What Is Bitcoin Mining? Here's Everything You Need to Know

Bitcoin Halving Is Just 22 Days Away and Catches Institutional Investors’ Interest. It has happened two other times, 2012 and 2016, after completing 210,000 blocks before the next event.

submitted by EducationalLadder to CryptoCurrencyTrading [link] [comments]

What would the repercussions be if the bitcoin network adjusted it’s difficultly every other block instead of the default 2016 blocks?

submitted by muchi21muchi21 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Hard fork: allow 20MB blocks after 1 March 2016 · gavinandresen/[email protected]

Hard fork: allow 20MB blocks after 1 March 2016 · gavinandresen/bitcoin-git@5f46da2 submitted by g2948855 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc, February 2016: "A year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB". August 2017: "Every Bitcoin developer with experience agrees that 2MB blocks are not safe". Whether he's incompetent, corrupt, compromised, or insane, he's unqualified to work on Bitcoin.

Here's Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc posting on February 1, 2016:
"Even a year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB" - nullc
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43lxgn/21_months_ago_gavin_andresen_published_a/czjb7tf/
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4jzf05/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/
https://archive.fo/pH9MZ
And here's the same Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc posting on August 13, 2017:
Blockstream CTO: every Bitcoin developer with experience agrees that 2MB blocks are not safe
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6tcrr2/why_transaction_malleability_cant_be_solved/dlju9dx/
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6te0yb/blockstream_cto_every_bitcoin_developer_with/
https://archive.fo/8d6Jm
What happened to Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc between Feburary 2016 and August 2017?
Computers and networks have been improving since then - and Bitcoin code has also become more efficient.
But something about Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc has been seriously "deteriorating" since then.
What happened to Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc to make him start denying reality??
Ultimately, we may never know with certainty what the problem is with Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc.
But Greg does have some kind of problem - a very serious problem.
  • Maybe he's gone insane.
  • Maybe someone put a gun to his head.
  • Maybe someone is paying him off.
  • Maybe he's just incompetent or corrupt.
Meanwhile, there is one thing we do know with certainty:
Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc is either incompetent or corrupt or compromised or insane - or some combination of the above.
Therefore Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc is not qualified to be involved with Bitcoin.
Background information
The average web page is more than 2 MB in size. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22average+web+page%22+size+mb&t=hn&ia=web
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/52os89/the_average_web_page_is_more_than_2_mb_in_size/
"Even a year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB" - nullc ... So why the fuck has Core/Blockstream done everything they can to obstruct this simple, safe scaling solution? And where is SegWit? When are we going to judge Core/Blockstream by their (in)actions - and not by their words?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4jzf05/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/
Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dtfld/previously_greg_maxwell_unullc_cto_of_blockstream/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Overheard on r\bitcoin: "And when will the network adopt the Segwit2x(tm) block size hardfork?" ~ u/DeathScythe676 // "I estimate that will happen at roughly the same time as hell freezing over." ~ u/nullc, One-Meg Greg mAXAwell, CTO of the failed shitty startup Blockstream
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6s6biu/overheard_on_rbitcoin_and_when_will_the_network/
Finally, many people also remember the Cornell study, which determined - over a year ago - that 4MB blocks would already be fine for Bitcoin.
The Cornell study took into consideration factors specific to Bitcoin - such as upload speeds, the Great Firewall of China, and also the possibility of operating behind Tor - and concluded that Bitcoin could support 4MB blocks - over a y ear ago.
You can read various posts on the Cornell study here:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/search?q=cornell+4mb&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
So... what happened to Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc between February 2016 and August 2017?
Why is he stating "alternate facts" like this now?
And when is Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc going to be removed from the Bitcoin project?
The choice is simple:
  • Either Greg Maxwell - an insane, toxic dev who denies reality - decides the blocksize.
  • Or the market decides the blocksize.
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/
"Either the main chain will scale, or a unhobbled chain that provides scaling (like Bitcoin Cash) will become the main chain - and thus the rightful holder of the 'Bitcoin' name. In other words: Either Bitcoin will get scaling - or scaling will get 'Bitcoin'." ~ u/Capt_Roger_Murdock
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6r9uxd/either_the_main_chain_will_scale_or_a_unhobbled/
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
Greg can suppress Bitcoin (BTC). But he can't affect Bitcoin Cash (BCC, or BCH).
Fortunately, it doesn't really matter much anymore if the insane / incompetent / corrupt / compromomised / toxic Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc continues to suppress Bitcoin (ticker: BTC).
Because he cannot suppress Bitcoin Cash (ticker: BCC, or BCH).
Bitcoin Cash (ticker: BCC, or BCH) simply adheres to Satoshi Nakamoto's original design and roadmap for Bitcoin - rejecting the perversion of Bitcoin perpetrated by the insane / corrupt Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc.
ELI85 BCC vs BTC, for Grandma (1) BCC has BigBlocks (max 8MB), BTC has SmallBlocks (max 1-2?MB); (2) BCC has StrongSigs (signatures must be validated and saved on-chain), BTC has WeakSigs (signatures can be discarded with SegWit); (3) BCC has SingleSpend (for zero-conf); BTC has Replace-by-Fee (RBF)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6r7ub8/eli85_bcc_vs_btc_for_grandma_1_bcc_has_bigblocks/

