What Is Bitcoin?

BIP draft from [bitcoin-dev]: Suggestion for a universal bitcoin value scale (color codes)

Abstract

A universal bitcoin value color scale is presented here as a way to creating an easy visual aid for insuring correct amounts in transactions.

Motivation

The motivation behind this BIP is in line with BIP 176 by Jimmy Song. The bitcoin price has grown over the years and once the price is past $10,000 USD or so, bitcoin amounts under $10 USD start having enough decimal places that it's difficult to tell whether the user is off by a factor of 10 or not. This proposal is a supplement to the BIP 176, utilizing the digital nature of bitcoin, to allow a visual aid in the bitcoin transactions. This is doing to insure a common understanding of the amount in question between the parties trading.
Potential benefits of utilizing " A universal bitcoin value color scale" include:
  1. Reduce user error on bitcoin amounts.
  2. Allow easier comparisons of prices for most users.
  3. Using a visual aid makes transactions easier for people with dyscalculia.
  4. Allow easier bi-directional comparisons to altcoins and fiat currencies.
PDF
Example Picture
submitted by StopAndDecrypt to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Amir Taaki, the bitcoin pioneer who started openbazaar and BIPs on current state of Bitcoin Core: "Current developers have no vision. When people consume something as a pure commodity with no purpose or meaning then that product loses all higher value to change the world"

Amir Taaki, the bitcoin pioneer who started openbazaar and BIPs on current state of Bitcoin Core: submitted by hunk_quark to btc [link] [comments]

Andreas on Twitter: "Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 75 is actually a bitcoin deterioration proposal. Facilitating KYC at any layer reduces value of bitcoin"

submitted by chinawat to btc [link] [comments]

BIP Draft via [bitcoin-dev] mailing list - Suggestion for a universal bitcoin value scale /r/Bitcoin

BIP Draft via [bitcoin-dev] mailing list - Suggestion for a universal bitcoin value scale /Bitcoin submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

BIP draft from [bitcoin-dev]: Suggestion for a universal bitcoin value scale (color codes) /r/Bitcoin

BIP draft from [bitcoin-dev]: Suggestion for a universal bitcoin value scale (color codes) /Bitcoin submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Amir Taaki, the bitcoin pioneer who started openbazaar and BIPs on current state of Bitcoin Core: "Current developers have no vision. When people consume something as a pure commodity with no purpose or meaning then that product loses all higher value to change the world"

Amir Taaki, the bitcoin pioneer who started openbazaar and BIPs on current state of Bitcoin Core: submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Andreas on Twitter: "Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 75 is actually a bitcoin deterioration proposal. Facilitating KYC at any layer reduces value of bitcoin"

Andreas on Twitter: submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

New BIP: Low S values signatures | Johnson Lau | Aug 16 2016 /r/bitcoin_devlist

New BIP: Low S values signatures | Johnson Lau | Aug 16 2016 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

06-29 17:37 - 'Andreas on Twitter: Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 75 is actually a bitcoin deterioration proposal. Facilitating KYC at any layer reduces value of bitcoin' (twitter.com) by /u/maskedgenius removed from /r/Bitcoin within 6-11min

Andreas on Twitter: Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 75 is actually a bitcoin deterioration proposal. Facilitating KYC at any layer reduces value of bitcoin
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: maskedgenius
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

el="" >Andreas on Twitter: Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 75 is actually a bitcoin deterioration proposal. Facilitating KYC at any layer reduces value of bitcoin

el=Andreas on Twitter: Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 75 is actually a bitcoin deterioration proposal. Facilitating KYC at any layer reduces value of bitcoin" title="el="" >Andreas on Twitter: Bitcoin Improvement Proposal (BIP) 75 is actually a bitcoin deterioration proposal. Facilitating KYC at any layer reduces value of bitcoin" /> submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

[BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol | Toby Padilla | Jan 26 2016 /r/bitcoin_devlist

[BIP Draft] Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol | Toby Padilla | Jan 26 2016 /bitcoin_devlist submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

BIP-74 Draft: Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol /r/Bitcoin

BIP-74 Draft: Allow zero value OP_RETURN in Payment Protocol /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

BIPS, Bitcoin Internet Payment System 2013 Contest Grand prize valued at $4800 See more https://bips.me/referrer

BIPS, Bitcoin Internet Payment System 2013 Contest Grand prize valued at $4800 See more https://bips.me/referrer submitted by BIPSBitcoin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Technical: The Path to Taproot Activation

Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it!
(If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?)
(Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times)
Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
So yes, let's activate taproot!

The SegWit Wars

The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions.
So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!

BIP9 Miner-Activated Soft Fork

Basically, BIP9 has a bunch of parameters:
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two.
A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this.
So, first some simple questions and their answers:

The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars

SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain).
So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%.
Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.

BIP9 Feature Hostage

If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage.
You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever.
With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you.
This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.

Covert ASICBoost

ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere
Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected.
Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway.
Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost!
But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage).
Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit.
Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!

UASF: BIP148 and BIP8

When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit.
Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit.
This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core.
Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout).
BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled.
This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9.
Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.

BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath

BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community.
One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym.
The text of the NYA was basically:
  1. Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
    • When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
  2. If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91.
Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit.
Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X).
This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists.
Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.

