- super impressive!
Bianca: Many incoming questions. We have selected a few. First of all: You’re an experienced blockchain investor. How did you start investing in cryptocurrency? By contrast, what’s your view on the future of Wall Street?
Matt: When I started out I was so inspired by bitcoin -- it was a true innovation, an invention (on the scale of a Nobel prize for Satoshi) and became a social movement.
https://preview.redd.it/ea30tjsv3cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=77a71ff0c873ced7e782c7e5759d9fbec3e63b74
I initially invested in bitcoin, then invested in over 20 companies in the blockchain space -- bridges, roads and tunnels -- think wallets, exchanges, miners, payment processors, software layers, etc. -- that helped me create a mental roadmap on this space back in 2012/2013. More importantly, I met some of the most amazing entrepreneurs in this ecosystem -- folks like CZ at Binance, Ted at Xapo, Charlie at Litecoin, Bobby at BTCC and even my co-founder Jeff Garzik.
My co-founder Jeff is a rare bird -- he worked on the Linix kernel with Linus Torvalds (creator of Linux) -- and worked on the Bitcoin kernel with Satoshi -- these are two of the most important open source projects in history -- so grateful to have him on my team and as my dear friend…
I hosted dinners in every city I traveled to -- about 20-40 people -- that helped me build great relationships and guide my thesis in this space.
I thought Wall Street/institutional investors would have been in crypto more substantially by now -- there is very little institutional money in our space -- the infrastructure to accommodate them, namely custody platforms, is being built however not in the format nor risk tolerance they are comfortable with -- that will change and we will see a lot of money flowing in by the end of this year with 2019 being a breakout year for institutional adoption.
Bianca: You participated in the first ICOs. What are the lessons you learned from those experiences?
Matt: I originally was a bitcoin maximalist -- I was lucky to change that thinking as it would have made me miss other networks like Ethereum, Qtum EOS and many others -- this space is a movie, and not a static picture -- the innovation is rapidly developing and it creates unprecedented opportunities for entrepreneurs and investors.
Another key point is that I am an investor, and not a trader -- so I buy and hold for the most part -- and that discipline has served me well.
https://preview.redd.it/oy765oi04cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=c29c40c6633f7a6c04bf9d1a36aab7bf39c13109
Bianca: Compared to bitcoin or ETH, what are some innovations of Metronome?
Matt: From a tech standpoint, Metronome (MET) is an autonomous network -- meaning there is no author or founder influence or control on the code since its launch -- autonomous networks will be some of the most powerful and valuable networks in all of crypto -- they are also very hard to build as we saw first hand with the DAO, which broke ETH in half -- that project was way different, very complicated and poorly built, hence it's fate -- but getting autonomous networks right is in many ways a key part of this decentralized future we are all building and investing in.
The other key tech component is that MET is the world's first cross-chain crypto -- meaning MET is born on Ethereum but will be able to move to any other EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) -- think ETC, QTUM, RSK/BTC, etc. -- like a boxcar on a railroad that you can move to another track -- this creates a new dimension and relationship between the user and MET where you self govern where your MET resides -- we even called our whitepaper an Owner's Manual :-)
I do not think people will be moving their MET around from track to track, but from a longevity and durability standpoint -- it has staying power even if ETH or any other underlying rail goes away in the future (as you can move it).
So we created MET as an expression of many years of watching the crypto space and believed there was room for more innovation.
The other thing that I am proud of is that the proceeds from the auction didn't go to a foundation or a company, they went into code (a smart contract) -- and all that smart contract does is provide liquidity and price support to the MET community through a decentralized exchanger -- all engineered for the benefit of the MET users/community.
https://preview.redd.it/gtn3zeu24cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=08239f7dda379e731db99b5da3fc68bfa564aa8d
Bianca: Talking about the auction, Metronome used the descending price model during Initial Supply. Did you observe a lower auction price (for instance, due to buyers using bots to do last-minute biddings), thus bringing fewer funds to the pool than you had expected?
Matt: The auction raised about $12MM USD in proceeds during the most difficult week in crypto in 7 months -- we are very proud of the fact that the network launched, the system works, and there were no security issues -- the future is incredibly bright for Metronome!
Most other projects raise money and launch several years out -- MET was made alive at launch! -- again, very difficult to build and create these systems -- I am so proud of the team!
Bianca: What are the differences between working at private equity and crypto investment? How do you normally evaluate a blockchain project?
Matt: OMG sooooo different -- private equity (and even traditional venture) and crypto are two different planets.
The common denominator in how you approach people in PE or VC or crypto is people -- you always back people -- no whitepaper or product roadmap is going to build themselves.
We are in the early days, so great people are raising lots of money with just a whitepaper -- pretty soon the bar will be raised to ensure projects have a working product/protocol -- the bar will raised even further to have users and utility and metrics on that network.