Bitcoin Cash (ticker: BCC, or BCH)

Bitcoin Cash is the original Bitcoin as designed by Satoshi Nakamoto (and not suppressed by the insane / incompetent / corrupt / compromomised / toxic Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell).
Bitcoin Cash simply continues with Satoshi's original design and roadmap, whose success has always has been and always will be based on three essential features:
  • high on-chain market-based capacity supporting a greater number of faster and cheaper transactions on-chain;
  • strong on-chain cryptographic security guaranteeing that transaction signatures are always validated and saved on-chain;
  • prevention of double-spending guaranteeing that the same coin can only be spent once.
This means that Bitcoin Cash is the only version of Bitcoin which maintains support for:
  • BigBlocks, supporting increased on-chain transaction capacity - now supporting blocksizes up to 8MB (unlike the Bitcoin-SegWit(2x) "centrally planned blocksize" bug added by Core - which only supports 1-2MB blocksizes);
  • StrongSigs, enforcing mandatory on-chain signature validation - continuing to require miners to download, validate and save all transaction signatures on-chain (unlike the Bitcoin-SegWit(2x) "segregated witness" bug added by Core - which allows miners to discard or avoid downloading signature data);
  • SingleSpend, allowing merchants to continue to accept "zero confirmation" transactions (zero-conf) - facilitating small, in-person retail purchases (unlike the Bitcoin-SegWit(2x) Replace-by-Fee (RBF) bug added by Core - which allows a sender to change the recipient and/or the amount of a transaction, after already sending it).
  • If you were holding Bitcoin (BTC) before the fork on August 1 (where you personally controlled your private keys) then you also automatically have an equal quantity of Bitcoin Cash (BCC, or BCH) - without the need to do anything.
  • Many exchanges and wallets are starting to support Bitcoin Cash. This includes more and more exchanges which have agreed to honor their customers' pre-August 1 online holdings on both forks - Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCC, or BCH).
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

PSA: Line-by-line breakdown of the logic used in the 2016-block difficulty adjustment. Posted here because there is some confusion about difficulty on Bitcoin Cash.