Taproot Activation Proposals

There are two primary proposals I can see for Taproot activation:
  1. BIP8.
  2. Modern Softfork Activation.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout)
So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!

Modern Softfork Activation

This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
  1. First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
  2. If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
  3. Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation.
The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.

PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades

Software is very birttle.
Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
  1. You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
  2. Excited, you install the new version.
  3. You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
  4. You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
  5. You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
  6. You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system.
And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk.
Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations.
So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
  1. One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
  2. The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist.
Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems.
When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well).
This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

This is a follow-up on https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hqzp14/technical_the_path_to_taproot_activation/
Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners?
And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess.
First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so).
So, how does Taproot affect those principles?

Taproot and Your /Coins

Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash).
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input).
However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits!
Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh?
With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save!
And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well!
(P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1)
Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service!
So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win!
(even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot)
And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!

Taproot and Your Contracts

No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade.
So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust.
Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade.
However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade.
In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address.
Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants).
But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer).
Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos).
(technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code.
This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded.
And you can do that, with HTLCs, today.
Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar".
Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given public key to you.
Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige).
(Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key).
So:
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script.
(technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)

Quantum Quibbles!

Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable??
Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not.
It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash.
When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key.
So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key.
(public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL)
And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions.
So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort.
Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers.
For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
So:
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).

Summary

I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[ Bitcoin ] Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

Topic originally posted in Bitcoin by almkglor [link]
This is a follow-up on https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hqzp14/technical_the_path_to_taproot_activation/
Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners?
And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess.
First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so).
So, how does Taproot affect those principles?

Taproot and Your /Coins

Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash).
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input).
However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits!
Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh?
With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save!
And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well!
(P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1)
Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service!
So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win!
(even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot)
And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!

Taproot and Your Contracts

No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade.
So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust.
Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade.
However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade.
In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address.
Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants).
But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer).
Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos).
(technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code.
This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded.
And you can do that, with HTLCs, today.
Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar".
Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given private key to you.
Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige).
(Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key).
So:
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script.
(technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)

Quantum Quibbles!

Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable??
Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not.
It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash.
When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key.
So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key.
(public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL)
And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions.
So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort.
Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers.
For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
So:
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).

Summary

I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

almkglor your post has been copied because one or more comments in this topic have been removed. This copy will preserve unmoderated topic. If you would like to opt-out, please send a message using [this link].
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
[deleted comment]
submitted by anticensor_bot to u/anticensor_bot [link] [comments]

Random idea: USL, but for Bitcoin addresses

This is my rough idea for a Bitcoin change that would allow for a bit more fraud protection. I might write up a BIP later if I get around to actually nailing it down.
For those unaware, the Universal Scammer List (USL) is a page dedicated to keeping track of the usernames of scammers on Reddit. Basically, if you want to conduct a transaction with someone on Reddit, you should first check if they're listed as a known scammer.
My idea is to do the same with Bitcoin addresses. A decentralised database of blacklisted addresses would be kept by anyone running a full node. Any funds in the blacklisted addresses are deemed worthless.
For example, address A gets listed for hacking into an exchange and stealing coins. Any funds held by address A would be deemed worthless. If they send 10 BTC to address B, then the network would remember that address B has 10 BTC that is worthless. If address B originally had 5 BTC and was sent 10 BTC by address A, they would have 15 BTC, but the bottom 10 BTC would be deemed worthless. If address B sends 2 BTC to address C, then C receives 2 good BTC and B is left with 3 good BTC and 10 blacklisted BTC, but if B sends another 4 BTC to address D, then D would receive 3 good BTC and 1 worthless BTC, and the network would now remember that D has 1 worthless Bitcoin. Therefore, before accepting the transaction as payment for something, they would have to check to make sure that they are not receiving worthless blacklisted coins.
Miners could also choose to selectively refuse to mine transactions involving blacklisted BTC because any miners' fees collected from such a transaction would be blacklisted as well. This could mean someone trying to send blacklisted BTC is essentially broadcasting a transaction with a 0 sat/byte fee rate, meaning their transaction would probably be stuck in the Mempool for quite a long time, if not forever if miners refuse to mine it.
Whenever someone wants an address blacklisted, they would announce it to the public via any mechanism, and anyone keeping a full node can decide whether or not to blacklist the address. Therefore, anyone who disagrees with the blacklisting is free to accept the coins at face value or mine them into a block. If you don't agree with the evidence presented, then you are free to not blacklist them. Therefore, contested coins would only be accepted as valid payment by those who think the coins should have never been blacklisted in the first place.
This system would not be meant to help every single person who gets scammed with Bitcoin, but it would discourage large scale wholesale Bitcoin fraud. It would be ridiculous to expect all full-node maintainers to become arbitrators of all disputes, and consensus would never be reached on half of the transactions being processed. Node operators would also ideally not have to remember as many transactions involving blacklisted coins because miners would refuse to mine them (transaction fees collected would be in blacklisted coins), meaning they'd be stuck in the Mempool for long periods of time, reducing the speed at which they can be moved around, if at all. So the ledger of blacklisted coins would not have to be updated extremely often. Blacklisting would only happen for really big scams involving tens or hundreds of Bitcoin, like if an exchange got hacked or something.
Scams have effectively less than an hour to be discovered. 10 minutes for the deposit into the address in question, and more, depending on how many block confirmations something must have before others will accept it for transactions sell goods for it. Therefore, if a merchant requires 3 block confirmations, then they would give 40 minutes for the address to be blacklisted. If the buyer's address is blacklisted before the transaction to the merchant gets 3 block confirmations, the merchant would realise they've been sent blacklisted coins and not ship the goods. 40 minutes isn't a lot of time, but it's better than nothing.
This has the additional effect of encouraging people to wait for more confirmations. For low-value transactions, the risk is nominal because even if you were sent worthless coins, you're probably only out the price of a coffee. But if you're selling a house, you might want to wait for even more block confirmations.
Money sent around too much could be deemed "too late to blacklist" if there is a risk that it would result in too many innocent people's Bitcoin getting blacklisted.
This system doesn't refund the Bitcoin of victims, so poor security practices would still be punished by a loss of coins, but criminals would not be rewarded for their efforts either. The lack of reward (or the risk of a lack of reward) would hopefully make people less inclined to try and pull off the type of big scams that are giving Bitcoin a bad reputation!
submitted by NateNate60 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