With the total crypto market cap of $250 billion, we are still in the stone ages for crypto -- we have a lot of building and adoption ahead of us -- feels like early Internet or early mobile days -- big fun ahead!
https://preview.redd.it/av8sxmu44cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=4c9f925974372f126dadb4c545a436a241dde879
Bianca: Vitalik just commented “I definitely hope centralized exchanges go burn in hell.” What’s your take on centralized exchanges such as Bitfinex, Binance, and Fcoin?
Matt: Oh boy, good question -- well I think we are watching the evolution of all of this -- we need certain infrastructure to get from A to B in crypto adoption -- even centralized exchanges and wallets -- they are not for everybody but serve an important purpose and address a market need for folks that have no clue how to manage private keys.
In the exchange space I love watching innovators like CZ and team at Binance -- they created an incredible platform, with a tokenized model that many are trying to emulate -- imitation is the greatest form of flattery ;-) they also have a strategy on how to construct a decentralized exchange.
So if you are not innovating and looking to decentralize, your business model may be at risk in the future -- however decentralized applications like this are hard to build and rely on infrastructure and tech that has not been built or not ready for prime time -- decentralization is a journey.
https://preview.redd.it/jbyfe7l64cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=54fdc23caa27b1fac15e0d3770282a03b87bb5e4
Bianca: Many governments are tightening on crypto regulations. Where do you think the government policy on crypto can go?
Matt: Historically technology innovation has always outpaced regulations -- we are seeing that play out big time in crypto.
I am inspired by what Singapore, Switzerland, Malta, Barbados and other countries are doing to attract projects and innovation to their boards in our industry.
Lots of jurisdictional arbitrage is playing out -- countries smell the crypto ;-) and want to bring jobs, innovation and investment to their borders.
This happened before with online gaming, hedge funds, etc. -- however with crypto, these networks can be trillion dollar blood vessels of value.
Bianca: Given the current market situation, what suggestions do you have for investors, entrepreneurs, and service providers?
Matt: Never has a technology frontier like crypto had the potential to impact power centers like Wall Street and Silicon Valley -- that is and will continue to be tested with crypto.
MONEY = POWER (old adage)
MONEY = TECHNOLOGY (with crypto)
TECHNOLOGY = POWER (new adage)
https://preview.redd.it/suyc16f84cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=7a4a906d87a9d519569f60ed3e2ef37f0d265de6
Bianca: Any story you can share when you sent bitcoins to Clinton and Branson? What were their attitudes towards crypto and blockchain?
Matt: Several years back bitcoin was so abstract to people outside of our industry -- I used to always keep a physical bitcoin on me to use as a conversation starter -- I love the Kialara physical bitcoins -- they are works of art and exposes a cool reaction when I give them to people -- the physicality always helps in a discussion over dinner or a drink -- gives tangible to the intangible ;-)
I was fortunate to meet some great people and try to open their minds to this new technology frontier -- I gave bitcoin to: Richard Branson, Bill Clinton, Steve Wozniak, Robin Wright and many more -- Branson is an inspiration for me in how he conducts business and gives so much back to society and the environment.
Bianca: Last question from the group member: do you think the market value of many digital coins will return to zero?
Matt: My sense is that about 90%+ will go to zero -- I think BTC and ETH will continue to do very well as they are the two "gateway cryptos" for new money (institutions) coming into this ecosystem -- that logic will spread to the top 10-20 large and mid-cap cryptos -- speculative network effects will kick in -- we are still in the investment and speculative phase crypto (like it or not) -- once there is real utility, transactions and throughput, we will see which networks wil remain for the long haul -- the potential here is tens of trillions of value -- we have a long way to go…
https://preview.redd.it/6kwrwjja4cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=b91c4a9be963b771ac8879ef8da9ac4b2343bd95
Bianca: Before you go, would you like to share your feelings today? Do you have any other words for the ladies in the 499 WeChat Group? :)
Matt: Once more, I am so honored to spend time with you all -- super impressed by the women in this group -- this is the best time to build, invest and be a part of one of the most important societal shifts in history!
submitted by ox3tv to u/ox3tv [link] [comments]

Completing the retirement of the alert system | Gregory Maxwell | Sep 10 2016

Gregory Maxwell on Sep 10 2016:
The alert system was a centralized facility to allow trusted parties
to send messages to be displayed in wallet software (and, very early
on, actually remotely trigger the software to stop transacting).
It has been removed completely in Bitcoin Core after being disabled for a while.
While the system had some potential uses, there were a number of
problems with it.
The alert system was a frequent source of misunderstanding about the
security model and 'effective governance', for example a years ago a
BitcoinJ developer wanted it to be used to control fee levels on the
network and few months back one of Bloq's staff was pushing for a
scheme where "the developers" would use it to remotely change the
difficulty-- apparently with no idea how abhorrent others would find
it.
