Eric Hughes: A Cypherpunk's Manifesto - Crypto BTC Mining
Early Cypherpunk Emails Reveal a Blueprint for Bitcoin
RIP HAL FINNEY "His last post on a BTC Forum"
I thought I'd write about the last four years, an eventful time for Bitcoin and me. For those who don't know me, I'm Hal Finney. I got my start in crypto working on an early version of PGP, working closely with Phil Zimmermann. When Phil decided to start PGP Corporation, I was one of the first hires. I would work on PGP until my retirement. At the same time, I got involved with the Cypherpunks. I ran the first cryptographically based anonymous remailer, among other activities. Fast forward to late 2008 and the announcement of Bitcoin. I've noticed that cryptographic graybeards (I was in my mid 50's) tend to get cynical. I was more idealistic; I have always loved crypto, the mystery and the paradox of it. When Satoshi announced Bitcoin on the cryptography mailing list, he got a skeptical reception at best. Cryptographers have seen too many grand schemes by clueless noobs. They tend to have a knee jerk reaction. I was more positive. I had long been interested in cryptographic payment schemes. Plus I was lucky enough to meet and extensively correspond with both Wei Dai and Nick Szabo, generally acknowledged to have created ideas that would be realized with Bitcoin. I had made an attempt to create my own proof of work based currency, called RPOW. So I found Bitcoin facinating. When Satoshi announced the first release of the software, I grabbed it right away. I think I was the first person besides Satoshi to run bitcoin. I mined block 70-something, and I was the recipient of the first bitcoin transaction, when Satoshi sent ten coins to me as a test. I carried on an email conversation with Satoshi over the next few days, mostly me reporting bugs and him fixing them. Today, Satoshi's true identity has become a mystery. But at the time, I thought I was dealing with a young man of Japanese ancestry who was very smart and sincere. I've had the good fortune to know many brilliant people over the course of my life, so I recognize the signs. After a few days, bitcoin was running pretty stably, so I left it running. Those were the days when difficulty was 1, and you could find blocks with a CPU, not even a GPU. I mined several blocks over the next days. But I turned it off because it made my computer run hot, and the fan noise bothered me. In retrospect, I wish I had kept it up longer, but on the other hand I was extraordinarily lucky to be there at the beginning. It's one of those glass half full half empty things. The next I heard of Bitcoin was late 2010, when I was surprised to find that it was not only still going, bitcoins actually had monetary value. I dusted off my old wallet, and was relieved to discover that my bitcoins were still there. As the price climbed up to real money, I transferred the coins into an offline wallet, where hopefully they'll be worth something to my heirs. Speaking of heirs, I got a surprise in 2009, when I was suddenly diagnosed with a fatal disease. I was in the best shape of my life at the start of that year, I'd lost a lot of weight and taken up distance running. I'd run several half marathons, and I was starting to train for a full marathon. I worked my way up to 20+ mile runs, and I thought I was all set. That's when everything went wrong. My body began to fail. I slurred my speech, lost strength in my hands, and my legs were slow to recover. In August, 2009, I was given the diagnosis of ALS, also called Lou Gehrig's disease, after the famous baseball player who got it. ALS is a disease that kills moter neurons, which carry signals from the brain to the muscles. It causes first weakness, then gradually increasing paralysis. It is usually fatal in 2 to 5 years. My symptoms were mild at first and I continued to work, but fatigue and voice problems forced me to retire in early 2011. Since then the disease has continued its inexorable progression. Today, I am essentially paralyzed. I am fed through a tube, and my breathing is assisted through another tube. I operate the computer using a commercial eyetracker system. It also has a speech synthesizer, so this is my voice now. I spend all day in my power wheelchair. I worked up an interface using an arduino so that I can adjust my wheelchair's position using my eyes. It has been an adjustment, but my life is not too bad. I can still read, listen to music, and watch TV and movies. I recently discovered that I can even write code. It's very slow, probably 50 times slower than I was before. But I still love programming and it gives me goals. Currently I'm working on something Mike Hearn suggested, using the security features of modern processors, designed to support "Trusted Computing", to harden Bitcoin wallets. It's almost ready to release. I just have to do the documentation. And of course the price gyrations of bitcoins are entertaining to me. I have skin in the game. But I came by my bitcoins through luck, with little credit to me. I lived through the crash of 2011. So I've seen it before. Easy come, easy go. That's my story. I'm pretty lucky overall. Even with the ALS, my life is very satisfying. But my life expectancy is limited. Those discussions about inheriting your bitcoins are of more than academic interest. My bitcoins are stored in our safe deposit box, and my son and daughter are tech savvy. I think they're safe enough. I'm comfortable with my legacy.
Time to rotate out of a mid tier coin to one with better prospects?
I have some Ravencoin (RVN). I mined it in its early days, and accumulated a modest stake from a few months of mining. The Ravencoin network is, in essence, a fork of bitcoin that enables asset ownership and transfer. It has an active, fully decentralized set of devs that maintain the cypherpunk ethos of pre-2014 bitcoin. It’s been sitting in a wallet since then. At the height of interest in tokenization of RL assets last year, RVN traded at over 1400 sats. It’s now barely above 200 sats per coin. However, even at these prices, my position is profitable. Im weighing the value of this coin in my portfolio. I hold mostly ETH and BTC, but also some competing platform coins such as ADA and ALGO. Could those familiar with RVN offer perspective? - hold RVN & wait for sentiment and prices to improve - consolidate to an existing position - roll into a new coin ( would require time investment for DD) I also hold some Ripple stock acquired in a private investment deal, so I won’t consider their XRP coin.
The Intellectual Foundation of Bitcoin比特幣的智識基礎. By Chapman Chen, HKBNews
https://preview.redd.it/w6v3l8n3zxu41.jpg?width=2551&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb0338a36a1a321d3781f43ff5eb6929d8b92edc Summary: Bitcoin was invented by the anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto as recently as 2008, but it is backed up by a rich intellectual foundation. For instance, The 1776 First Amendment separates church and state, and contemporary American liberation psychologist Nozomi Hayase (2020) argues that money and state should similarly be separated. Just as Isaac Newton’s study of alchemy gave rise to the international gold standard, so has the anonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto's desire for a “modernized gold standard” given rise to Bitcoin. Indeed, Bloomberg's 2020 report confirms Bitcoin to be gold 2.0. Montesquieu (1774) asserted that laws that secure inalienable rights can only be found in Nature, and the natural laws employed in Bitcoin include its consensus algorithm and the three natural laws of economics (self-interest, competition, and supply and demand). J.S. Mill (1859) preferred free markets to those controlled by governments. Ludwig von Mises (1951) argued against the hazards of fiat currency, urging for a return to the gold standard. Friedrich Hayek (1984) suggested people to invent a sly way to take money back from the hands of the government. Milton Friedman (1994) called for FED to be replaced by an automatic system and predicted the coming of a reliable e-cash. James Buchanan (1988) advocated a monetary constitution to constrain the governmental power of money creation. Tim May (1997) the cypherpunk proclaimed that restricting digital cash impinges on free speech, and envisioned a stateless digital form of money that is uncensorable. The Tofflers (2006) pictured a non-monetary economy. In 2016, UCLA Professor of Finance Bhagwan Chowdhry even nominated Satoshi for a Nobel Prize. Full Text: Separation between money and state The 1791 First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enshrines free speech and separates church and state, but not money and state. "Under the First Amendment, individuals’ right to create, choose their own money and transact freely was not recognized as a part of freedom of expression that needs to be protected," Japanese-American liberation psychologist Nozomi Hayase (2020) points out (1). The government, banks and corporations collude together to encroach upon people's liberties by metamorphosing their inalienable rights into a permissioned from of legal rights. Fiat currencies function as a medium of manipulation, indulging big business to generate market monopolies. "Freedom of expression has become further stifled through economic censorship and financial blockage enacted by payment processing companies like Visa and MasterCard," to borrow Hayase's (2020) words. Satoshi is a Modern Newton Although most famous for discovering the law of gravity, Isaac Newton was also a practising alchemist. He never managed to turn lead into gold, but he did find a way to transmute silver into gold. In 1717, Newton announced in a report that, based on his studies, one gold guinea coin weighed 21 shillings. Just as Isaac Newton’s study of alchemy gave rise to the international gold standard, so has the desire for a “modernized gold standard” given rise to Bitcoin. "In a way, Satoshi is a modern Newton. They both believed trust is best placed in the unchangeable facets of our economy. Beneath this belief is the assumption that each individual is their own best master," as put by Jon Creasy (2019) (2). J.S. Mill: free markets preferable to those controlled by governments John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) the great English philosopher would be a Bitcoiner were he still around today. In On Liberty (1859), Mill concludes that free markets are preferable to those controlled by governments. He argues that economies function best when left to their own devices. Therefore, government intervention, though theoretically permissible, would be counterproductive. Bitcoin is precisely decentralized or uncontrolled by the government, unconfiscatable, permissonless, and disinflationary. Bitcoin regulates itself spontaneously via the ordinary operations of the system. "Rules are enforced without applying any external pressure," in Hayase's (2020) words. Ludwig von Mises (1958): Liberty is always Freedom from the Government In The Free Market and its Enemies, theoretical Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises (1951) argues against the hazards of fiat currency, urging for a return to the gold standard. “A fiat money system cannot go on forever and must one day come to an end,” Von Mises states. The solution is a return to the gold standard, "the only standard which makes the determination of the purchasing power of money independent of the changing ideas of political parties, governments, and pressure groups" under present conditions. Interestingly, this is also one of the key structural attributes of Bitcoin, the world’s first, global, peer-to-peer, decentralized value transfer network. Actually, Bloomberg's 2020 report on Bitcoin confirms that it is gold 2.0. (3) Von Mises prefers the price of gold to be determined according to the contemporaneous market conditions. The bitcoin price is, of course, determined across the various global online exchanges, in real-time. There is no central authority setting a spot price for gold after the which the market value is settled on among the traders during the day. Hayek: Monopoly on Currency should End Austrian-British Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek’s theory in his 1976 work, Denationalization of Money, was that not only would the currency monopoly be taken away from the government, but that the monopoly on currency itself should end with multiple alternative currencies competing for acceptance by consumers, in order "to prevent the bouts of acute inflation and deflation which have played the world for the past 60 years." He forcefully argues that if there is no free competition between different currencies within any nation, then there will be no free market. Bitcoin is, again, decentralized, and many other cryptocurrencies have tried to compete with it, though in vain. In a recently rediscovered video clip from 1984, Hayek actually suggested people to invent a cunning way to take money out of the hands of the government:- “I don’t believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take them violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something they can’t stop” (4). Reviewing those words 36 years hence and it is difficult not to interpret them in the light of Bitcoin. Milton Friedman Called for FED to be Replaced by an Automatic System Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman (1994) was critical of the Federal Reserve due to its poor performance and felt it should be abolished (5). Friedman (1999) believed that the Federal Reserve System should ultimately be replaced with a computer program, which makes us think of the computer code governing Bitcoin (6).