dxDAO aims to power DeFi protocols through decentralized governance

I found this article on internet. It's repost of it to help educate people about all DXDao advantages:
These are positive and necessary steps for DeFi. The new governance structures are intended to help coordinate across community stakeholders and make better decisions. These dynamics are influenced by the issues covered in Dose of DeFi, but I believe they deserve their own focused analysis.
Govern This aims to educate token holders and make them better voters. Emphasis will be placed on specific governance proposals and relaying community governance discussions on forums and weekly calls.
Governance is a coordination technology that has helped countries and companies build more than the sum of their parts. Blockchains are also a coordination technology, but for computers, not humans***.*** Govern This will track the development of the melding of these two over the coming years.
Like governance, Govern This is a work in progress. I would appreciate any feedback on format, topics covered or any other suggestions to make the newsletter better. Just hit reply.
The first issue of Govern This is below. Please click here to subscribe.
Thanks for reading,
Chris
📷
dxDAO aims to power DeFi protocols through decentralized governance
Gnosis launched a long-awaited DEX last week with batched auctions for low-liquidity trade pairs. The front-end, Mesa.Eth.Link is owned and operated by dxDAO, a decentralized collective that hopes to power other DeFi protocols.
While dYdX does not have any specific governance plans (yet), this tweet from dYdX founder Antonio Juliano is a common approach to governance.
📷Antonio Juliano @AntonioMJuliano3) 0x should focus less on governance in the short term. It’s way more important to first build something with a large amount of adoption that’s worth governing
December 6th 2018
3 Retweets62 Likes
The tweet at the end of 2018 was in response to 0x and its native token, ZRX. The project was popular but the token had no use case outside of governance.
This governance strategy – build now, decentralize later – is widely accepted in the space and is perhaps best exemplified by the A16Z’s Jesse Walden’s post, “Progressive Decentralization: A Playbook for Building Crypto Applications”, which the A16Z-backed Compound has essentially implemented (more in the section below).
dxDAO, on the other hand, maintains that decentralization must come at the beginning or else the core team and investors will have an outsized influence on the project in formal (token voting) or informal ways (dictators for life).
Background
dxDAO was launched in May 2019, spun out of a collaboration between Gnosis and DAOstack over managing the DutchX platform. dxDAO’s key governance design is separating financial rights to the DAO (DXD) from voting power over the DAO (Reputation). It used an Edgeware-style lock drop to distribute reputation to stakeholders in May of last year. Any user could lock up ETH or an accepted ERC-20 for a month and receive Reputation, which are voting rights in dxDAO, even though it is not a token and cannot be transferred.
Over 400 unique Ethereum addresses participated in the distribution scheme. Gnosis went through a pretty extensive process in July 2019 to “step back” from its involvement in the DAO, and since then, the community and dxDAO have aligned behind a mission of “putting the ‘De’ in Decentralized Finance”.
Following on last week’s launch of Mesa.ETH.Link, dxDAO is conducting a fundraiser or (“DAICO”?) to help fund its new slate of DeFi products, including a prediction market platform (Omen) and a privacy-centric DeFi dashboard (Mix).
Project launch is typically when a project is most centralized. Execution is hard and direction and accountability are important. dxDAO’s approach will be an interesting counterexample to the “decentralize later” trend and may provide insight into new governance strategies.
Click here for more information about the dxDAO fundraiser.
Here’s what is on the dxDAO docket this week:
Compound governance goes live, has it found Market-Protocol-Fit?
Since its founding in 2017, Compound has executed with an almost flawless record: no bugs/hacks, a major protocol upgrade and a big name fundraise (twice).
But all of that has been because Compound, the company, has executed well, but can protocol development and the growth of the platform be sustained with community management? We shall see.
Compound’s governance system could not be simpler. Anyone with at least 1% of COMP can submit a proposal of executable code. COMP holders have a 3 day voting period; the proposal passes with a majority of token votes AND a 4% quorum of all COMP tokens.
The 1% minimum for proposal submission is a good anti-Sybil mechanism but it greatly limits participation by small users. There is delegation, so you could imagine a “proposal petition” where you would delegate your COMP to a proposal instead of signing your name.