The system also had a problem of not being scalable to different
software vendors-- it didn't really make sense that core would have
that facility but armory had to do something different (nor would it
really make sense to constantly have to maintain some list of keys in
the node software).
It also had the problem of being unaccountable. No one can tell which
of the key holders created a message. This creates a risk of misuse
with a false origin to attack someone's reputation.
Finally, there is good reason to believe that the key has been
compromised-- It was provided to MTGox by a developer and MTGox's
systems' were compromised and later their CEO's equipment taken by the
Japanese police.
In any case, it's gone now in Core and most other current software--
and I think it's time to fully deactivate it.
I've spent some time going around the internet looking for all
software that contains this key (which included a few altcoins) and
asked them to remove it. I will continue to do that.
One of the facilities in the alert system is that you can send a
maximum sequence alert which cannot be overridden and displays only a
static key compromise text message and blocks all other alerts. I plan
to send a triggering alert in the not-distant future (exact time to be
announced well in advance) feedback on timing would be welcome.
There are likely a few production systems that automatically shut down
when there is an alert, so this risks some small one-time disruption
of those services-- but none worse than if an alert were sent to
advise about a new system upgrade.
At some point after that, I would then plan to disclose this private
key in public, eliminating any further potential of reputation attacks
and diminishing the risk of misunderstanding the key as some special
trusted source of authority.
Cheers,
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Septembe013104.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

[Bitcoin-segwit2x] segwit2x alpha release code drop

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 83%. (I'm a bot)
Segwit2x alpha release code drop Jeff Garzik jeff at bloq.com Fri Jun 16 06:52:42 UTC 2017 All, An update on the alpha release, and some discussion on block weight.
If we assume a successful SegWit activation, there are some block weight/SegWit-related issues and challenges to consider: 1) The wallet users who must reason fees face a complex market: 1a) Non-upgraded users are bidding for base block space.
These two are mixing in the same market and an opt-it transition implies users switch unpredictably from 1a to 1b. Rough analogy: Imagine a market where automobiles are sold by weight.
Block weight plays into this - if you're not scaling, you don't need an abstract "Weight" unit, just a total size.
Block size is a well studied attribute, versus block weight.
Linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/attachments/20170616/82407890/attachment-0001.html> More information about the Bitcoin-segwit2x mailing list segwit2x alpha release code drop Jeff Garzik jeff at bloq.com Fri Jun 16 06:52:42 UTC 2017 All, An update on the alpha release, and some discussion on block weight.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: weight#1 block#2 market#3 SegWit#4 base#5
Post found in /Bitcoin, /btc, /Bitcoin and /BitcoinAll.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

Full English Transcript of Gavin's AMA on 8BTC, April 21st. (Part 1)

Part 2
Part 3
Raw transcript on Google Docs (English+Chinese): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p3DWMfeGHBL6pk4Hu0efgQWGsUAdFNK6zLHubn5chJo/edit?usp=sharing
Translators/Organizers: emusher, kcbitcoin, nextblast, pangcong, Red Li, WangXiaoMeng. (Ranked in alphabetical order)
1.crypto888
Q: What is your relationship with Blockstream now? Are you in a Cold War? Your evaluation on BS was pretty high “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation.” But now, what’s your opinion on BS?
A: I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream.
We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
2. Ma_Ya
Q: 1) Why insist on hard fork at only 75%? You once explained that it is possible to be controlled by 5% if we set the threshold at 95%. I agree, but there should be some balance here. 75% means a high risk in splitting, isn’t it too aggressive? Is it better if we set it to 90%?
A: 1)The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network.
Q: 2) How to solve the potentially very large blocks problem Classic roadmap may cause, and furthur causing the centralization of nodes in the future?
A: 2)Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night).
I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second.
Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned.
Q: 3) Why do you not support the proposal of RBF by Satoshi, and even plan to remove it in Classic completely?
A: 3) Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time.
When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before.
Q: 4) . Your opinion on soft fork SegWit, sidechain, lighnting network. Are you for or against, please give brief reasons. Thanks.
A: 4) The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful.
I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good.
I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them.
Q: 5) Can you share your latest opinion on Brainwallet? It is hard for new users to use long and complex secure passphrase, but is it a good tool if it solves this problem?
A: 5) We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things.
We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
3. BiTeCui
Q: Gavin, do you have bitcoins now? What is your major job in MIT? Has FBI ever investigated on you? When do you think SHA256 might be outdated, it seems like it has been a bit unsafe?
A: Yes, a majority of my own person wealth is still in bitcoins -- more than a financial advisor would say is wise.
My job at MIT is to make Bitcoin better, in whatever way I think best. That is the same major job I had at the Bitcoin Foundation. Sometimes I think the best way to make Bitcoin better is to write some code, sometimes to write a blog post about what I see happening in the Bitcoin world, and sometimes to travel and speak to people.
The FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) has never investigated me, as far as I know. The closest thing to an investigation was an afternoon I spent at the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC. They were interested in how I and the other Bitcoin developers created the software and how much control we have over whether or not people choose to run the software that we create.
“Safe or unsafe” is not the way to think about cryptographic algorithms like SHA256. They do not suddenly go from being 100% secure for everything to completely insecure for everything. I think SHA256 will be safe enough to use in the all ways that Bitcoin is using it for at least ten years, and will be good enough to be used as the proof-of-work algorithm forever.
It is much more likely that ECDSA, the signature algorithm Bitcoin is using today, will start to become less safe in the next ten or twenty years, but developer are already working on replacements (like Schnorr signatures).
4. SanPangHenBang
Q: It’s a pleasure to meet you. I only have one question. Which company are you serving? or where do you get your salary?
A: The Media Lab at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) pays my salary; I don’t receive regular payments from anybody else.
I have received small amounts of stock options in exchange for being a techical advisor to several Bitcoin companies (Coinbase, BitPay, Bloq, Xapo, Digital Currency Group, CoinLab, TruCoin, Chain) which might be worth money some day if one or more of those companies do very well. I make it very clear to these companies that my priority is to make Bitcoin better, and my goal in being an advisor to them is to learn more about the problems they face as they try to bring Bitcoin to more of their customers.
And I am sometimes (once or twice a year) paid to speak at events.
5.SaTuoXi
Q: Would you mind share your opinion on lightning network? Is it complicated to implement? Does it need hard fork?
A: Lightning does not need a hard fork.
It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly.
I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
6. pangcong
Q: 1) There has been a lot of conferences related to blocksize limit. The two took place in HongKong in Decemeber of 2015 and Feberary of 2016 are the most important ones. Despite much opposition, it is undeniable that these two meetings basically determines the current status of Bitcoin. However, as the one of the original founders of Bitcoin, why did you choose to not attend these meetings? If you have ever attended and opposed gmax’s Core roadmap (SegWit Priority) in one of the meetings, we may be in a better situation now, and the 2M hard fork might have already begun. Can you explain your absence in the two meetings? Do you think the results of both meetings are orchestrated by blockstream?
A: 1) I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached.
A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015.
The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents.
I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit.
Q: 2) We have already known that gmax tries to limit the block size so as to get investment for his company. However, it is obvious that overthrowing Core is hard in the short term. What if Core continues to dominate the development of Bitcoin? Is it possible that blockstream core will never raise the blocksize limit because of their company interests?
A: 2) I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically.
He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time.
Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
7. HeiYanZhu
Q: I would like to ask your opinion on the current situation. It’s been two years, but a simple 2MB hard fork could not even be done. In Bitcoin land, two years are incredibly long. Isn’t this enough to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy?
A: I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things.
Q: How can a multi-billion network with millions of users and investors be choked by a handful of people? How can this be called decentrilized and open-source software anymore? It is so hard to get a simple 2MB hard fork, but SegWig and Lighting Network with thousands of lines of code change can be pushed through so fast. Is this normal? It is what you do to define if you are a good man, not what you say.
A: I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer.
The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning.
Q: The problem now is that everybody knows Classic is better, however, Core team has controlled the mining pools using their powers and polical approaches. This made them controll the vast majority of the hashpower, no matter what others propose. In addition, Chinese miners have little communication with the community, and do not care about the developement of the system. Very few of them knows what is going on in the Bitcoin land. They almost handed over their own power to the mining pool, so as long as Core controls the pools, Core controls the whole Bitcoin, no matter how good your Classic is. Under this circumstance, what is your plan?
A: Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy.
Q: From this scaling debate, do you think there is a huge problem with Bitcoin development? Does there exsit development centrilization? Does this situation need improvment? For example, estabilish a fund from Bitcoin as a fundation. It can be used for hiring developers and maintainers, so that we can solve the development issue once and for all.
A: I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks.
And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing).
I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features).
I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
8.jb9802
You are one of the most-repected person in Bitcoin world, I won’t miss the chance to ask some questions. First of all, I am a Classic supporter. I strongly believe that on-chain transcations should not be restrained artificially. Even if there are transcations that are willing to go through Lighting Network in the future, it should be because of a free market, not because of artificial restrication. Here are some of my questions:
Q: 1) For the past two years, you’ve been proposing to Core to scale Bitcoin. In the early days of the discussion, Core devs did agree that the blocksize should be raised. What do you think is the major reason for Core to stall scaling. Does there exist conflict of interest between Blockstream and scaling?
A: 1) There might be unconscious bias, but I think there is just a difference of opinion on priorities and timing.
Q: 2) One of the reason for the Chinese to refuse Classic is that Classic dev team is not technically capable enough for future Bitcoin development. I also noticed that Classic does have a less frequent code release compared to Core. In your opinion, is there any solution to these problems? Have you ever thought to invite capable Chinese programers to join Classic dev team?