[\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve#cite_note-:2-12) He (1970) favored a system that would automatically buy and sell securities in response to changes in the money supply. This, he argued, would put a lid on inflation, setting spending and investment decisions on a surer footing (7). Bitcoin is exactly disflationary as its maximum possible supply is 21 million and its block reward or production rate is halved every four years. Friedman passed away before the coming of bitcoin, but he lived long enough to see the Internet’s spectacular rise throughout the 1990s. “I think that the Internet is going to be one of the major forces for reducing the role of government," said Friedman in a 1999 interview with NTU/F. On the same occasion, he sort of predicted the emergence of Bitcoin, "The one thing that’s missing, but that will soon be developed, is a reliable e-cash, a method whereby on the Internet you can transfer funds from A to B, without A knowing B or B knowing A." (8) “Of course, Friedman didn’t predict the block chain,” summed up American libertarian economist Jeffery Tucker (2014). “But he was hoping for a trustless system. He saw the need.” (9). Bitcoin Computer Code as Constitution in the Buchananian Sense American economist cum Nobel laureate James Buchanan (1988) advocates constitutional constraints on the governmental power to create money (10). Buchanan distinguishes a managed monetary system—a system “that embodies the instrumental use of price-level predictability as a norm of policy”—from an automatic monetary system, “which does not, at any stage, involve the absolute price level” (Buchanan 1962, 164–65). Leaning toward the latter, Buchanan argues that automatic systems are characterized by an organization “of the institutions of private decision-making in such a way that the desired monetary predictability will emerge spontaneously from the ordinary operations of the system” (Buchanan 1962, 164). Again, "Bitcoin regulates itself through the spontaneous force of nature, flourishing healthy price discovery and competition in the best interest of everyone" (Hayase 2020). Shruti Rajagopalan (2018) argues that the computer code governing how the sundry nodes/computers within the Bitcoin network interact with one another is a kind of monetary constitution in the Buchananian sense. One of Buchanan's greatest inputs is to differentiate the choice of rules from the choice within rule (Buchanan 1990). One may regard the Bitcoin code as a sort of constitution and "the Bitcoin network engaging in both the choice of rules and choice within rules" (Rajagopalan 2018) (11). Tim May: Restricting Digital Cash may Impinge on Free Speech Cypherpunks are activists who since the 1980s have advocated global use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a route to social and political liberation. Tim May (Timothy C. May [1951-2018]), one of the influential cypherpunks published The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto in September 1992, which foretold the coming of Bitcoin (12). Cypherpunks began envisioning a stateless digital form of money that cannot be censored and their collaborative pursuit created a movement akin to the 18th Enlightenment. At The 7th Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, Burlingame, CA. in 1997, Tim May equated money with speech, and argued that restricting digital cash may impinge on free speech, for spending money is often a matter of communicating orders to others, to transfer funds, to release funds, etc. In fact, most financial instruments are contracts or orders, instead of physical specie or banknotes (13). Montesquieu: Laws that secure inalienable rightscan only be found in Nature In his influential work The Spirit of Laws (1748), Montesquieu wrote, “Laws ... are derived from the nature of things … Law, like mathematics, has its objective structure, which no arbitrary whim can alter". Similarly, once a block is added to the end of the Bitcoin blockchain, it is almost impossible to go back and alter the contents of the block, unless every single block after it on the blockchain is altered, too. Cypherpunks knew that whereas alienable rights that are bestowed by law can be deprived by legislation, inalienable rights are not to be created but can be discovered by reason. Thus, laws that secure inalienable rights cannot be created by humankind but can be found in nature. The natural laws employed in Bitcoin to enshrine the inalienable monetary right of every human being include its consensus algorithm, and the three natural laws of economics (self-interest, competition, and supply and demand) as identified by Adam Smith, father of modern economics. Regarding mathematics, bitcoin mining is performed by high-powered computers that solve complex computational math problems. When computers solve these complex math problems on the Bitcoin network, they produce new bitcoin. And by solving computational math problems, bitcoin miners make the Bitcoin payment network trustworthy and secure, by verifying its transaction information. Regarding economic laws, in accordance with the principle of game theory to generate fairness, miners take part in an open competition. Lining up self-interests of all in a network, with a vigilant balance of risk and rewards, rules are put in force sans the application of any exterior pressure. "Bitcoin regulates itself through the spontaneous force of nature, flourishing healthy price discovery and competition in the best interest of everyone," to borrow the words of Hayase (2020). A Non-monetary Economy as Visualized by the Tofflers In their book, Revolutionary Wealth (2006), futurists Alvin Toffler and his wife Heidi Toffler toy with the concept of a world sans money, raising a third kind of economic transaction that is neither one-on-one barter nor monetary exchange. In the end, they settle on the idea that the newer non-monetary economy will exist shoulder-to-shoulder with the monetary sector in the short term, although the latter may eventually be eclipsed by the former in the long run. What both the Tofflers' The Third Wave (1980) and Revolutionary Wealth bring into question is the very premise of monetary exchange. The vacuum left over by cash in such a non-monetary economy may be filled up by Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency. Satoshi Nakamoto Nominated for Nobel Prize by UCLA Finance Prof. UCLA Anderson School Professor of Finance Bhagwan Chowdhry nominated Satoshi Nakamoto for the 2016 Nobel Prize in Economics on the following grounds:- It is secure, relying on almost unbreakable cryptographic code, can be divided into millions of smaller sub-units, and can be transferred securely and nearly instantaneously from one person to any other person in the world with access to internet bypassing governments, central banks and financial intermediaries such as Visa, Mastercard, Paypal or commercial banks eliminating time delays and transactions costs.... Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin Protocol has spawned exciting innovations in the FinTech space by showing how many financial contracts — not just currencies — can be digitized, securely verified and stored, and transferred instantaneously from one party to another (14). Fb link: https://www.facebook.com/hongkongbilingualnews/posts/947121432392288?__tn__=-R Web link: https://www.hkbnews.net/post/the-intellectual-foundation-of-bitcoin%E6%AF%94%E7%89%B9%E5%B9%A3%E7%9A%84%E6%99%BA%E8%AD%98%E5%9F%BA%E7%A4%8E-by-chapman-chen-hkbnews Disclaimer: This article is neither an advertisement nor professional financial advice. End-notes
How is Satoshi Nakamoto's identity and the complete origin story of Bitcoin still a mystery? 5-20 BILLION dollars still stay frozen in addresses verifiably associated to Nakamoto.
What are the facts about the origins of bitcoin? Honestly, I don't want to know who Nakamoto is nor do I think they should reveal themselves. What I really want is more information about the origins and very early development of the Bitcoin protocol. What do key, early contributing devs know? What do we know about the development process in the years leading up to bitcoin? The fact that Nakamoto remains anonymous also means we don't get a lot of information about the earliest development of Bitcoin. We don't have much of a record beyond the whitepaper, some emails/comments, and some short publications to understand how Nakamoto understood their own creation and the possible trajectories it might have. I know we have open source code and lots of great resources but what I really want are the thoughts and impressions from BEFORE bitcoin was at all popular or even heard of by more than just the most crypto-nerd of the cypherpunks and crypto-anarchists (basically up to the end of the first year of the main chain's existence). Lastly I want to congratulate Nakamoto on being cool as a cucumber and keeping the first bitcoins rooted to their spot. In trying to learn more about the origins of bitcoin we naturally look to the early blocks in the bitcoin ledger. A lot of sophisticated work has been done in this vein and we can speculate with meaningful accuracy what addresses definitively correlate to Nakamoto. These coins never move, but does anyone think they ever will? Is there any evidence of some kind of plan for Nakamoto to cash in parts of the earliest mined coins that stay completely still? To give my own completely nonsense, lacking-in-evidence theory: my impression has always been that the central, early bitcoin core developers are jointly Nakamoto and that they purposefully maintain the image of a unified, anonymous figurehead since it puts less pressure on them and fuels the "P2P, bigger than any central authority" narrative that is bitcoin's lifeblood. I then like to imagine that they have some sort of secret threshold crypto based scheme for transacting the bitcoin from the Nakamoto wallet(s) (the addresses associated with the earliest mining) as some red button they can collectively chose to press to cash in their billions to fiat (or whatever else we'll be transacting when that day comes). Thanks for any and all information!