Compound is clearly taking the “less governance is the best governance” approach. This has worked surprisingly well with Bitcoin and Ethereum, which of course, do not have any formal governance, but those communities clearly have informal governance systems that make decisions.
The biggest governance question for Compound: who is the community?
Market-Protocol-Fit
Other Internet has an intriguing essay on the emergent order from new blockchain tokens and their communities. It is worth a read. It discusses the emergent iteration that blockchains – as a technology and a community – go through to find a niche, both in culture and product.
While it focuses on base-layer blockchains that launch with a token, the essay underscores the most underrated governance element: token distribution. It quotes an insightful tweet from Eric Wall
📷Eric Wall @ercwlA question that keeps me up at night: Is it possible to create a rubbish coin based on advanced bullshit, build a community of misguided fans nevertheless, run it centralized for 5 yrs, hardfork-copy the design of a real working project, keep the community and become a success?
keysheet @keysheet
@ErcWll was one of the first vocal critics of IOTA back in 2017, shortly before the project hit a market cap of $15B. https://t.co/2267e8LEpl Today, the project is down 99% and appears to be brutally falling apart. A thread:
February 13th 2020
17 Retweets163 Likes
Before Bitcoin could harden its code and find ‘Digital Gold’ and before Ethereum found ‘DeFi’ and ships ETH2.0, both needed to find a “a strong community of believers” in order to create a “virtuous cycle between headless brands and infrastructural build-out to progressively realize [their] initial promise.”
Communities are connected through a wide spread token distribution, Bitcoin through cypherpunks and online drugs and Ethereum through a global ICO (what Teo Leibowitz called “The Immaculate ICO”).
$COMP distribution
The biggest “news” has been details about $COMP distribution:
There are no explicit plans yet, but the widely held assumption is that the COMP distribution will be determined by the interest earned and paid by users on the protocol since its inception. This is a clever way that only incentivizes more use of the protocol and is hard to game because interests accrues over time.
But the question still remains, what will the COMP community look like and what values will it espouse? Can emergent cultures arise out of Silicon Valley too?
Here’s what is on the Compound docket this week:
Maker and wBTC, a test case for the MIP process
While Maker had planned to spend Q2 moving forward with their upgraded governance process, most of its focus has been on restoring the Dai peg.
For more on how the Maker governance process has expanded outside the core community, check out the previous edition of Govern This.
Here’s what is on the Maker docket this week:
Governance and Risk meeting (April 23)
Single Collateral Dai shutdown – the process has begun. A poll passed with May 12 as the official SCD shutdown. Just yesterday, an executive just passed yesterday to make the MKR oracle fee-less, which will help with migration. Many in the community think the migration of debt from SCD will do more than enough to restore the peg.
13 MIPs and 2 sub proposals – Core to the new Maker governance process is the “Maker Improvement Proposals (MIPs), which are modeled off of BIPs (for Bitcoin) and EIPs (for Ethereum). The two sub-proposals are to appoint the Smart Contracts Team and assign Charles St. Louis as the MIP editor.
The 13 MIPs are listed below:
- MIP1 (Maker Governance Paradigms)- MIP2 (Launch Period)- MIP3 (Governance Cycle)- MIP4 (MIP Amendment and Removal Process)- MIP5 (Emergency Voting System)- MIP6 (Collateral Onboarding Form/Forum Template)- MIP7 (Onboarding and Offboarding Domain Teams for Collateral Onboarding)- MIP8 (Domain Greenlight)- MIP9 (Community Greenlight)- MIP10 (Oracle Management)- MIP11 (Collateral Onboarding General Risk Model Management)- MIP12 (Collateral and Risk Parameter Management)
By and large, the MIPs codify many of the informal Maker governance processes. There is currently a request for comments period (MIP forum) and there will be an informal poll on Monday, April 27 on whether to proceed with the 13 MIPs and 2 sub proposals. If it’s a “Yes”, than an executive for an official ratification vote would start on May 1 and lasts for 4 days. If it passes, the official governance cycle will begin and the rest of the MIPs will likely be approved from May 4 – 6.
Other Governing Things
That’s it! Feedback definitely appreciated. Just hit reply. Written in Brooklyn where it rained all day. No euchre today, but yesterday was epic.
Govern This is written by Chris Powers. Opinions expressed are my own. All content is for informational purposes and is not intended as investment advice.
submitted by yaroslav_karpov to CryptoMoonShots [link] [comments]