I am posting this here because I see people in other threads afraid that difficulty may rise because we had EDA (emergency difficulty adjustment) take us down to 13% of hashrate difficulty, when in reality it will not have taken us ~16 weeks to get to 2016 blocks (as 13% would indicate).
In an attempt to provide some insight as to exactly how the difficulty retarget works, I am posting the below line-by-line breakdown.
TL;DR: Difficulty will adjust off the current working difficulty, whatever it may be. If it takes longer than 2-weeks, we adjust down. If shorter, we adjust up. Since it took us longer than 2 weeks already, we are definitely adjusting down!
. .
Line-by-line breakdown of the "CalculateNextWorkRequired()" function in pow.cpp, which is called for every 2016th block in the chain to retarget difficulty:
Comments: Note how clearly it's written. Very clear, concise and simple code.
This function is called every 2016 blocks to determine the correct acceptable difficulty of the next block (basically it is what does the adjusting every 2016 blocks). This function is "orthogonal to" (separate from) the "emergency difficulty adjustment" that Bitcoin Cash introduces and it works off the current difficulty (which may have been previously readjusted down by the emergency difficulty adjustment code or not).
Basically bitcoin has a single 'difficulty' variable, conceptually, and EDA readjusts this variable and/or this function does every 2016 -- but it's the same variable that both sets of code tweak.
uint32_t CalculateNextWorkRequired(const CBlockIndex *pindexPrev, int64_t nFirstBlockTime, const Consensus::Params ¶ms) { 
The incoming parameters explained:
  • pindexPrev -- a pointer to the tip of the blockchain right before a new block arrives.
  • nFirstBlockTime -- the timestamp of the first block in this 2016-block series
  • params -- the consensus params being used -- basically bitcoin has alternate consensus rules if it's on testnet or on mainnet or if it's in the developer debug REGTEST chain. The params variable captures the consensus rules being used.
    if (params.fPowNoRetargeting) { return pindexPrev->nBits; } 
The above is simply checking if we're in a special test/debug mode where a global flag disabling difficulty retargeting is set (as might be done on the REGTEST or TESTNET, optionally). Not used in mainnet, so safe to ignore the above lines. If the flag is set, return early and do no difficulty retarget.
 // Limit adjustment step int64_t nActualTimespan = pindexPrev->GetBlockTime() - nFirstBlockTime; 
Takes the current time and the time of 2016 blocks ago and measures the space in between. No magic here -- this is basically how much time has elapsed in 2016 blocks. EDIT: Unit is seconds
 if (nActualTimespan < params.nPowTargetTimespan / 4) { nActualTimespan = params.nPowTargetTimespan / 4; } 
params.nPowTargetTimespan for mainnet is set to 2 weeks' worth of seconds, or 120960 seconds. Compute readjustment but if it's below 25%, limit it to 25%
 if (nActualTimespan > params.nPowTargetTimespan * 4) { nActualTimespan = params.nPowTargetTimespan * 4; } 
Limits readjustment to 400%.
 // Retarget const arith_uint256 bnPowLimit = UintToArith256(params.powLimit); 
bnPowLimit is the absolute maximum pow limit set. For mainnet I believe the limit is MAX_INT_256 (which is an obscenely large number). For testnet it may be much lower.
 arith_uint256 bnNew; 
This will be the new difficulty.
 bnNew.SetCompact(pindexPrev->nBits); 
Pre-set the new difficulty to current difficulty (note how current difficulty may have been readjusted previously by Bitcoin Cash's emergency difficulty readjust).
 bnNew *= nActualTimespan; 
Scale the difficulty up to the actual timespan. Note actual timespan is clamped in the range (25%,400%) of 120960 seconds aka (30240,483840) seconds.
 bnNew /= params.nPowTargetTimespan; 
Divide the computed product back by the idealized timespan (120960). This basically is what retargets difficulty right here, in simple math.
 if (bnNew > bnPowLimit) bnNew = bnPowLimit; 
Cap the difficulty at the limit for this configuration.
 return bnNew.GetCompact(); 
Return the result as a 32-bit 'compact' representation of the difficulty.. the details of what this number means I won't go into here as they aren't important.
} 
submitted by NilacTheGrim to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Scaling Debate: Big Blocks, Hard Fork - Roger Ver, Phil Potter, Alex Petrov, Eric Lombrozo (Dec. 13, 2016)

Bitcoin Scaling Debate: Big Blocks, Hard Fork - Roger Ver, Phil Potter, Alex Petrov, Eric Lombrozo (Dec. 13, 2016) submitted by eragmus to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

02-23 16:23 - '[quote] Blocks were no fuller in March 2017 than they were in March 2016 or (almost) any time in between. The decline in marketcap dominance had a lot more to do with all the ICOs than it had to do with network congestion...' by /u/nowitsalllgone removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-8min

'''
here is what happened when blocks were full the first time in March 2017
Blocks were no fuller in March 2017 than they were in March 2016 or (almost) any time in between. The decline in marketcap dominance had a lot more to do with all the ICOs than it had to do with network congestion.
Also, marketcap is a misleading metric because it is easy for alts to game it. If you make a coin that has 1 billion supply and you sell one of its tokens for $1, you suddenly have a $1 billion market cap.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: nowitsalllgone
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Unlimited + Classic hashrate (support for bigger blocks) has been steadily increasing since December 2016.