This post may not be so popular lol. But I'll tell you what you should hear. One of the big pushbacks I have gotten on reddit is over the banking secrecy act. I have been repeatedly told that I am making shit up or being conspiratorial. This is very very foolish of this community. The statements and releases were in a document released by the FATF. I read it. It's right there. It's in the document. They've come right out and said exactly what they intend to do, and have told exchange CEO' "that's not our problem you WILL find a way to implement this". I also follow the SEC and CFTC policy and press release strongly, and it is equally hostile and captured. It doesn't matter if a few people in the agencies are well intended. They don't call the shots. They are shadow regulatory industries controlled by people we will never see. The rich obviously. Dupont, Cargill, etc. The bitcoin community has been deeply in denial about numerous issues pointed out. It has become a religion, incapable of receiving critique. -Blind trust in Block stream -Blind trust in Chinese miners and wallstreet institutional mining -Blind trust in centralized exchanges -Blind trust in the venture capital token M.O -Blind trust in the idea of 'STO" security tokens sanctioned and graced by banks/regulators -Blind trust in derivatives controlled by regulated bodies that can impose fractional reserve -Blind trust in the meme of an ETF If this community was far more educated in history and political economy and the US foreign policy, you would never trust these regulated wallstreet instruments, you would never trust a rubber stamp. I mean think about it, how many people in this community are hoping for Wallstreet and regulators to pump their bags. Because that has become the meme. They believe that the government approval and integration into the financial economy is going to pump their bags. How's that working out? We have less commerce acceptance, less adoption, less users with a thousand dollars in their wallet, than a year ago. The belief that bitcoin can exist in a vaacuum and bubble, that it can exist without decentralized infrastructure at the mercy of centralized infrastructure in a hostile environment and become mass adopted by nations of people is delusional. It hasn't worked in a decade. Bitcoin is a hobby horse for geeks, speculators, and a revenue stream for centralized wallstreet and financial institutions globally. It is a proxy of bitmain, of these other institutions, and is becoming more and more centralized. The gini coeeficient of bitcoin dwarfs fiat. And the problem *is not bitcoin* the problem is the community believing in these memes and not learning from economic history in antiquity and not building the infrastructure outside the states control and forcing the state into diplomacy. Bitcoiners are failed anarchist, they don't know how to politically represent themselves, they aren't wobblies, they aren't like classic leftist who forced these concepts onto the gilded aged imperialist western republics, that forced them to not send kids to work in coalmines for 12 hours a day. We aren't politically commanding. The banking secrecy act is a extinction level event for crypto. Will bitcoin survive? Of course? But it's going to set us back a decade. It's going to send us back to the stone age. And we are at a *profound* risk of the main chain breaking off and becoming the pseudo banking state corporate nexus geofenced kyced bitcoin with backdoored nodes and backdoored hardware wallets. The statist wont break bitcoin in half, we will. We will out of desperation after they sully it so severely that we have no choice but to hard fork it into a original version that can protect itself against the BSA. You say we won't but we will, when they cripple the global south's access to it, and they cripple the price, you will have your braveheart mercy moment, and the og cypherpunk will kick the bucket and pull the trigger. What has to be done will be done. Centralized exchanges are completely incompatible with cypherpunk and anarchism and the white paper. We've tolerated CEX for a decade. Not only are governments a threat, but we will be continually crippled by Quadriga CX failures, Cryptopia, and Mount Gox failures. Because of toxic maximalism and toxic attitude towards building the fucking infrastructure to avoid this. The mainstream developers won't do it because they can't make any money. This will be a sacrificial act to build this system, just like Satoshi. The current DEX system is like the 1960's darpa intranet. That is it. That's why it sucks. It's not the internet of DEX, it's not. And making the internet of DEX is really, really, really fucking hard bleeding edge computer science. If we want global adoption we need an internet, not an intranet. Having the liquidity of DEX divided into intranet is why we continue to rel on CEX. You want to get rid of the CEX, turn the fucking intranet into an internet, into an interchain. Stop relying on companies and ICO's and 1000 tokens for 1000 things, build the actual backbone. Support the developers. Pay your fucking developers. Stop calling everything a scam and everything vaporware. The internet isn't a fucking vaporware scam, so neither is the interchain. Maximalism is ludditism. Crypto is for the global south, it's for emancipatory politics and independence, for the 99.99%, not the .01%. If you believe otherwise, and want you're "Citadel", Fuck You. Seriously. Read some political economy. Read Ellinor Ostrom, Bestiat, Spooner, Proudhon, etc. Crypto is suppoose to be a public good and a form of open source economy, not a recreation of tyranny, hierarchy, economic centralization, and worse yet just another banker shitcoin debt scam interest rate scam, which is what they are treating it and regulating and profiting off of it as.
Bitcoin is the most censorship resistant money in the world.
You don't have to buy a “whole” bitcoin so don't freak out if you look at the price. You can buy a piece of one no problem.
The Dallas Mavericks accept Bitcoin on their website. You don't trust Mark Cuban. He's the best shark.
Bitcoin is the best performing asset of the last decade (better than S&P500).
Diversify your current portfolio.
It's not illegal in the USA.
You holding just one satoshi slightly limits the supply and can rise the price for everyone else.
[In late 2019] hash rate is the highest it has ever been
Suicide insurance; if Bitcoin rises in price there is no worse feeling than regret.
Some of the smartest people in computer science and cryptography are working on it. Trust nerds.
Look at the all time historical chart. No technical analysis just tell me what you think when you look at it.
Money is a belief system... and I want to believe.
Transparent ledger, no funny business going on it's easy to audit.
Elon Musk appears to be a fan. How's that for an appeal to authority
There is a fixed limit in the number of bitcoins that will exist. 21 million bitcoin, 7 billion people on earth. Do the math.
There are so many examples of governments inflating their currency to the point where it becomes unusable. Read the wikipedia page for Venezuela or Zimbabwe.
Altcoins make sacrifices in either security or centralization. There are altcoins out there that claim to be innovating but just check the scoreboard nothing has flipped Bitcoin in market value or even gotten close.
With technology developing at a rate faster than law, governments and for-profit businesses have the ability to monitor our purchases, location, our habits, and all of this has happened without consent. People made jokes and conspiracy theory, but sometimes conspiracy is real. Most people are good, but there is absolutely evil out there. There are absolutely evil people in positions of power. There are absolutely evil people that work together in positions of power. Does anyone actually believe that Jeffrey Epstein committed suicide. Go read about Leslie Wexner. Go read the cypherpunk manifesto.
The upcoming halvening in 2020 will reduce the number of Bitcoin created in each block, making them more scarce, and if history repeats more valuable.
Bitcoin has lower fees than traditional banking.
Gold has the advantage of being a physical thing. But unlike gold you know Bitcoin is not forged, or mixed with another metal, and you can easily break it into tiny pieces and send it over the internet to someone.
Bitcoin could spark new interests maybe you start to read more into economics, computer science, or Brock Pierce.
Bitcoin has survived with no leader, marketing team, public relations, or legal team.
Because Wired magazine said Bitcoin was dead at $2, Forbes said it was dead at $15, NY Times at $208, and CNN at $333.
Just do a cost benefit analysis. What happens if Bitcoin fails and it goes to zero vs. what happens if it succeeds, and becomes world money.
Bitcoin encourages long term thinking, planning, saving. Due to inflation we are punished by holding on to cash. Look up the statistics on the average savings account while we are bombarded with consumerist bullshit like Funko pop heads, Loot crate subscription services, and new syrup flavors for coffee. Currently we are encouraged to spend now, seek immediate gratification, and ignore what we are becoming as Amazon picks out our clothes and toothpaste ships it to the house and we sit and watch streaming services where content is pushed to us and I'm supposed to buy that this garbage is actually “trending”. Our lives have become so comfortable that idiots spend $60 to escape a room and have someone take your picture when you get out. What would our ancestors think.
Maybe you're a day trader looking to use a trading bot in an unregulated market.
Bitcoin has 7 letters in it. Lucky number 7.....
Bitcoin promises to bank the unbanked, and provide services to those not otherwise “qualified” to open a bank account.
It's just cool, don't you want to seem smart to all your friends.
The origin story is so nuts there's going to be a movie or several movies about the early days of Bitcoin. Satoshi Nakamoto remains anonymous to this day. Imagine if the inventor of the cell phone was anonymous.
If you have money to burn, don't buy soda, weed, or some girls private snapchat it's a dead end put it towards Bitcoin and give it to your child in the future.
To avoid getting ripped off by foreign exchange fees just because you were born one place and your friends were born in another place.
Can't live off the grid in your log cabin and still use Mastercard. Bitcoin is one piece of opting out.
If one country adopts BTC as the national currency, it doesn't take much thought to realise that others will follow.
Join a welcoming and unique community. Everyone is super nice because they want your money.
You can stick it to the baby boomers.
You can stick it to the vegans.
You can stick it Roger Ver.
Maybe your IQ is 70 and you'll do whatever CNBC Fast Money recommends.
Maybe a hacker infects your computer, records you doing that thing, and threatens to release the tape if you do not pay them 1.5 Bitcoin.
You're a risk taker looking for some risky investment.
Aliens attack like Independence Day, blow up major cities in major countries, your money is still safe with Bitcoin. As long as there is a some guy, some person, living on an island with a copy of the ledger out there on your'e good. We're all good.
Many proposals to scale the number of transactions, may the best plan win.
One day you might have to use BTC to pay taxes, buy food, and charge your Tesla.
You want to support a political group and remain private.
You can trust math more than you can trust people to set an emission rate.
Government don't know how much you have.
The first response to Bitcoin being published by Hal Finney stated that Bitcoin was positioned to reach million dollar valuation. Hal was the first bull and passed away in 2014, missing a lot #doitforHal.
Baddies can't freeze your money if they mad at you.
The Big Bang Theory mentioned it, maybe you want to be like Sheldon the bazinga guy.
Be contrarian. In a world where everyone zigs it's sometimes good to zag.
Don't have any hobbies, and you just need a reason to get up in the morning.
Enjoy learning? Bitcoin is a topic where there is so much to learn, and so much development, that it really becomes a never ending journey. For someone who likes learning, it's more productive than speedrunning a video game.