Feelings toward *new* Smart Contracts

TLDR; IOTA has the best chance among other crypto projects to massively disrupt tech
Ok, so I'm certainly not the oldest person in Crypto but I've been perusing and poking different crypto projects for at least 4 years now and I've coalesced around IOTA and developed an aversion to general "Crypto".
Around 3 years ago we saw the rise of Ethereum. This was a glorious moment for Crypto. Yes the value of crypto skyrocketed but the truth; which some still don't see, is this was the first real chance for Crypto to have a mainstream place in daily tech. Ethereum's smart contracts were honestly the only reasonable application Crypto could provide the general populace and it had massive disruptive potential. I will not waste time discussing stores of value of BTC or anonymous txns because the truth is the application for these just hasn't taken hold. With Ethereum's success Crypto in general jumped which was the first time I came to understand the propaganda around Crypto and how those pushing projects like BTC were either misinformed or cared very little about the tech and are only in it for profit. Naive me... This glorious moment saw the creation of numerous smart contract projects including the most successful smart contract application CryptoKitties bringing with it the inevitable collapse of Ethereum. I should have seen this coming. I understood the tech but I was just too excited to think reasonably. CryptoKitties shut down the Ethereum blockchain. We need to think about that for a bit. Basically, the Ethereum platform could not support it's core competency (Smart Contracts) and there it was. Read from the threads what you want but no project that I could see other than Ethereum had a chance at anything reasonable in Crypto and even that shit the bed. We were willing to accept a non-scaling, fee fluctuating piece of garbage just for Smart Contracts. After this I was not interested in any Crypto project that didn't have a fundamentally different platform from Blockchain which could solve the infamous trilemma problem.

As an aside there were a few projects outside of IOTA I had my eye on. Maidsafe, Opacity (formerly Oyster), nano. Looking back on that small list I realize how limited my view of Crypto was as well as how little anyone can really ever know about these projects. Maidsafe is older than Bitcoin and is still trying to boil the ocean... it doesn't seem to be working. Oyster was a massive scandal by its founder and is now not even decentralized go figure. Nano is a one trick pony and is not a platform anyone can reasonably develop on.

IOTA was the obvious pivot for me and many others in Crypto who cared about application and wanted to find a project in the Crypto space with true potential. As the dust settled after the Crypto flop of 2017 IOTA surfaced as the only promising project. This was still hard to see though. So many of us had been bamboozled by Crypto projects. Distinguishing IOTA as not a "scam" was harder than people might expect and oh boy was there FUD. Any chance someone would get to sling mud at IOTA they would. It still blows my mind when I think about it. It seemed like more people wanted IOTA to fail than they wanted Bitcoin to succeed. No one wanted to consider that traditional blockchain was dead; they still don't. Let me be clear, traditional blockchain is dead... its dead tech. Stop trying to patch it, don't introduce another bip stop giving a shit about it. Block chain does not scale, Ethereum will not work either. I'm sorry it won't. If it does it will be after they've completely abandoned blocks in the traditional sense and explain to me how that's possible while continuing to run a blockchain. They are putting effort into trying to solve a problem that they could just avoid by starting over on a different platform. Expect Vitalik to leave the project before this happens. He knows more than anyone that Blockchain is dead. He would hate to admit it but nothing he ever touches can catch IOTA. I am not the 2017 ignorant Crypto enthusiast anymore, I am the tempered realist and Ethereum's future doesn't exist. We should let it die like we should let Bitcoin die. This might be hard to accept but get over it. Put your feelings aside and move on.

The Irony of the FUD against IOTA is that no one copied the tech and it has no direct competitors only apparitions of the past that haunt us on Reddit. Moaning things like "Dooon't rolll your owwwn cryptoooo", We don't see IOTA lite or IOTA cash or IOTA gold so maybe we should thank the haters? On second thought fuck em'. I could create a post nearly twice as long as this talking about IOTA FUD. The point to be made here is that during the last few years it would have been so difficult for any Crypto enthusiast to embrace IOTA with all the bad press. In addition, up until 2018 IOTA was the best Crypto platform to support a future tech which wasn't here yet.

So, here I was, excited about IOTA but not really excited about IOT in general. I didn't "get" it. Yes I understand it but it wasn't solving a problem we have now. We already have a solution that we have yet to fully implement and that's smart contracts. Right now software companies can act as middlemen and reap profits with no overhead. Why do we need an AirBnB, Uber, eBay? Smart Contracts guts these worthless entities and gives the wealth back to the individuals making the transactions. Vitalik got the problem right but proposed the wrong solution.

So, Q2 2018 comes along and with it Qubic. The only thing I cared about was that IOTA was getting smart contracts. I didn't care about the hardware. I didn't care about Jinn or trinary or whatever. I wanted Smart Contracts on the tangle. Here they were!.. kind of. As I dug deeper which was absolutely required since this was not at all trivial I realized that we needed hardware and oracles to implement these smart contracts. I just assumed that due to IOTA's platform this was a necessity because lord knows if they could make smart contracts without having to create trinary chips and oracles they would have tried that first...

In a way my ignorance and faith saved me. I don't know how happy I would have been if I had known they could create smart contracts without all these other steps first. I would have gotten impatient. So I had mixed feelings when I heard about CFB's shenanigans and that IOTA was going to attempt a more traditional Smart Contract implementation. I am more pumped than ever but more disappointed than ever. Why the hell would they not have canned this douche earlier? Do they not understand what they are sitting on? Why are they squandering their time solving a problem (IOT) that doesn't exist yet without prioritizing the next real solution (smart contracts). There are probably many things I don't understand here but I do understand one thing. DO NOT FOLLOW PEOPLE. Satoshi is not your savior, Vitalik is not your savior, CFB, Sonstebo, Dominik, Popov will all fail you at some point. The project is the real foundation. It is the thing that doesn't get corrupted. It is the things these individuals coalesce around. They know deep down what they have and they won't give it up. So the lesson is don't measure the individual, measure the product.