A: 2) The great thing about open source software is if you don’t think the development team is good enough (or if you think they are working on the wrong things) you can take the software and hire a better team to improve it.
Classic is a simple 2MB patch on top of Core, so it is intentional that there are not a lot of releases of Classic.
The priority for Classic right now is to do things that make working on Classic better for developers than working on Core, with the goal of attracting more developers. You can expect to see some results in the next month or two.
I invite capable programmers from anywhere, including China, to help any of the teams working on open source Bitcoin software, whether that is Classic or Core or Unlimited or bitcore or btcd or ckpool or p2pool or bitcoinj.
Q: 3) Another reason for some of the Chinese not supporting Classic is that bigger blocks are more vulnerable to spam attacks. (However, I do think that smaller blocks are more vlunerable to spam attack, because smaller amount of money is needed to choke the blockchain.) What’s our opinion on this?
A: 3) The best response to a transaction spam attack is for the network to reject transactions that pay too little fees but to simply absorb any “spam” that is paying as much fees as regular transactions.
The goal for a transaction spammer is to disrupt the network; if there is room for extra transactions in blocks, then the network can just accept the spam (“thank you for the extra fees!”) and continue as if nothing out of the ordinary happened.
Nothing annoys a spammer more than a network that just absorbs the extra transactions with no harmful effects.
Q: 4) According to your understanding on lighting network and sidechains,if most Bitcoin transactions goes throught lighting network or sidechains, it possible that the fees paid on the these network cannot reach the main-chain miners, which leaves miners starving. If yes, how much percent do you think will be given to miners.
A: 4) I don’t know, it will depend on how often lightning network channels are opened and closed, and that depends on how people choose to use lightning.
Moving transactions off the main chain and on to the lightning network should mean less fees for miners, more for lightning network hubs. Hopefully it will also mean lower fees for users, which will make Bitcoin more popular, drive up the price, and make up for the lower transaction fees paid to miners.
Q: 5) The concept of lighting network and sidechains have been out of one or two years already, when do you think they will be fully deployed.
A: 5) Sidechains are already “fully deployed” (unless you mean the version of sidechains that doesn’t rely on some trusted gateways to move bitcoin on and off the sidechain, which won’t be fully deployed for at least a couple of years). I haven’t seen any reports of how successful they have been.
I think Lightning will take longer than people estimate. Seven months ago Adam Back said that the lightning network might be ready “as soon as six months from now” … but I would be surprised if there was a robust, ready-for-everybody-to-use lightning-capable wallet before 2018.
Q: 6)Regarding the hard fork, Core team has assumed that it will cause a chain-split. (Chinese miners are very intimitated by this assumption, I think this is the major reason why most of the Chinese mining pools are not switching to Classic). Do you think Bitcoin will have a chain-split?
A: 6) No, there will not be a chain split. I have not talked to a single mining pool operator, miner, exchange, or major bitcoin business who would be willing to mine a minority branch of the chain or accept bitcoins from a minority branch of the main chain.
Q: 7) From your point of view, do you think there is more Classic supporters or Core supporters in the U.S.?
A: 7) All of the online opinion pools that have been done show that a majority of people worldwide support raising the block size limit.
9. btcc123
Q: Which is more in line with the Satoshi’s original roadmap, Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core? How to make mining pools support and adopt Bitcoin Classic?
A: Bitcoin Classic is more in line with Satoshi’s original roadmap.
We can’t make the mining pools do anything they don’t want to do, but they are run by smart people who will do what they think is best for their businesses and Bitcoin.
10.KuHaiBian
Q: Do you have any solution for mining centralization? What do you think about the hard fork of changing mining algorithms?
A: I have a lot of thoughts on mining centralization; it would probably take ten or twenty pages to write them all down.
I am much less worried about mining centralization than most of the other developers, because Satoshi designed Bitcoin so miners make the most profit when they do what is best for Bitcoin. I have also seen how quickly mining pools come and go; people were worried that the DeepBit mining pool would become too big, then it was GHash.io…
And if a centralized mining pool does become too big and does something bad, the simplest solution is for businesses or people to get together and create or fund a competitor. Some of the big Bitcoin exchanges have been seriously considering doing exactly that to support raising the block size limit, and that is exactly the way the system is supposed to work-- if you don’t like what the miners are doing, then compete with them!
I think changing the mining algorithm is a complicated solution to a simple problem, and is not necessary.
11. ChaLi
Q: Last time you came to China, you said you want to "make a different". I know that in USA the opposition political party often hold this concept, in order to prevent the other party being totally dominant. Bitcoin is born with a deep "make a different" nature inside. But in Chinese culture, it is often interpreted as split “just for the sake of splitting”, can you speak your mind on what is your meaning of "make a different"?