Bitcoin Unlimited + Classic hashrate (support for bigger blocks) has been steadily increasing since December 2016. submitted by BiggerBlocksPlease to btc [link] [comments]

Why does difficulty adjust every 2016 blocks instead minimum between that and 2 weeks? /r/Bitcoin

Why does difficulty adjust every 2016 blocks instead minimum between that and 2 weeks? /Bitcoin submitted by cryptoallbot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

Why does difficulty adjust every 2016 blocks instead minimum between that and 2 weeks? /r/Bitcoin

Why does difficulty adjust every 2016 blocks instead minimum between that and 2 weeks? /Bitcoin submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Why the difficulty is adjusted after 2016 blocks? /r/Bitcoin

Why the difficulty is adjusted after 2016 blocks? /Bitcoin submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

The difficulty gets only adjusted every 2016 blocks? Is this a weak point of bitcoin that should be fixed in a software fork?

The difficulty gets only adjusted every 2016 blocks? Is this a weak point of bitcoin that should be fixed in a software fork?
submitted by foundanotherscam to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

We are at 0.10 satoshi per byte to be included in the next 6 blocks, that's the lowest fees since 18th of November 2016. Using Segwit reduces the cost of your transactions by another 40%. Good times /r/Bitcoin

We are at 0.10 satoshi per byte to be included in the next 6 blocks, that's the lowest fees since 18th of November 2016. Using Segwit reduces the cost of your transactions by another 40%. Good times /Bitcoin submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitnodes counts altcoin nodes (ABC) as Bitcoin nodes (ABC has lowered the difficulty "by hand" instead of every 2016 blocks) while they must exclude them in their Bitcoin transaction fee calculation: double standards?

Bitnodes counts altcoin nodes (ABC) as Bitcoin nodes (ABC has lowered the difficulty submitted by sumBTC to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

There is only one Bitcoin, adjusts difficulty every 2016 blocks since January 2009

submitted by sumBTC to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Excessive-Block Gate: How a Bitcoin Unlimited Node Deals With Large Blocks | Peter R | Nov 22 2016

Peter R on Nov 22 2016:
Dear all,
Bitcoin Unlimited’s market-based solution to the block-size limit is slowly winning support from node operators and miners. With this increased attention, many people are asking for a better explanation of how Bitcoin Unlimited actually works. The article linked below describes how Bitcoin Unlimited’s excessive-block logic works from the perspective of a single node. (I’m hoping to do a follow-up article that describe how this “node-scale” behavior facilitates the emergence of a fluid and organic block size limit at the network scale.)
https://medium.com/@peter_the-excessive-block-gate-how-a-bitcoin-unlimited-node-deals-with-large-blocks-22a4a5c322d4 https://medium.com/@peter_the-excessive-block-gate-how-a-bitcoin-unlimited-node-deals-with-large-blocks-22a4a5c322d4
Best regards,
Peter R
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20161122/2f884976/attachment.html
original: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Novembe013321.html
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

True or false: the price of bitcoin will almost certainly have to double during the block-reward halving (BRH) of 2016.

The nature of bitcoin-mining is such that the amount of mining power increases until the cost of mining one bitcoin is just a few percents less than the price of one bitcoin, making it marginally profitable, much like any business in the world that operates on a few percents net profit after expenses.
Thus when the price of bitcoin drops under the base cost of mining, miners stop selling and begin buying in order to make up for the losses of not being able to sell once the price rises, as it virtually must if you know you're a competitive low-cost miner and the price is under your cost of production.
This is what happened in late 2012 with the first block-reward halving (BRH), miners kept mining but stopped selling, and started buying.
The resulting supply shock resulted in a historic price rise from ~$12 to averaging over $100 for most of the rest of that year with some variation.
Now, we have another block-reward halving coming up in late 2016. If miner's are mining just barely profitably at whatever the price is at that time, do you agree the price of bitcoin must roughly double to support the cost of mining? I can't see any obvious reason why this shouldn't be true.
Of course it's quite likely that speculators will price this expectation in and the price may actually begin rising considerably months before the BRH (block-reward halving). But nonetheless, around that time do you expect to see a considerable price increase? Why or why not?
Ultimately this can kickstart a much higher market cap for all bitcoin, and less supply, meaning more price stability overall.
It may also kick-off another period of investment in mining by the large mining companies who will want to use it as an opportunity to expand, to have equipment ready as lower-efficiency miners will be forced to shut-off their equipment, another slice of the pie will be up for grabs if you can just weather the storm of price shock for a few months.
Nonetheless, we should throw a BRH party when it happens!
submitted by Anenome5 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

It's the year 2016...Bitcoin is now a household word, even if everyone doesn't use it. The block reward just got cut in half...