Aight, so I've basically laid out the punch line for you. IOTA; the best platform in crypto existence, that's solved the trilemma (with coordicide) will also be implementing Smart Contracts. This isn't an exaggeration. It is the next step for Crypto. Either this works and the Crypto community can slough off its past delusions and look forward or it doesn't work and we continue to wait. Hopefully, we get it right this time.
submitted by 3dworldrunner to Iota [link] [comments]

You do not know how to start mining? We have an idea!

Most people will agree that mining now is a very expensive pleasure. Huge money is being invested by people in order to create minimum conditions for profitable mining. The situation is not improving, rather, on the contrary, every year we notice an increasingly obvious tendency for the number of investments necessary for mining to grow. Earlier, experts argued that for effective mining of Bitcoin, its price should be around $ 16,000. The era of home mining is a thing of the past, now it is almost impossible to profitably mine without huge costs for equipment. Or is it still possible? Everyone wants to solve this problem, not just us. And as you know, when people have a strong need for something, the market and technology will definitely help us! It's time to learn new technologies for mining. At the moment, one of the most attractive and interesting is Pos mining. SPACEBOT provides an opportunity to increase cryptocurrency mining productivity per month by mining coins BIP, PRIZM and other cryptocurrencies due to the overall greater balance in the blockchain network using the Proof-of-Stake system. Why you should pay attention to Pos mining?
"Proof-of-Stake" or proof of ownership, this term is deciphered in this way - this is an alternative way of mining. In blockchain networks based on Proof-of-Stake, trusted nodes are involved in transaction confirmation and the generation of new blocks. They must have a certain number of tokens on the balance sheet and receive remuneration for their work. Using this technique, you can create an effective option for passive income with a high level of profitability. We are changing the idea of mining as a huge system with a bunch of complex and expensive equipment. In many ways, the principle is similar to a deposit account, which receives interest as a reward for using the bank's services. In some cases, the criminal who wishes to attack the coin is among the victims, because the cryptocurrency is losing stability and value. The advantage of the Pos-mining algorithm is a high level of security. The organizational structure makes an attack on a PoS-based system unprofitable. How to start Pos mining?
Download the Spacebot app on the App Store or Play Market.
- Come up with a nickname
- Enter your email address
- Create a strong password (it is better if it contains letters and numbers)
- Enter the email (if you have the appropriate field: "Mail up liner"), which invited you to the mobile application.
- Check "I accept" (I agree) after reading the user agreement
- "Sign Up" (register)
Top up your balance and take advantage of all the features of SPACEBOT.
You can purchase cryptocurrency on the exchange or exchanger.
submitted by CryptoSpace_Bot to u/CryptoSpace_Bot [link] [comments]

[Idea] Bech32 encoding of private keys

Ever since I saw BIP-173 I was excited to see the encoding used anywhere other than addresses. I've done some search but apart from some comments here and there I haven't been able to find any major work done (please let me know if you know of any proposals). Here is my idea of addressing some of the problems with current encoding of private keys:

Using Bech32 encoding instead of Base58

While writing a private key recovery tool I've felt how hard it is to come up with an optimized algorithm to recover a key that is missing a couple of characters (eg. a damaged paper wallet). That is not true with Bech32 being a multiply of base-2 algorithm is inherently faster, and the checksum is not a bottleneck since it is not a hash algorithm. Bech32 also has the benefit of having error detection.

Script (address) type

Currently when a user imports/sweeps a private key in a wallet client, that client either has to explicitly ask user for the script type (like Electrum) which means user is exposed to complications and has to be familiar with script types; or the wallet has to construct all script types and scan the blockchain for all of them (like bitcoin core) which adds more burden on the client. If the encoding included a script type that becomes so much easier.

Locktime!

Another burden on both clients and users (specially full node users) is the time consuming need for a re-scan of the entire blockchain to find the historical transactions that belong to an imported key. A timestamp can make that process a lot shorter. Using locktime (similar to last 4 bytes of any transaction) the key string (aka WIF) could include either a block height or a date-time value of when the key was created.
This idea was added to Bitcoin.Net library as an "experimental" class. Direct link to the code
Here is an example with a random key from Bitcoin.Net KeyHelper class:
Original WIF (Base-58): L28Peud5cQcijrtMthAdUS8FynpM8PKZtnoUZb1VAio9WxKoebHt Key bytes (Base-16): 92734fe879f662ff8ee4eb87dd019425e2ee73ff3edd0c4dc3def2f71e1a6a69 Version byte (ie. the script type): 0x02 or P2WPKH Date UTC: 5/4/2020 7:11:05 AM H.R.P.: bprv New encoding (versioned Bech-32): bprv1zjfe5l6re7e30lrhyawra6qv5yh3wuull8mwscnwrmme0w8s6df5sns90tcqqzyen4e 
Note that key is encoded the same way an address would be encoded (version byte is added separately as a 5-bit value instead of 8-bit).
submitted by Coding_Enthusiast to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