Yolo. You only live once. This isn't a dress rehearsal, if there's something your kind of interested in pursue it. That's true for anything not just Bitcoin. But if you're reading this I'm assuming you're interested.
Bitcoin is not a ponzi scheme. The difference is Bitcoin does not need new people buying in to work, blocks being added will continue even if the community stopped growing.
With religion on the decline maybe you want to join a cult. Crypto twitter is a great echo chamber to meet like minded people.
Satoshi Nakamoto found a way to distribute a global currency in a fair way with the ability to adjust the mining difficulty as we go, it's really incredible. You still need computers and electricity to mine new bitcoin today but it's an extremely fair way for people to earn. There was no premine of Bitcoin. Everyone who has Bitcoin either bought it at what the market said, or they earned it.
No CEO in charge of Bitcoin to make bad decisions or a board of directors that can make changes. The users, an ever growing number, are in charge.
Bitcoin has no days off, it has no workers in charge who can get sick or take a holiday.
Bitcoin has survived 10 years (and more). While there will always be dangers, I'd argue that those first few years it was most vulnerable to fail.
Have some trust in the cypherpunks. Anyone who held and didn't sell bitcoin as it went from pennies to five figures is not looking to get rich. They want to change the world.
Potential president Tulsi Gabbard disclosed owning some.
Digital money is the future, anyone who has tried Venmo can see that. Well Bitcoin is a digitally native asset.
Refugees can use Bitcoin to store their wealth as they flee a failing country.
Bitcoin is an open source project. Anthony Pompliano likes to call it a virus but I like how the author of the Bitcoin Standard describes it. Bitcoin is like a song. As long as one person remembers it you can't destroy a song.
Triple entry accounting. When humans first started recording who owes who what we had single-entry accounting. The king's little brother would keep everything written down, but we had to really trust this guy because he could simply erase a line and that money would be gone. When double-entry accounting started to spread 500 years ago it brought with it massive innovation. Businesses could now form relationships across the ocean as they each kept a record. We did not have innovation again until Satoshi's Bitcoin, where blockchain can be used as the neutral third party to keep record. It might not sound important but blockchain allows us to agree upon an objective reality.
Bitcoin is non-political.
Bitcoin is easy to accept. I mean kind of. It's certainly easier than setting up a bank account.
A sandwich used to cost 10 cents in America, I walk into Subway and they don't even have $5 foot longs anymore. Inflation man..
It's a peaceful protest.
Critics say that mining wastes electricity, but if Bitcoin adoption continues the world will actually be incentivized to produce more renewable energy. There are so many waterfalls and sources of energy in the middle of nowhere right now. People might not see a reason to build a power plant over there now, but in the future it can make business sense. Take that waterfall mine bitcoin, and sell them to the people who can't mine. It allows for a business to sell their energy anywhere.
Get into debates around Bitcoin, build those critical thinking skills.
“Predicting rain doesn't count, building arks does”
“The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago, the second best time is now.”
"I never considered for one second having anything to do with it. I detested it the moment it was raised. It’s just disgusting. Bitcoin is noxious poison.”
The immaculate conception. No cryptocurrency can have a start the grassroots way Bitcoin did, it's just impossible given how the space has changed.
There are more than 1000x more U.S. dollars today than there were a hundred years ago.
Bitcoin is the largest transfer of wealth this decade from the least curious to the curious.
The concept of the Star Wars Cantina, Galt's Gulch, or young Beat Generation kids sitting in a basement smoking cigarettes and questioning the world can only exist if money remains fungible.
You can send money to your Dad even if he lives in a country run by bad boys.
Memorize your key, and walk around the world carrying your money in your head.
The Federal Reserve is objectively way too powerful.
John Mcafe promised that if bitcoins were not valued at 1 million dollars by the end of 2020 he would eat his own penis on national television. It will be a sad day if we don't hit that 1 million.
The Apple credit card.
If we ever get artificial intelligence it'll be able to interact with Bitcoin.
Katy Perry is aware of crypto so if by some chance you run into her, you get one chance to strike up conversation, so here's your chance to shine. You don't ask for a picture, you don't say she's pretty, or name your favorite song. Take your shot and ask about what type of cold storage she uses for her bitcoin.
Many people are afraid of a world currency because it's associated with a centralized world power taking control. Bitcoin allows for neutral world money.
What Did Satoshi Nakamoto Do Other Than Inventing Bitcoin
On January 3 2009, the genesis block of Bitcoin was created. Embedded in the coinbase of this block was the classic quote: “The times 03/Jan/2009 chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks.” On this day, Bitcoin officially came into this world, and 10 years later, Bitcoin and the anonymous developers behind it have become ever-lasting legends. Speculations about the geeks’ identities have continued unabated, and so far, it is clear that Bitcoin was created by a group of people, not a single person. The group leader, codenamed Satoshi Nakamoto, is a core member of the cypherpunk group whose mission is to protect the privacy of individual humans. Why Look for Mining Sites? Bitcoin mining is booming today, even the retailer of mining rigs can get listed on Nasdaq in the United States. However, in the early days of Bitcoin, mining was not as popular as it is today. Only Bitcoin developers were involved. So, if you look through the addresses of the earliest on blockchain, you’ll see what’s going on with these early geeks. On January 13, 2009, 10 days after the Bitcoin creation, a Bitcoin address starting with 1G582FH successfully completed a block and obtained 50 Bitcoin as a reward. Since then, this Bitcoin address has never welcomed any new mining revenue, and that 50 Bitcoin remain untouched, even when the price of Bitcoin skyrocketed to about $10,000, still no record of transfer. We can assume that the owner of this address is one team member of the early BTC dev team. https://preview.redd.it/o1aurmmo3w941.png?width=870&format=png&auto=webp&s=aa0c7ce6f915aba0608a5eebfbfbd16cc42a3f61 https://preview.redd.it/tkd8e6uq3w941.png?width=869&format=png&auto=webp&s=06f77e4ab47ef5888eed789a9e42d035bf9c3001 On February 15 2019, one day after Valentine’s Day. This address (starting with 1G582FH) imported its private key into a wallet of VDS, initiated its Genesis VID (aka a personal account of VDS user), and continued to use the wallet from time to time in the following months. Till now, his VID account is still in active usage. https://preview.redd.it/ew47g5s04w941.png?width=870&format=png&auto=webp&s=23f39a18733ea4d8d21659bf790d72fa92d43d14 https://preview.redd.it/mdppdex14w941.png?width=870&format=png&auto=webp&s=7fc4cfff02348e17fab11d2e5c12f46aabe5d021 https://preview.redd.it/tnq033q24w941.png?width=870&format=png&auto=webp&s=902956131bba0012dfec8545917998dddb6392d9 What is VDS? What’s in it for the BTC dev team? Perhaps it is because VDS has reopened the channel for anonymous transactions, pushing the decentralized transaction to a new level. Or because the underlying technology of VDS is road-ready, to perfectly integrate all advanced blockchain technologies on the market into a complete community with a high degree of autonomy. Or, because VDS utilizes blockchain technology to integrate inter-personal networking, provide users with comprehensive access to information privacy, and fuse together interpersonal relationships with business architecture, giving cryptocurrency a new application model. Bitcoin has managed to decentralize the transfer of money freely. Unfortunately, centralized institutions are still trying their best to set restrictions. VDS’s unique one-way BTC to Vollar exchange, aka resonance technology, is combined with the anonymous trading technology of zero-knowledge proof, has set off directly to the freedom of wealth. Bitcoin users only need to import the private key of Bitcoin into VDS wallet to generate a VDS address with the same set of private key, convert Bitcoin to Vollar through Resonance trade, and then regain privacy and freedom of wealth through the anonymous means of zero-knowledge proof. Bitcoin users are also allowed for OTC transactions in exchange for any world currency at any time through the anonymous network in their wallet, to realize anonymous, barrier-free currency exchange in a real sense. After a series of operations, the privacy and freedom of your wealth is obtained. In addition to Resonance Trade and anonymous transaction, VDS is also a dual wallet of both BTC and Vollar, with functions such as secret chat, decentralized exchange, VAD, super master node, VID fission, smart contract, etc. It has opened a new era of multi-functional and multi-dimensional blockchain, under the premise of decentralization. VID is the proof of identification and passport in the ecology of VDS. A Genesis VID is the source point where VIDs originated from. A BTC user only need to import the private key of BTC address with more than 0.1 Bitcoin on it so as to obtain a Genesis VID. With a Genesis VID, you’re accessible to create a brand-new interpersonal network of high-level privacy, and build your own financial empire under this financial model. The original intention of Bitcoin is to explore decentralized finance. The advent of VDS has endowed cryptocurrency with circulation demands and application scenarios. On the road back to Bitcoin privacy, VDS has explored diversity of cryptocurrency circulation, broken through the bottleneck of crypto industry where it is difficult to find application demands, and provided a feasible path for more people who value privacy.