A: I started my career in Silicon Valley, where there is a lot of competition but also a lot of cooperation. The most successful companies find a way to be different than their competitors; it is not a coincidence that perhaps the most successful company in the world (Apple Computer) had the slogan “think different.”
As Bitcoin gets bigger (and I think we all agree we want Bitcoin to get bigger!) it is natural for it to split and specialize; we have already seen that happening, with lots of choices for different wallets, different exchanges, different mining chips, different mining pool software.
12. bluestar
Q: 1) The development of XT and Classic confirmed my thoughts that it is nearly impossible to use a new version of bitcoin to replace the current bitcoin Core controlled by Blockstream. I think we will have to live with the power of Blockstream for a sufficient long time. It means we will see the deployment of SegWit and Lighting network. If it really comes to that point, what will you do? Will you also leave like Mike Hearn?
A: 1) With the development of Blockchain, bitcoin will grow bigger and bigger without any doubts, And also there will be more and more companies related to the bitcoin network. When it comes to money, there will be a lot of fights between these companies. Is it possible to form some kind of committee to avoid harmful fights between these companies and also the situation that a single company controlling the direction of the bitcoin development? Is there any one doing this kind of job right now?
Q: 2) My final question would be, do you really think it is possible that we can have a decentralized currency? Learning from the history, it seems like every thing will become centralized as long as it involves human. Do you have any picture for a decentralized currency or even a society? Thanks.
A: 2) I think you might be surprised at what most people are running a year or three from now. Perhaps it will be a future version of Bitcoin Core, but I think there is a very good chance another project will be more successful.
I remember when “everybody” was running Internet Explorer or Firefox, and people thought Google was crazy to think that Chrome would ever be a popular web browser. It took four years for Chrome to become the most popular web browser.
In any case, I plan on working on Bitcoin related projects for at least another few years. Eventually it will become boring or I will decide I need to take a couple of years of and think about what I want to do next.
As for fights between companies: there are always fights between companies, in every technology. There are organizations like the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) that try to create committees so engineers at companies can spend more time cooperating and less time fighting; I’m told by people who participate in IETF meetings that they are usually helpful and create useful standards more often than not.
Finally, yes, I do think we can have a “decentralized-enough” currency. A currency that might be controlled at particular times by a small set of people or companies, but that gives everybody else the ability to take control if those people or businesses misbehave.
13. satoshi
Hi Gavin, I have some questions:
Q: 1) I noticed there are some new names added to the classic team list. Most people here only know you and Jeff. Can you briefly introduce some others to the Chinese community?
A: 1)
Tom Zander has been acting as lead developer, and is an experienced C++ developer who worked previously on the Qt and Debian open source projects.
Pedro Pinheiro is on loan from Blockchain.info, and has mostly worked on continuous integration and testing for Classic.
Jon Rumion joined recently, and has been working on things that will make life for developers more pleasant (I don’t want to be more specific, I don’t want to announce things before they are finished in case they don’t work out).
Jeff has been very busy starting up Bloq, so he hasn’t been very active with Classic recently. I’ve also been very busy traveling (Barbados, Idaho, London and a very quick trip to Beijing) so haven’t been writing much code recently.
Q: 2) if bitcoin classic succeeded (>75% threshold), what role would you play in the team after the 2MB upgrade finished, as a leader, a code contributor, a consultant, or something else?
A: 2)Contributor and consultant-- I am trying not to be leader of any software project right now, I want to leave that to other people who are better at managing and scheduling and recruiting and all of the other things that need to be done to lead a software project.
Q: 3) if bitcoin classic end up failed to achieve mainstream adoption (<75% 2018), will you continue the endeavor of encouraging on-chain scaling and garden-style growth of bitcoin?
A: 3) Yes. If BIP109 does not happen, I will still be pushing to get a good on-chain solution to happen as soon as possible.
Q: 4) Have you encountered any threat in your life, because people would think you obviously have many bitcoins, like what happened to Hal Finney (RIP), or because some people have different ideas about what bitcoin's future should be?
A: 4) No, I don’t think I have received any death threats. It upsets me that other people have.
Somebody did threaten to release my and my wife’s social security numbers and other identity information if I did not pay them some bitcoins a couple of years ago. I didn’t pay, they did release our information, and that has been a little inconvenient at times.
Q: 5) Roger Ver (Bitcoin Jesus) said bitcoin would worth thousands of dollars. Do you have similar thoughts? If not, what is your opinion on bitcoin price in future?
A: 5) I learned long ago to give up trying to predict the price of stocks, currencies, or Bitcoin. I think the price of Bitcoin will be higher in ten years, but I might be wrong.
Q: 6) You've been to China. What's your impression about the country, people, and the culture here? Thank you!
A: 6) I had a very quick trip to Beijing a few weeks ago-- not nearly long enough to get a good impression of the country or the culture.
I had just enough time to walk around a little bit one morning, past the Forbidden City and walk around Tianmen Square. There are a LOT of people in China, I think the line to go into the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall was the longest I have ever seen!