My Trezor (MEW?) account got compremised, funds were stolen

Hello ladies and gentleman,
I hope you can help me out somehow. I put it in bitcoin as well despite its ethereum but its about trezor and the btc part is involved. In mid september all my ethereum and ethereum based stuff was cleared from my MEW accounts for roughly 38k USD. Trezor couldnt help me at all and we went through all the topics and questions they had which lead to nothing exept an basic answer “your seeds got compromised in the past“, which doesn’t make any sense and I will explain why.
Lets say, Im a person with some basic tech knowledge and worked as admin and I use common sense to handle my crypto stuff which is part of my business and daily task since 2 years.I check all things again before sending. Adress, amount etc and never had any problems before.I never was on a fake page where I had to give my seed or passphrases inI dont open spam mails nor use my new laptop for something else then work, like visiting porn sites or shady stuff or use cracks etc. I didnt even found a malitous cookie after checking everything. The laptop I used was 3 months old and set up on my own with windows, firwall, antivir and anti malware stuff. Things I am doing form me and my friends since year 2000. No cracks used for programms, everything legal. I use a trezor one since then which is updated accordingly when the tool or page prompts me. I used to use chrome as my default browser (which i learned, over the past months trying to figure out what might have happened, is one oft the worst browsers).
No one has my seedsno one knows my pin to entert the trezorI dont store any of this information onlineI dont know my private keys from trezor
So what happened was that september 9 in the evening, a few hours after I sent some usdt deposit to my adress, I want to check if everything is there, login to my MEW account (online, not offline and url was correct. no addon used, just the shortcut in my browser which i safed there and always used and later checked i fit was linked to something else which wasnt), and the account was empty. Three ethereum adresses where i stored some coins, eth and usdt.
I realised that every transaction below happened while i was standing infront of my laptop (checked time happening), trezor connected cause i did some btc transaction before and chatted to customers on different chat tools like telegram or skype. Obvsly without signing any transaction at all everything was sent to other adresses. It seemed someone got the keys to those adresses before. Now, I dont even know my private keys to those adresses which are stored in trezor right? I wasnt logged into MEW before this incident for about 1.5 days. The btc part on my trezor is MUCH more valuable, but still there. After trezor couldnt help me about what happened and MEW treated me like the standard idiot who gets highjacked and then wonders why his money is gone, I went trough so many possibilities. For the most time I thought some kind of KRACK attack happened.
The only problem is trezor says they dont extract the private keys. Some gurus in this topic ( i read on reddit here) say its possible to get them from the network. Even parts are enough to encrypt the whole key after a while which would underline the timeline that it took 6 days from working in this hotel and having the unusual situation with the sending (down explained) till the accs got cleared.
The hotel incident happened the week before my accounts got cleared. I was visitting friends and coworking agents in Vietnam and stayed in a red doorz hotel in Ho Chi Minh. Using the Hotel Wifi and a nvpn.net VPN I sent some usdt funds via MEW to a befriended customer and something very stranged happened, which I never had before.I sent 4k usdt to a customer and the transaction took 13 min working working working and then failed. I’ve never had something like that. We thought it might be because of eth network or so but we never had that before, me and him sending a lot transactions every day.
Then i copied all details in again and send another 4k and somehow he recieved both!
check the screen. The one transaction processed nearly 13 min then failed. 2min later i sent a new one and without any evidence in this screen he recieved both.
https://s19.directupload.net/images/200121/27e8uyd3.jpg
later
https://s19.directupload.net/images/200121/3todak3u.png
So he sent me back the additional 4k and I shut down everything not thinking about this much anymore. Only when the accounts got cleared I was searching for any unusual happenings which could have let to this because pretty much all other “typical“ mistakes people normally do we could exclude. If somehow my seeds got compromised why only the ETH stuff? The btc parts on the trezor had much much more value. I never searched for trezor page on the web and used a link to access my wallets or to do updates. I always used the trezor bridge and made a shortcut to my wallet in my browser. For MEW i always used the same shortcut in my browser which worked pretty fine for the past years an everytime when setting the browser or pc new i checked it all before.
Because of the unusual thing which happened in Vietnam I flew back there (from philippines) prepared with tools and checking because I couldnt let go and I didnt find any other plausible cause. I even got back my old room. In this hotel there are three hotel wifi network and I remeber 100% that I used the 2nd one before cause it had the strongest signal. Anyway. I switched on wireshark and later on Fiddler, repeated all steps I used to do before. Checking if some rerouting, dns poisening or readressing or so is happening. Nothing unusual happened in the first when entering MEW (I sent some bait funds there).
In the 2nd network I used in september the trezor basically totally freaked out. He didnt let me enter MEW, I had to reenter my pin up to 5 times sometimes, It gave me error messages in MEW or it took 30 fucking seconds to enter it. Trezor writes about this:
“When you enter an invalid PIN a few times, the Trezor adds a forced waiting time between attempts.You can see this feature on the photo where the Trezor is making you wait for 15 seconds before another attempt.This countdown is then multiplied by the factor of two until you reach the 16th invalid PIN entry. After that, the device automatically wipes its memory - deleting all data from it.
The behavior of your Trezor at MEW is undoubtedly not standard or in any form pleasantly functional. Nevertheless, it also isn't anything superbly unusual or unexpected, taking poor internet connection into account.“
The thing is, the pin is 6 digits but pretty basic and I never ever entered it wrong. And I used the strongest wifi and could open webpages very easily .
As well as: “Sadly, this does not tell us anything about how your funds could be compromised. None of this could have ever exposed your private keys or made your device vulnerable in any way.
The Reddit thread you linked discusses cracking BIP-39 passphrases, which is irrelevant to your case. Cracking such passphrases assumes the person trying to break the wallet already has full possession of the recovery seed (recovery words). See, a passphrase is not your recovery seed or some additional password on your device. It is an extension of the seed, and it is also 100% useless without controlling the full seed.
The only threat you are exposed to when using Chrome is using Google itself. When googling "trezor" or "trezor wallet", you might stumble upon a phishing site which will present itself as a genuine Trezor website and force you to go through a fake "recovery" process. There you'd give out your recovery seed, which subsequently grants full access to your wallet and funds.
It's reasonable to assume that malware could guide you to such a website. To this day, we are not aware of any such incident ever happening, and even then, there are protections in place to defend you against phishing attempts.“
Basically, something I never did and all funds would haven been gone then.
I checked the 3rd network as well, and like the 1st nothing special happened. Only in the 2nd.
These are the funds and how the got cleared off the wallets.
I always show last transaction from me to the adress as well on the screens. So adress:
0x253ABB6d747a9404A007f57AaDEc1cA2b80694a1
They withdrew this:
1k USDT and the small amount ETH to send stuff
https://s19.directupload.net/images/200121/sg2lumg8.png
adress:
0x01fd43a713D8F46FF9a7Ed108da2FF74884D8400
They withdrew this:Majority of USDT and small eth for sending stuff
https://s19.directupload.net/images/200121/arycubto.png
adress:
0xf73c8C30072488d932011696436B46005504A7aeThey withdrew this:
Majority of ETh, then all coins from valueable to worthless and then some rest eth
https://s19.directupload.net/images/200121/urbgm2y5.png
https://s19.directupload.net/images/200121/rdkod59h.jpg
So this is what happened at 12th september between 16:49 and 17:15. Sick to see that all happened between 16:49 and 17:00 and its like someone came back checking and saw the 0.014 eth and withdrew it 17:15. Around 10pm i discovered what happened.
So, do you have any ideas? Questions? Feel free to guess or ask Im glad for everything which might lead to what might have happened. I somehow can’t let go off the feeling something inbetween the network, MEW and trezor ist he cause, but what do I know.
submitted by The_Wave13 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin’s “Intrinsic Value” Nears $13k — Here’s Why That’s Big for Bulls Factors that Determine the Price of Bitcoin? Why is Bitcoin Increasing in Value? BULL RUN! Bitcoin Breakout! BTC Fee Crunch  New BIPs  Satoshi Countdown Bitcoin's Real Value After Eleven Years- Is This a Pump and Dump Scam?