Monero Deep Dive: The Cryptocurrency To Use If You Want True Anonymity, Far More Anonymous Than Bitcoin
http://www.cypherpunklabs.com/monero-deep-dive-the-cryptocurrency-to-use-if-you-want-true-anonymity-far-more-anonymous-than-bitcoin/ In the early days of cryptocurrency Bitcoin was considered the best payment method for those who wished to stay anonymous. At the time this was true, since Bitcoin required no personal identification information while fiat payment methods like banks and PayPal required a full suite of personal identification information. However, all Bitcoin transactions in history are stored on a publicly accessible block explorer, and with the rise of blockchain forensics it is now possible to figure out who owns a Bitcoin address and what they have been doing with their Bitcoin. Although it is possible to increase Bitcoin’s anonymity by using Tor, VPNs, and CoinJoin, as will be discussed in future Cypherpunk Labs articles, Bitcoin can only be considered pseudo-anonymous rather than fully anonymous. Nicolas van Saberhagen recognized that Bitcoin lacked full anonymity, in addition to the fact that it is a slow and difficult process to change Bitcoin’s code. Saberhagen proposed to create a new cryptocurrency that was far more anonymous, in addition to correcting some other apparent deficiencies in Bitcoin, and wrote up these ideas in the CryptoNote White Paper. The first cryptocurrency to utilize the ideas in the CryptoNote White Paper was Bytecoin (BCN), which is a lesser known but still functional stealth cryptocurrency. Bitcointalk user thankful_for_today modified the code from Bytecoin and created BitMonero), but there was community criticism since not everything in the CryptoNote White Paper was adopted. This caused thankful_for_today to apparently abandon the project, but a group of users led by Johny Mnemonic quickly took over and renamed the cryptocurrency Monero (XMR). One of the most critical pieces of stealth technology that Monero uses is ring signatures. With Bitcoin a transaction is signed with a user’s private key and can be verified with the public key. With a ring signature a transaction is signed by your key as well as the public keys from several other outputs on the blockchain using a triangular distribution method. Essentially, each Monero transaction is signed by a group of keys, and it is not possible to distinguish which key the transaction originated from. This can be thought of as decentralized and trustless mixing, and ultimately ring signatures hide the destination and origin of a transaction. Eventually Monero upped the ante and implemented ring signature confidential transactions (RingCT), which uses multi-layered linkable spontaneous anonymous group signatures to hide the amount of a transaction. However, RingCT transactions required a large amount of data in order to ensure that the sum of inputs and outputs equaled zero, and bulletproofs were implemented to solve this problem. More about bulletproofs can be read in this paper. Essentially, bulletproofs helped reduce transaction size, lowering transaction fees on the Monero network, and also made it cheaper to create transactions with higher degrees of complexity. Another critical piece of technology that makes Monero anonymous is stealth addresses. The sender creates a random one-time address for every transaction on behalf of the recipient. This allows a recipient to have just one published address but all of their incoming transactions go to different addresses on the blockchain. Thanks to stealth addresses, only the sender and receiver can determine where a payment was sent, while an outside observer cannot figure that out. A Monero user can see incoming transactions with their view key, and anyone without the view key cannot see the incoming transactions to any particular address. This view key can be shared, so Monero can be considered optionally transparent, but the default is stealth. When a Monero user decides to spend their coins, the Monero in a stealth address is broken down into its components and combined with other equivalent components via ring signatures. For example, if 42.42 Monero is sent, then the coins are split into 40 + 2 + 0.4 + 0.02 and combined with other 40’s, 2’s, 0.4’s, and 0.02’s somewhere else in the blockchain. This renders outputs fundamentally indistinguishable, and Unlike Bitcoin’s CoinJoin, no participation from anyone else is needed since already present outputs are being mixed. Further, Monero tried to increase decentralization of its network by being incompatible with application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) via the CryptoNight protocol. This was originally accomplished by requiring a MB of internal memory, which was unacceptable to ASICs at the time. Also, Monero fit into the L3 cache of modern CPUs, while simultaneously being slower on GPUs, hindering the efficiency of GPU mining firms. That being said, it seems if a cryptocurrency is valuable enough then an ASIC is eventually created for it, and the Monero developers have been in a long term battle where they have to periodically change their mining protocol in order to prevent ASICs from overtaking the network. Monero is expected to release their new mining algorithm, RandomX, in October in order to stomp out the ASICs once again. It seems the Monero developers are succeeding in their fight against ASIC centralization, and generally Monero is the most profitable cryptocurrency to mine on a personal computer while it is not that profitable with ASICs. This is important because it allows regular joes to mine Monero on their personal computer, decentralizing the network hash rate, as opposed to Bitcoin which is practically impossible to mine on a personal computer and most of the hash rate is in the hands of big mining farms. Also, Monero uses dynamic block sizes, ensuring low transaction fees and fast confirmation times, as opposed to Bitcoin which often has a clogged mempool which can lead to long waits for confirmations and high transaction fees. Additionally, Monero technically has an infinite supply since the minimum block reward is 0.6 XMR, and this will be reached in 2040. This ensures that miners will always have an incentive to secure the network long term, even if transaction fees are kept as low as possible. Compare this to Bitcoin where block rewards will approach zero, which may wreck the mining community if transaction fees are not high enough. Thus, Monero’s ring signatures, RingCT, bulletproofs, and stealth addresses combine to obfuscate the sender, receiver, and amount of the transaction, and transactions are split into chunks that are indistinguishable from other transactions. This provides far more privacy than Bitcoin, since Bitcoin transactions are easily traced on a block explorer. It is clear that Monero is an excellent choice for those that want true anonymity when using cryptocurrency. That being said, it is important to use encrypted messaging as well when organizing a Monero transaction, since anonymity can be compromised if a message regarding a Monero transaction is intercepted.
Bitcoin is a cryptographic money, a pushed resource proposed to fill in as a strategy for trade that utilizations cryptography to control its creation and the executives, instead of depending upon focal authorities. The normal pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto encouraged many existing considerations from the cypherpunk compose while making bitcoin. Through the scope of bitcoin's history, it has experienced brisk progression to change into a basic money both on and segregated — from the mid 2010s, two or three affiliations started suffering bitcoin regardless of standard cash related structures. Pre-history Going before the presence of bitcoin there were diverse automated money degrees of progress beginning with the financier based ecash shows of David Chaum and Stefan Brands. Adam Back made hashcash, a proof-of-work plan for spam control. The essential recommendations for spread pushed insufficiency based mechanized sorts of money were Wei Dai's b-money and Nick Szabo's bit gold. Hal Finney made reusable insistence of work (RPOW) utilizing hashcash as its affirmation of work algorithm. In the bit gold suggestion which proposed a collectible market based system for improvement control, Nick Szabo in like way investigated some extra perspectives including a Byzantine insufficiency tolerant understanding demonstrate subject to larger part passes on to store and move the secured affirmation of-work plans, which was powerless against Sybil assaults, in any case. Creation On 18 August 2008, the zone name bitcoin.org was registered. Later that year, on 31 October, an interface with a paper made by Satoshi Nakamoto titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System was shown on a cryptography mailing list. This paper point by control techniques for utilizing a common structure toward produce what was delineated as "a structure for electronic exchanges without depending upon trust". On 3 January 2009, the bitcoin organize appeared with Satoshi Nakamoto mining the beginning square of bitcoin (square number 0), which had a respect of 50 bitcoins. Embedded in the coinbase of this square was the substance:
Multicurrency Wallet DEXs will be the standard of the 2020s. The present status quo is an absolute joke.
Before I begin, I'd like to ask you a question. Why are so many of the most established people in crypto among the most closed-minded when it comes to talking about new ideas? Why is the crypto space more concerned with what a clown from Australia is lying about or petty figurehead drama than the hard work and effort of the good and lesser-known among them? Let's talk about altcoins for a minute. It'd be a very tough job to count every single alt that's come in on a hypetrain and died in obscurity. If I were to guess that 95% of them failed, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that it was a conservative estimate and that the number is even higher. Indeed, it would be much easier to count the exceptions to the rule. To name a few - ETH, LTC, XMR, and (quite amusingly) DOGE. Should the stubbornly high failure rate of alts justify writing them all off as garbage? Businesses have an incredibly high failure rate too. It would be foolish - outright silly, even - to say that the grocery store is a fraud and a scam because the aqua-saxophone jazzercise laundromat failed to live up to it's expectations. Maybe not, because this is exactly the way the crypto space is right now. That line of thinking is the de facto standard in the cryptocurrency space right now - "guilty (of being a shitcoin) until proven innocent (by some central authority figure or big exchange who can validate it for us so we don't have to do it ourselves)". To be fair, there was an aggressive torrent of these "goofy laundromats" in 2017 and people are either hungover or shell-shocked from all the broken pipedreams and costly fiction. You'd think that the titans of this industry, particularly those who care more about the cypherpunk essence of Bitcoin than how rich they can get off of it, would be more receptive to the legitimate projects that are working in obscurity to harden the crypto space and it's infrastructure. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the case. All too many seem to think that everything that needed to be built has already been built. Considering that all the Bitcoin titans are somewhat newly-minted, the irony is remarkable. No one used to take Bitcoin seriously. The further back in time you go, the more it took lonely effort and independent research to truly grasp its ideas. This is still the case today. Most have heard of it but have no idea what it is or why it's important. Many who are fervently in PMs or traditional investments like stocks and bonds continue to deride it, even though it will go down as the best performing asset of the 2010s by far. Others are a little more aggressive and, despite a lack of knowledge, call it anything from a scam to "rat poison squared". Like anything else, it's foolish to make bold claims atop little to no education. You'd think that treatment would make Bitcoin maximalists do some reflecting. Instead, a sizable number of them decided to emulate the ones who beat up on Bitcoin when it was small and irrelevant. "All you need is Bitcoin. Everything else is trash. I know what I'm talking about because I bought the top of the 2013 bubble and I'm probably immune to future dumps for life". Now let's talk about where cryptocurrency infrastructure falls short. Bitcoin still retains the same cypherpunk essence that it's always had. The same can be said for Bitcoin wallets. They're secure. They allow for anonymous transactions. They run on an immutable blockchain. There is no central authority between a key-holder and their funds. Enter the exchanges. In a way, they were a necessary evil. Without them, adoption would be severely throttled. With them, Bitcoin is compromised. For many, the privacy and anonymity that BTC is supposed to offers has been tossed out. It was the only way it could be retrofitted into a tightly-controlled system that demands KYC. While this has helped to spread adoption, Bitcoin has become more and more traceable. Quite ironically, many of these same exchanges that adopted KYC policies to "ensure accountability from their customers" had no trouble exit scamming. They come and go. The old one gets hacked, or it exit scams, or proves itself to be corrupt and suspicious. A new one comes. This time it will be different. Then the cycle repeats itself. Mt. Gox. Bitfinex. Polo. Bittrex. Binance. They all had their time in the Sun. These exchanges are in many ways the antithesis of the cypherpunk manifesto - vulnerable honeypots directly controlled by a centralized figurehead. Unsurprisingly, they cause a lot of unneeded trouble and give Bitcoin a ton of bad publicity. Example:
Me: "What do you think of Bitcoin?" Co-worker: "Didn't that thing get hacked last week?" Me: "Bitcoin didn't, but a place where it was exchanged was." Co-worker: "I don't trust it. It's only a matter of time til they find out how to type in some numbers to make more show up on a screen blah blah blah."