Beijing reminded me a little bit of London, with an interesting mix of the very old with the very new. The next time I am in China I hope I can spend at least a few weeks and see much more of the country; I like to be in a place long enough so that I really can start to understand the people and cultures.
14. Pussinboots
Q: Dear Gavin, How could I contact you, we have an excellent team and good plans. please confirm your linkedin.
A: Best contact for me is [email protected] : but I get lots of email, please excuse me if your messages get lost in the flood.
15. satoshi
Q: Gavin, you've been both core and classic code contributor. Are there any major differences between the two teams, concerning code testing (quality control) and the release process of new versions?
A: Testing and release processes are the same; a release candidate is created and tested, and once sufficiently tested, a final release is created, cryptographically signed by several developers, and then made available for download.
The development process for Classic will be a little bit different, with a ‘develop’ branch where code will be pulled more quickly and then either fixed or reverted based on how testing goes. The goal is to create a more developer-friendly process, with pull requests either accepted or rejected fairly quickly.
16. tan90d
I am a bitcoin enthusiast and a coin holder. I thank you for your great contribution to bitcoin. Please allow me to state some of my views before asking:
  1. I'm on board with classic
  2. I support the vision to make bitcoin a powerful currency that could compete with Visa
  3. I support segwit, so I'll endorse whichever version of bitcoin implementation that upgrades to segwit, regardless of block size.
  4. I disagree with those who argue bitcoin main blockchain should be a settlement network with small blocks. My view is that on the main chain btc should function properly as a currency, as well as a network for settlement.
  5. I'm against the deployment of LN on top of small block sized blockchain. Rather, it should be built on a chain with bigger blocks.
  6. I also won’t agree with the deployment of many sidechains on top of small size block chain. Rather, those sidechains should be on chain with bigger blocks.
With that said, below are my questions:
Q: 1) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 1) If the block limit is not raised, then no, I don’t think transaction fees will be that high.
Q: 2) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 2) Yes, the vision is lots of transactions, each paying a very small fee, adding up to a big total for the miners.
Q: 3) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, do you think POW would fail in future, because the mining industry might be accounted too low value compared with that of the bitcoin total market, so that big miners could threaten btc market and gain profit by shorting?
*The questioner further explained his concern.
Currently, its about ~1.1 billion CNY worth of mining facilities protecting ~42 billion CNY worth (6.5 Billion USD) of bitcoin market. The ratio is ~3%. If bitcoin market cap continues to grow and we adopt layered development plan, the mining portion may decrease, pushing the ratio go even down to <1%, meaning we are using very small money protecting an huge expensive system. For example, in 2020 if bitcoin market cap is ~100 billion CNY, someone may attempt to spend ~1 billion CNY bribe/manipulate miners to attack the network, thus making a great fortune by shorting bitcoin and destroying the ecosystem.
A: 3) Very good question, I have asked that myself. I have asked people if they know if there have been other cases where people destroyed a company or a market to make money by shorting it -- as far as I know, that does not happen. Maybe because it is impossible to take a large short position and remain anonymous, so even if you were successful, you would be arrested for doing whatever you did to destroy the company or market (e.g. blow up a factory to destroy a company, or double-spend fraud to try to destroy Bitcoin).
Q: 4) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, will the blocks become too big that kill decentralization?
A: 4) No, if you look at how many transactions the typical Internet connection can support, and how many transactions even a smart phone can validate per second, we can support many more transactions today with the hardware and network connections we have now.
And hardware and network connections are getting faster all the time.
Q: 5) In theory, even if we scale bitcoin with just LN and sidechains, the main chain still needs blocks with size over 100M, in order to process the trading volume matching Visa's network. So does core have any on-chain scaling plan other than 2MB? Or Core does not plan to evolve bitcoin into something capable of challenging visa?
A: 5) Some of the Core developer talk about a “flexcap” solution to the block size limit, but there is no specific proposal.
I think it would be best to eliminate the limit all together. That sounds crazy, but the most successful Internet protocols have no hard upper limits (there is no hard limit to how large a web page may be, for example), and no protocol limit is true to Satoshi’s original design.
Q: 6) If (the majority of) hash rate managed to switch to Classic in 2018, will the bitcoin community witness the deployment of LN in two years (~2018)?
A: 6) The bottleneck with Lightning Network will be wallet support, not support down at the Bitcoin protocol level. So I don’t think the deployment schedule of LN will be affected much whether Classic is adopted or not.
Q: 7) If (majority) hash rate upgraded to blocks with segwit features in 2017 as specified in core's roadmap, would classic propose plans to work on top of that (blocks with segwit)? Or insist developing simplified segwit blocks as described in classic's roadmap?
A: 7) Classic will follow majority hash rate. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else.