Moneybrain Ltd is the administrator for the issuance and transfer of value to the BIPS Foundation which holds the underlying asset value created from the purchase of the tokens. Example 2 Bitcoin: To Borrow £6,000 you will need to hold/deposit £12,000 worth of Bitcoin in your account. Bitcoin Improvement Proposals, or BIPs, are the standards by which changes to the Bitcoin protocol are recommended. They can include very significant protocol changes — including updates that require soft forks or hard forks — or changes to software implementations or the BIP process itself. Bitcoin’s value has also proven to be quite Abstract. This BIP describes a structure for compact filters on block data, for use in the BIP 157 light client protocol.The filter construction proposed is an alternative to Bloom filters, as used in BIP 37, that minimizes filter size by using Golomb-Rice coding for compression. BIPS, Bitcoin payment system, allows users to buy or sell online using Bitcoin digital currency. In addition to Bitcoin transaction-based apps and an e-wallet, BIPS provides an API that users can integrate with existing workflows and tools. Merchants can utilize Bitcoin currency alongside traditional currency transactions. An Informational BIP describes a Bitcoin design issue, or provides general guidelines or information to the Bitcoin community, but does not propose a new feature. Informational BIPs do not necessarily represent a Bitcoin community consensus or recommendation, so users and implementors are free to ignore Informational BIPs or follow their advice.

[index] [1688] [10836] [26374] [3713] [15784] [10594] [5273] [23743] [14904] [14694]

Bitcoin’s “Intrinsic Value” Nears $13k — Here’s Why That’s Big for Bulls

How the Heck Do You Value a Bitcoin?! (w/ Raoul Pal) - Duration: 35:51. Real Vision Finance 26,551 views. 35:51. Predicting the Future of the Web Development (2020 and 2025) - Duration: 29:31. Thank you for watching! If you would like to request a video or topic to be made, leave a comment in the comment section below and I will try to cover it! Please subscribe to the channel if you ... Ledn's first product, Bitcoin-backed loans, gives hodlers access to dollar liquidity without having to sell their bitcoin. This lets you keep the any potential appreciation in your precious bitcoin. Bitcoin Math & Value with Plan B Preston Pysh. ... Plan B. Plan B has become a rising star in the Bitcoin community due to his statistical work he has performed on the stock to flow analysis of ... If you had invested $200 in Bitcoin in 2009 what would it be worth compared to investing $200 in Amazon, Facebook or Google. If you wanted to buy an Alabama peach with your Bitcoin how would you ...

Flag Counter