You've all likely met someone like this and brushed them off as closed-mined, but they're exactly the type of person this industry needs to convince to further adoption. It will be next to impossible to do so with the way things are right now. In order for Bitcoin to survive, it needs exchanges that are built to the same code that it was. The solution, therefore, is to "port" the cypherpunk essence of Bitcoin to the exchanges. Immutability. Anonymity. Privacy. No central authority of figurehead. With all that said, let's talk about DEXs. I started a thread on here a few months back when Binance announced that they were giving Americans the boot. I got a ton of answers. It shows that, among the hardcore at least, there is a desire to go in a new direction. Loopring, IDEX, and Bisq were among the more popular choices. It's a step in the right direction. However, these DEXs are still rather inaccessible - especially to outsiders. Performance wise, they're on the slower side of things. Due to these setbacks, they suffer from low volume. This is where some recent developments in multicurrency wallets with embedded DEXs from lesser-known projects will come out of obscurity and catch everyone by surprise. Among them - I'd like to mention Stakenet Wallet and KMD's Atomic DEX. Both of them, now seemingly weeks away from launch, will allow for atomic swaps between a wide variety of coins directly from a private wallet. Stakenet goes a step further by offering atomic swaps running atop Lightning Network. Why does this matter? These two platforms will be to exchanges what the inception of Bitcoin was to currency. Finally, after almost 9 years, Bitcoin not only has an exchange that truly honors its essence, but it's starting to see healthy competition between them. To elaborate further on why this is very important.. No KYC. No accounts. No sending Bitcoin to an exchange and waiting around for it to show up. No downloading multiple wallets. No exchange figureheads. No withdrawal freezes. In Stakenet's case, the decentralized MN network that runs it's DEX will also act as a massive LN payment processor (routing, watchtowers) that provides a ton of liquidity for it while allowing Bitcoin to scale. "Lightning swaps" will provide every LN-based coin the ability to be instantly swapped to purchase anything in BTC. Stakenet will also feature a DEX aggregator that will pool together the orderbooks of numerous DEXs into one easily-accessible spot, boosting traffic to the many DEXs that are harder to reach and furthering their adoption along. Simply download a wallet like you would any other app and you're ready to get started. It's so much easier and more convenient. I don't see how or why CEXs and all their ilk (figurehead drama, geoblocking, exchange hacks, wash trading, currency manipulation, exit scams, etc) could remain relevant in the environment to come. Regulation will not save us. Decentralization will. As long as one person learned something from this, it was all worth it. I welcome the opinions of everyone in this space.
Bitcoin is a cryptographic money, an advanced resource intended to function as a mode of trade that utilizations cryptography to control its creation and the executives, as opposed to depending on focal authorities. The assumed pseudonymous Satoshi Nakamoto coordinated many existing thoughts from the cypherpunk network while making bitcoin. Through the span of bitcoin's history, it has experienced fast development to turn into a noteworthy money both on and disconnected – from the mid 2010s, a few organizations started tolerating bitcoin notwithstanding customary monetary forms. Pre-history Preceding the arrival of bitcoin there were various computerized money advancements beginning with the guarantor based ecash conventions of David Chaum and Stefan Brands. Adam Back created hashcash, a proof-of-work conspire for spam control. The main recommendations for disseminated advanced shortage based digital forms of money were Wei Dai's b-money and Nick Szabo's bit gold. Hal Finney created reusable confirmation of work (RPOW) utilizing hashcash as its verification of work algorithm. https://preview.redd.it/06avg30idb741.jpg?width=914&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=67accc22dc1d82942bd31d4aabf4daefe978398a In the bit gold proposition which proposed a collectible market based system for expansion control, Nick Szabo likewise researched some extra perspectives including a Byzantine shortcoming tolerant understanding convention dependent on majority delivers to store and move the affixed verification of-work arrangements, which was defenseless against Sybil assaults, however. Creation On 18 August 2008, the area name bitcoin.org was registered. Later that year, on 31 October, a connect to a paper created by Satoshi Nakamoto titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System was presented on a cryptography mailing list. This paper point by point strategies for utilizing a shared system to produce what was portrayed as "a framework for electronic exchanges without depending on trust". On 3 January 2009, the bitcoin arrange appeared with Satoshi Nakamoto mining the beginning square of bitcoin (square number 0), which had an award of 50 bitcoins. Embedded in the coinbase of this square was the content:
Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? A analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). [Part I]
Bitcoin was released to the world in 2009 by someone (or a group) who authored a technical whitepaper, released the source code to the protocol and commented on a few p2p forums and mailing lists under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto for a few months prior and a few years afterwards before leaving the project. The project was left in the hands of Gavin Andresson who was another cryptographer that satoshi communicated regularly with on the forums and had been one of the first people involved in the project. Some time after satoshi left, one of his accounts was allegedly hacked and bitcointalk (the primary forum) itself was hacked so a meme kind of emerged that satoshi wouldn't be able to post again from his accounts or that posting from them would be dubious. In 2016 an Australian by the name of Craig S Wright was exposed by Wired and Gizmodo as potentially being the inventor of bitcoin. Craig then signed privately for Gavin Andreson, Jon Matonis but then when he was supposed to cryptographically sign to a journalist the method performed did not hold up to public scrutiny because he could have copy pasted a fragment from an earlier known signed message from satoshi and not generated it himself with the private keys. This cast a lot of doubt from many on the man's claims and he published an article saying he wasn't brave enough to sign. Since then the term cryptocurrency has blown out massively to include anything with a distributed ledger technology, a token, a security, and has really just devolved into a cesspit of buzzwords and disinformation. Once satoshi disappeared in 2011 and left the repo in the hands of Gavin and the open source community, it left a power vacuum in the space for how to interpret the protocol, whitepaper and handle the development. Gavin Andresson brought some other developers on board from the forums and mailing lists, Shortly after Gavin gave some other developers commit access, bitcointalk was hacked and these new developers somehow deleted gavin from the github repo due to apparent concern that his account was compromised from the hack and afterwards once he validated his identity in certain accounts he was never given access again. Gavin stopped being involved with the project after that. In the time following satoshi's departure a meme had evolved that satoshi had left because Gavin had met with the CIA to discuss bitcoin. This meme combined with the interpretation of what satoshi meant when he included the quote "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" in the genesis block, the subsequent rise and fall of silk road and darknet markets, and the general lore of the space, his cypherpunk mailing list associations had led the scene to paint/project upon him as some kind of government hating tax dodging l33t h4xor demigod. Although in the title of the whitepaper it was described as p2p cash, bitcoin as most know it is now is marketed as a store of value. Although it was defined as the longest Proof of Work chain of digital signatures, bitcoin as most know it in actual fact has segregated witnesses (signatures) in the protocol. Although satoshi attests to how bitcoin is designed to scale to giant block sizes hosted and mined in data centers that never really hits a scaling ceiling, it is being sold as that even at 1MB size, the damage has already been done and the blocksize should be 300kB because every user needs to be able to run a full node for bitcoin to validate their own transactions with the lowest hardware and bandwidth requirements possible. A high vertice count with everyone running a (non-mining) full node is said to protect the network against malicious actions by the big bad government while graph theory states that it is the degree of inter connectivity of the vertcies (edge number) that confers security of the network against sybil attacks as it brings the number of hops down. This decoupling from the original vision has led to development and scaling of bitcoin stalling for many years which led to the proliferation of many alt coins rising up to claim they possess superior attributes to bitcoin or can work in conjunction with bitcoin in a gold and silver type relationship, or serve a different use case to bitcoin. The debate between the groups that represented the opposing roadmaps reached a climax with bitcoin itself forking into two now separate blockchains with the minority chain being declared the imposter by social media claiming hashpower and the market had chosen despite their chain changing on the protocol level to implement segregated witnesses and reject the block size increase. These two now separate chains both forked again to birth bitcoin gold and diamond on the segwit chain and bitcoin cash and bitcoin sv on the non segwit chain. At the non segwit chain fork, bitcoin cash implemented checkpointing at the protocol level whereas bitcoin sv maintained the original nakamoto consensus and sought to scale greater than the 32MB blocksize limit BCH maintained with 64MB blocks. Following these forking events both BTC (segwit) and BCH (checkpoints) also implemented Schnorr signatures which was marketed as economising the size of a typical bitcoin transaction though in actual fact it can be used to obfuscate signatures and allow for the mixing of coins to mask the chain of digital signatures and essentially "anonymously" launder money. The BSV chain (now Stewarded by Dr Craig Wright) was then declared the loser of that hash war by people heralding the power of the market and the miners to democratize money. The problem with such a claim though is just like current polical democracy, this apparent democratisation of money was just as susceptible to the influence of those who control the cryptocurrency media and just like in politics, there is a cabal like group that exerts a disproportionate influence over the narrative and appears to serve the interests of those in on the racket rather than those it is allegedly informing. The main forums for discussion of cryptocurrency originally were bitcoin.org, bitcointalk.org and /Bitcoin with all three of them for some time sharing the same moderator theymos. Coindesk and the bitcoinmagazine (started by ethereum devs) were some early sources, talking heads like andreas antonopolos (andreasma), peter todd (petertodd) and greg maxwell (nullc) being propped up as sources of knowledge on what is the best course of action for scaling and endorsing solutions like small blocks, second layer solutions and segwit as a necessarry bitcoin improvement protocol (BIP) while people like Roger Ver (memory dealers) and Dr Craig Wright (craig_s_wright) endorsing a block size increase. Because the core developers had chosen to scale with small blocks and lots of nodes on the network were signalling in support of Segwit any discussion of a big block alternative was considered discussion of an alt coin and deleted and eventually users banned from /bitcoin. Out of that incident /btc emerged as an apparently censorship free forum for the discussion of all scaling plans for bitcoin but was ultimately a partisan sub populated with dejected big blockers. After the BCH fork, discussion for bitcoin sv exists on a few subs /bsv (modded by BCHers), /bitcoinsv (moderated by the lead technician at nChain (Craig Wright's company) and /bitcoincashsv where many users have been banned from both /bitcoin and /btc. Now this so far is just kind of a synposis of the history of bitcoin covering all three of the main contenders for the legitimate claimant of the name but the part 2 will look more at what kind of drastically different societies would be built upon the different versions of the protocol and what may seem like their subtle differences and which one is likely to succeed.