What happens in the Bitcoin world the next time that the block reward gets cut in half after a decent level of mainstream adoption?
submitted by Ninsha to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Blockchain Hard Fork Scheduled on September 11th 2016 at Block Height 429400. Who will switch to new Hard Forked chain?

I plan to be on the longest chain. Which chain will you be on? If nobody goes on the new chain, what happens to the new hard forked chain?
submitted by unconfirmedbtc to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: i don't like this. 94% of the last 2016 blocks were mined by mining pools supporting NYA /r/ImagesOfThe2010s

Bitcoin mentioned around Reddit: i don't like this. 94% of the last 2016 blocks were mined by mining pools supporting NYA /ImagesOfThe2010s submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitnodes counts altcoin nodes (ABC) as Bitcoin nodes (ABC has lowered the difficulty "by hand" instead of every 2016 blocks) while they must exclude them in their Bitcoin transaction fee calculation: double standards?

Bitnodes counts altcoin nodes (ABC) as Bitcoin nodes (ABC has lowered the difficulty submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Scaling Debate - Big Blocks, Hard Fork - Roger Ver, Phil Potter, Petrov, Lombrozo - Dec 14 2016

Bitcoin Scaling Debate - Big Blocks, Hard Fork - Roger Ver, Phil Potter, Petrov, Lombrozo - Dec 14 2016 submitted by breakup7532 to btc [link] [comments]

Big Blocks Can Scale  But Will It Centralize Bitcoin? Blockchain/Bitcoin for beginners 6: blocks and mining, content and creation of bitcoin blocks Bitcoin Price Prediction For 2016 The Beginner’s Guide to Bitcoin Part 6: How Bitcoin Works with Shinobi Bitcoin Q&A: What will happen during The Halvening 2016? - Haves & Have-nots

This is compounded by the reduction in reward for blocks mined every 210,000 blocks. Each time that threshold is reached, the reward is halved. In early 2020, mining a block rewards 12.5 Bitcoins If you simply want to save the most bandwidth possible while still relaying blocks to peers, there is a blocksonly mode already available starting in Bitcoin Core v0.12. Blocks-only mode only receives transactions when they’re included in a block, so there is no extra transaction overhead. The network as a whole. Before the Aug 1, 2017 Bitcoin Cash (BCH) fork, Difficulty was re-calculated every 2016 blocks. Now, Difficulty is re-calculated every block to ensure blocks are found every 10 minutes on average. As more computers attempt to mine Bitcoin Cash (BCH) and increase the Hash Rate, the difficulty will increase. If the Hash Rate decreases, difficulty Ten years ago, coder and cryptographer Harold Thomas Finney II, more commonly known as Hal Finney, posted the first known Tweet about Bitcoin, telling the world that he was “run Every 2016 blocks (solved in about two weeks), all Bitcoin clients compare the actual number created with this goal and modify the target by the percentage that it varied. The network comes to a consensus and automatically increases (or decreases) the difficulty of generating blocks.

[index] [18611] [14572] [9134] [24094] [29641] [11462] [19298] [4391] [230] [8208]

Big Blocks Can Scale But Will It Centralize Bitcoin?

Block Reward Halving to Bring $3,000 Per Bitcoin?! ... Buying Bitcoin in 2020 Is Like Buying Bitcoin in 2016. Here Is Why! [Opinion] - Duration: 10:08. Altcoin Daily 38,649 views. Keywords/phrases: the Halvening / Bitcoin halving. Block reward, ending the era of 25 BTC & entering the era of 12.5 BTC. Differences in monetary policy expectations with Bitcoin vs. central banks. Bitcoin Block Reward Halving 2016 Rewards 25 → 12.5 Masara Oshima. ... Block Reward Halving to Bring $3,000 Per Bitcoin?! ... Bitcoin Q&A: What will happen during The Halvening 2016? ... Bitcoin Whitepaper: http://nakamotoinstitute.org/bitcoin/ Satoshi quotes on nodes: http://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/quotes/nodes/ Good reads: https://med... In Part 6 of the Bitcoin Beginner’s Guide, I am joined by Shinobi, host of Block Digest. In this episode, we are looking at how the Bitcoin protocol works. We discuss the supply & halvings ...

Flag Counter