Q: 8) If most hash rate is still on core's side before 2018, will you be disappointed with bitcoin, and announce that bitcoin has failed like what Mike did, and sell all your stashed coins at some acceptable price?
A: 8) No-- I have said that I think if the block size limit takes longer to resolve, that is bad for Bitcoin in the short term, but smart engineers will work around whatever road blocks you put in front of them. I see Bitcoin as a long-term project.
Q: 9) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 9) I think Blockstream might lose some employees, but otherwise I don’t think it will matter much. They are still producing interesting technology that might become a successful business.
Q: 10) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 10) I don’t think Blockstream’s fate depends on whether or not BIP109 is adopted. It depends much more on whether or not they find customers willing to pay for the technology that they are developing.
Q: 11) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of companies that support classic, such as Coinbse, bitpay, and Blockchain.info?
A: 11) We have already seen companies like Kraken support alternative currencies (Kraken supports Litecoin and Ether); if there is no on-chain scaling solution accepted by the network, I think we will see more companies “hedging their bets” by supporting other currencies that have a simpler road map for supporting more transactions.
Q: 12) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, will that hinder the development of sidechain tech? What will happen to companies like Rockroot(Rootstock?) ?
A: 12) No, I think the best use of sidechains is for things that might be too risky for the main network (like Rootstock) or are narrowly focused on a small number of Bitcoin users. I don’t think hash rate supporting Classic will have any effect on that.
Q: 13) Between the two versions of bitcoin client, which one is more conducive to mining industry, classic or core?
A: 13) I have been working to make Classic better for the mining industry, but right now they are almost identical so it would be dishonest to say one is significantly better than the other.
17. Alfred
Q: Gavin, can you describe what was in your mind when you first learned bitcoin?
A: I was skeptical that it could actually work! I had to read everything I could about it, and then read the source code before I started to think that maybe it could actually be successful and was not a scam.
submitted by kcbitcoin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Die Besten Bitcoin Wallets how to create a bitcoin wallet BITCOIN FREE WALLET How To Create a Bitcoin Wallet Bitcoin Block Chaine Wallet

Die beliebte Bitcoin-Wallet Electrum arbeitet schon seit einiger Zeit an der Integration des Lightning Netzwerks für günstige und schnelle Offchain-Zahlungen. Mit dem Erscheinen von Version 4.0.1 ist es nun offiziell: Die wichtigste Bitcoin-Wallet versteht Lightning. Bitcoin Wallet Vergleich: Alles was man über Bitcoin Wallets wissen muss Auch wenn eine Investition in Bitcoins heutzutage immer einfacher wird, gilt es doch einige wichtige Informationen zu kennen. So sollte man als zukünftiger Anleger beispielsweise wissen, was ein Bitcoin Wallet ist, welche unterschiedlichen Arten es gibt, wie man ein Bitcoin Wallet erstellen kann und welche Anbieter am ... Diese Wallet ist ein "Full Node", die Transaktionen im Bitcoin-Netzwerk validiert und weiterleitet. Das bedeutet, dass keinem Dritten vertraut werden muss, wenn Zahlungen verifiziert werden. "Full Nodes" bieten das höchste Maß an Sicherheit und sind zum Schutz des Netzwerks unentbehrlich. Allerdings wird viel Speicher (über 350GB), Bandbreite und eine längere anfängliche Synchronisierung ... Digital money that’s instant, private, and free from bank fees. Download our official wallet app and start using Bitcoin today. Read news, start mining, and buy BTC or BCH. r/btc+bitcoin. Live: Kevin Hart just shouted out Bitcoin! [Video] Enter The Sphere is Coming to Bitcoin Cash. Which Race Will Your Avatar Be? How to completely hide BTC from your wallet. Let's see how long a BTC transaction with low fees REALLY takes. This is relevant in context to the upcoming hardfork of Bitcoin Cash

[index] [51252] [36814] [42827] [43596] [8118] [22858] [33320] [12146] [7669] [32607]

Die Besten Bitcoin Wallets

People & Blogs; Loading... Autoplay When autoplay is enabled, a suggested video will automatically play next. Up next how to send and receive bitcoins on blockchain - Duration: 2:12. MMM TUTORIALS ... Bitcoin wallet basics - Duration: 14:03. Secure Your Wallet 16,150 views. 14:03. Introduction to Pivot Tables, Charts, and Dashboards in Excel ... Sicheres Bitcoin Wallet erstellen - Schritt-für-Schritt Anleitung - Electrum Deutsch Geldbeutel 🔒 - Duration: 9:07. Talerbox Invest Smart 146,226 views 9:07 Bitcoinwallet.com replaces bitcoin addresses with your name. We are the easiest to use and most secure bitcoin wallet service. bitcoin secret, bitcoin trading, bitcoin millionaire, bitcoin day trading, make money with bitcoin, bitcoin guide, bitcoin mining, bitcoin tutorial bitcoin a bitcoin miner

#