Another really huge issue with the btc community in general, and this reddit especially, is the lack of nuance on price. And again, an unwillingness to accept critique. There are several scenario that can play out with price, but in some of those scenario, we may even see a huge price pump, while *still failing at adoption*. And I think that's an important distinction to make. Just because wallstreet pumps the price for reasons that only concern the rich and institutions, does not equate to adoption. It does not equate to us making vital changes for the betterment of the network and adoption. It just doesn't. Wallstreet is perfectly content with hyper regulated bitcoin that is totally irrelevant for the common man and unadopted and unused, they are perfectly fine treating bitcoin as a glorified sovereign bond and international form of settlement. That is how the institutions and rich see it. They see it much like they see bonds and gold, and are willing to treat it as such. This is even a positive in some regard because it brings monetary transparency into the banking and wealth sector. But it does not address cypherpunk, emancipatory politics, or global poverty, or individual sovereignty. And it is acheived largely through extreme centralization and hyper invasive surveillance. Be clear, they can pump the price to 250,000 while still controlling everything through Patriot Act, AMLD5, NDAA, and FACTA and the banking secrecy Act. All of which Bitcoin is entirely ideologically incompatible with. But that's just fine, because the rich already comply with those laws (mostly). They already price in the regulatory and compliance costs of an institution, of an offshore tax haven. That's just it. IT's fine for them to do this to btc, because the laws are designed for them. They create the barriers only they can afford to play in, while hurting it for everyone else. The average common man in the world, and any developing country should be able to easily acquire btc without kyc. Period. It shouldn't be a surveillance state. I recently listened to Peter McCormack interview a darkmarket guy and I completely agree. We need to engineer away from on ramps, we need to engineer away from payment gates that involve fiat, and we need to all use coinjoiners and mixing technology. It needs to be the standard. There are so many reasons to use coinjoining for non illegality. Privacy is a fundamental need. And internet 4.0 for finance is contingent on a lot of technology. These aren't really coins either. It is backbone technology to better facilitate bitcoin. But we have to have layer two solutions. It doesn't matter whether it's RSK or plasma, or both, we just need the secondary layer to pay for distributed processing, server function, matching, liquidity, file storage, atomic swaps, network gas, etc. DeFi network value cannot be conflated with the supply and demand of btc itself, we don't need permissioned side chains, we need permissionless open source side chains and interoperatibilty platforms that will protect the privacy of bitcoin and facilitate it on decentralized exchanges. On exchanges that cannot be taken down. To do that we need staggering amounts of technology innovation and thoroughput, that will require people to host nodes, mine and stake these ancillary services to protect the backbone of bitcoin commerce. Anyone who is into toxic maximalism. Let it be known that you are willfully promoting corporate bitcoin supported by massive centralized players who will treat it as a bond or settlement statist instrument. You're promoting the support of bitcoin on an entirely captured regulatory framework and an entirely captured unsafe unsecure regular internet controlled by the clearnet and amazon and google and heavily surveiled. .Org just privatize for fuck sakes. And any DNS can be compromised, any .com site can be siezed. This normal backbone is entirely inappropriate for bitcoin. Centralized exchanges and payment apps like cash app are entirely inappropriate for bitcoin. You should be able to visit a IFPS site, connect a hardware wallet to any DEX or DAPP and immediately trade with the same speed and liquidity of binance and bitmex. The user interface should be simple and approachable to the layman. We need a liquidity interbank controlled by SPV server and dark node. Payment incentives for people to host liquidity to the network on plasma, radon, cosmos, uniswap, eventually all the DEX will simply be connected by interchain liquidity. Crypto has to be extremely unfettered. The regulators and wallstreet have strangled it and will continue to do so. Some people have forgotten that this is a battle for financial sovereignty and protection against wealth confiscation. Only when they realize that they can't control us, will they be forced to sit down at the legislative table and negotiate with common people. You have to bring your government to heel.
https://preview.redd.it/b4d7bm72lcx31.png?width=1903&format=png&auto=webp&s=feaf5a4e74b071cd4d418bce41972f79c96b2b0f When people think of digital currencies, most might think of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin. However, Bitcoin was not the first attempt at creating a digital currency. In fact, many different people have tried to create digital currencies in various forms for nearly 40 years. The earliest efforts to create a digital currency go all the way back to the early 1980s. Many of the ideas and concepts that led to the creation of Bitcoin came directly in response to the many failed attempts at creating digital currencies in the past, and by finding solutions to the problems that caused many early digital currencies to fail. In this blog, we look at the history of digital currencies that came before (and would later inspire) the creation of Bitcoin. Computer scientist David Chaum is regarded as the first person to release a white paper on digital currency in 1982. The paper titled Blind Signatures for Untraceable Payments proposed a new digital currency in response to a sharp increase in electronic transactions at the time. The article was also the first to conceptualize an anonymous digital currency. In 1990, Chaum launched DigiCash. DigiCash made its first electronic transaction in 1994 using a new digital currency called eCash. DigiCash was the first to use protocols such as public-key cryptography and blind signatures to ensure a user’s anonymity. By using these protocols, third parties did not have access to personal information contained in online transactions. Advancements in both public and private key cryptography allowed the electronic payment system to become untraceable by a bank, government, or third party. However, the system of blind signatures that allowed users to remain anonymous required a central authority such as a bank to ensure that the funds were not spent twice. Although DigiCash was the first to introduce many of the ideas that would later serve as the framework for future cryptocurrencies, the company did not have much commercial success. Only one US bank implemented the currency. DigiCash filed for bankruptcy in 1998 and was eventually sold off for assets. Other electronic cash systems such as First Virtual Holdings and Cybercash were created around the same time and suffered a similar fate. One of the most significant problems with the early electronic cash systems is that they relied on centralized organizations like financial institutions to partner in the process. Relying on banks also created a single point of failure for early digital currencies, meaning that if a bank was to go out of business then the digital currency that the bank partnered with would go down with it. Early digital currencies also suffered from the problem of governments shutting them down overnight, rendering many early e-cash solutions useless. Government intervention ceased operations for several digital currencies such as E-Gold and GoldMoney over concerns that the criminal underworld was using the currencies to launder money and facilitate illegal transactions. The problem of government regulation intensified following 9/11 as governments tried new ways to stop the transfer of funds to terrorist organizations. The perception that central authorities could suspend digital currencies simply by enacting new legislation gave the public a good reason to be reluctant in adopting them. Nick Szabo, a cryptographer and computer scientist, was the next to introduce ideas around creating a decentralized digital currency with Bit Gold. Bit Gold never came to fruition, but it is essential in the history of digital currency as many of Szabo’s ideas would go on to become critical in the creation of cryptocurrencies. Bit Gold aimed to create a trustless transaction model tied to gold. The US Federal Reserve’s central bank broke the standard of having the money supply of US dollars tied to gold in 1971. Bit Gold was the first digital currency to implement a proof-of-work (PoW) consensus algorithm. Using proof-of-work, cryptographic puzzles are solved using computational power. Each puzzle solution is broadcast on a peer-to-peer network. A cryptographic hash is created to link the solution of each puzzle to the next puzzle. In this model, all the users on the network need to agree on the previous puzzle’s answer before a new puzzle is generated. This method of consensus would be used to secure groups of transactions that would all be linked together using cryptographically hashed solutions. Unlike Bitcoin, Szabo was unable to solve what is known as the double-spending problem. An example of the double-spending problem is spending $100 on goods and services and then using the exact same $100 to make additional purchases at another point in the future. Szabo wanted to mimic the characteristics of gold (which has intrinsic economic value) and to prevent fraud or mismanagement by centralized third parties. Up until the creation of blockchain and cryptocurrencies, centralized organizations were solely responsible for maintaining and updating the account balances used in financial transactions. British cryptographer Adam Back created the digital currency Hashcash in 1997. Back wanted to introduce a system that could prevent spammed emails by restricting the amount of internet resources each user can spend per email. Back’s solution to spam email required that users spend a small amount of computing power to solve a puzzle before they would be able to send emails. For regular emails, the amount of computational power to solve each puzzle would be tiny, and it would only delay an email by a few seconds. However, someone trying to send spam email would be prevented from doing so by making it almost impossible for them to have the computational resources to send out thousands of emails all at once. It would also prevent spammed email by requiring that the senders pay for the electricity costs necessary to use a vast amount of computing power. Hashcash was referenced in Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin white paper. According to Nakamoto, a proof-of-work system similar to Hashcash would be needed in the blockchain that would be used to create Bitcoin. Computer engineer Wei Dai proposed another digital currency with the paper, "B-money, an anonymous, distributed electronic cash system" in 1998. The first protocol outlined in the article proposed using Hashcash’s proof-of-work consensus algorithm to create money. In the proposed system, transactions would be broadcast to everyone on the network to keep a balance of all the money in each account. In the second protocol, only a small subset of the network’s participants would be used to keep the balance in each account. He set out to create a punishment and reward system by having each server deposit a certain amount of funds in an account to be used as fines or rewards for proof of misconduct. To fully understand the development of digital currency, one must understand the story of the Cypherpunks. Cypherpunk is the name given to an activist that advocates for social and political change by using privacy-enhancing technologies such as cryptography. A small group of cryptographers met in the San Francisco Bay area and adopted the name Cypherpunks in 1992. The Cypherpunks mailing list was created later that year, acting as a forum for discussing computer science, cryptography, math, politics, and philosophy. The core Cypherpunk philosophy is that individuals should have the power to reveal their identity only when they choose to reveal it, and that neither governments or corporations can be entirely responsible for protecting that right. Satoshi Nakamoto cited several Cypherpunks in his original article. He first announced his white paper and the genesis block creation for Bitcoin through the Cypherpunk mailing list. Many of the early Cypherpunks went on to become developers for Bitcoin. With the creation of Bitcoin in 2009, Nakamoto was able to solve many of the problems that plagued his predecessors. By using a decentralized peer-to-peer network of computers that continually updates and maintains a public ledger (known as the blockchain) the problem of double spending is eliminated. Nakamoto explained this process in his 2008 white paper by stating, “Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work”. Said more simply, for someone to double-spend funds they would have to deceive the entire network into thinking that it was a legitimate transaction. New coins cannot be faked or copied and every transaction in the history of a cryptocurrency can be found on the blockchain. Making it nearly impossible to spend the same money twice. Nakamoto referenced the ideas first proposed by Szabo, Back and Dai in his white paper. The proof-of-work consensus algorithm outlined by the previous three authors defined the process over the creation of new Bitcoins. Bitcoins are issued to users on the system who help process transactions on the network. This is known as Bitcoin mining. Releasing a known and fixed number of coins over a given period of time creates an environment of scarcity for the currency, leading to the coins having value. This removes the need for Bitcoin to be tied to some other asset that has an intrinsic economic value such as gold. Nakamoto also found a solution to the problem DigiCash experienced of needing to rely on financial institutions in the transaction process by having a decentralized network that holds all of the transaction information in a public blockchain. With Bitcoin, there is no central authority or financial intermediary to regulate or attack. Solving the problem of other early digital currencies such as E-Gold and Gold Money that were essentially shut down overnight by new government regulations. No government or third-party can censor or shutdown a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin. Bitcoin does not have a single point of failure. To summarize, Bitcoin is not the world’s first digital currency. Attempts to create a digital currency goes back to the 1980s with key players such as David Chaum, Nick Szabo, Adam Back, Wei Dai and the original Cypherpunks all playing significant roles. However, many of the earlier attempts at creating digital currencies informed and inspired Satoshi Nakamoto in the creation of blockchain and Bitcoin. Are you new to the Canadian crypto space? At NDAX, we’re not. Create an account on our new website and start trading cryptocurrencies in Canada today. THIS BLOG AND WEBSITE ARE NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE INVESTMENT, LEGAL, ACCOUNTING, TAX, OR ANY OTHER ADVICE AND SHOULD NOT BE RELIED ON IN THAT OR ANY OTHER REGARD. THE INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES ONLY AND IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS AN OFFER OR SOLICITATION FOR THE SALE OR PURCHASE OF CRYPTOCURRENCIES OR OTHERWISE.
The biggest threat to Bitcoin is Blockstream President Adam "Phd" Back. He never understood Bitcoin, but he wants to control it and radically change it. It is time for Bitcoin users, developers and miners to reject his dangerous ideas and his attempts to centrally control our community and our code.
Here is a long comment to Adam Back (from 1 month ago) going into detail about his dangerous lack of understanding of Bitcoin, markets, and economics:
... Taking our code back from you may actually be the most important "day job" some of us will ever have. ...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/44qr31/gregory_maxwell_unullc_has_evidently_never_heard/czsthhg?context=1 And here is a timeline recently posted by todu showing Adam Back's long history of misunderstanding Bitcoin, and his tendency to exaggerate his contributions to it: https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4cxpt3/slush_pool_on_twitter_want_to_meet_special/d1mjxpp To many casual observers, Adam Back might initially sound like a nice harmless smart mathematician PhD nerd who wants to "help" Bitcoin. But if you look a little closer, you realize that Adam is actually the biggest threat to Bitcoin: a math PhD who knows nothing about economics but who thinks he's smarter than everyone else in Bitcoin, and who has been desperately trying to impose his personal ideas to centrally control the Bitcoin community and radically change the Bitcoin codebase. If he didn't have $76 million behind him as President of Blockstream, nobody would be listening to this fool - because he does not understand Bitcoin now, and he never understood it in the past, and his crazy proposals to radically change Bitcoin would be dangerous if they ever were implemented. Fortunately, he has committed zero lines of code to Bitcoin so far: https://github.com/adam3us But unfortunately, he has been using his prestige and wealth as President of the $76 million company Blockstream to fly around the world (to Hong Kong, and now to Prague), preaching his crazy idea that the "maximum blocksize" should be artificially constrained to 1 MB. This would hurt Bitcoin users and miners - but it would help his company Blockstream, which wants to sell a non-existent, complicated, unproven, centralized, off-chain "scaling solution" called "Lightning Network". He is using his position as President of Blockstream to obstruct simple and safe on-chain scaling solutions for Bitcoin, trying to prevent increasing the "maximum blocksize" beyond 1 MB - even though the network is dangerously close to becoming congested and recent studies have shown that 90% of nodes would support 4 MB blocks. Instead of supporting a simple and safe increase in the "maximum blocksize" to avoid congestion, he is now using Twitter to casually propose an shockingly unprecedented and radical change to Bitcoin's fundamental "difficulty algorithm" - to try to solve this problem which he himself created (network congestion due to artificially small blocks):
Adam PHD Back on Twitter: "Halvening: if miners were concerned they can softfork difficulty down 50% pre and release at halvening. Harmless just speeds blocks for week" - facepalm.jpg
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4dc4rs/adam_phd_back_on_twitter_halvening_if_miners_were/ More and more people are starting to realize that Adam Back did not understand Bitcoin years ago (when Satoshi personally explained it to him) and does not understand it now (when he is making a dangerous proposal to radically change Bitcoin's fundamental "difficulty algorithm" via a soft-fork). He always prefers radical, dangerous "solutions" (soft-forking a change to the difficulty level) instead of simple, safe ones (simply increasing the "maximum blocksize"). It is time for Bitcoin users, developers and miners to reject Adam Back's dangerous ideas and his attempts to centrally control our community and radically change our code.
Blockchain Forensics Firm Chainalysis Offering "Suspicious Transaction" Alerts For 15 Cryptocurrencies, Compromising Anonymity And Freedom
http://www.cypherpunklabs.com/blockchain-forensics-firm-chainalysis-offering-suspicious-transaction-alerts-for-15-cryptocurrencies-compromising-anonymity-and-freedom/ The blockchain forensics firm Chainalysis has announced that they are offering “suspicious transaction” alerts for 15 different cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Bitcoin Cash, Litecoin, top stable coins, and some ERC-20 tokens. What this essentially means is that after Bitcoins are purchased on a regulated platform like Coinbase or a Bitcoin ATM, they are then tracked to see if they are being used on the Darknet or for other illegal things like money laundering and tax evasion. Indeed, government agencies are pouring tens of millions of dollars into blockchain forensics firms such as Chainalysis, Elliptic, Coinfirm, Blockchain Intelligence Group, CipherTrace, and Scorechain. These government agencies include U.S. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI), Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Breaking this down, the IRS is tracking cryptocurrency activity in order to increase the taxation of cryptocurrency users. The cryptocurrency tax code in the United States is quite complex, time consuming, and expensive, and it seems a large fraction of cryptocurrency users have not paid taxes at all due to that. The IRS uses blockchain forensics in order to make a case to audit cryptocurrency users, and this may be connected to the 10,000 warning letters recently sent out to cryptocurrency users across the country. Apparently Coinbase, the biggest retail crypto exchange in the United States, handed over all user data from 2013-2017 to the IRS. The ICE, DEA, and FBI are all involved in trying to bust the Darknet, so it is no surprise that they are using blockchain forensics to track down cryptocurrency transactions that are being sent to the Darknet, since that can provide evidence to take down criminals that are otherwise highly anonymous. The SEC and CFTC are involved in regulating the cryptocurrency markets, so they use blockchain forensics to track any unregulated cryptocurrency trading and investment, continuing their efforts to completely centralize the cryptocurrency market into the hands of a few big players that are fully know your customer (KYC) and anti-money laundering (AML) compliant. Zooming out, the rise of blockchain forensics is another step in the government’s attack on the cryptocurrency economy. It perhaps started when peer to peer Bitcoin trading, like on Localbitcoins, was outlawed. This led to Bitcoin trading only being legal on major exchanges like Coinbase where the full identity of users is collected, from which point user identitification data and their transaction activity is accessible to any government agency that wants it. Now blockchain forensics are making it so any Bitcoins which originate from regulated venues can be easily tracked, compromising the pseudo-anonymity of the Bitcoin network. In fewer words, the government has worked to ensure that people can only obtain Bitcoin at fully regulated venues, and now blockchain forensics is being used to track Bitcoins and other major cryptocurrencies originating on those regulated venues, and this comprises a large fraction of the cryptocurrency in circulation. Cryptocurrency users should be aware that a significant amount of Bitcoin originates on Coinbase or other regulated exchanges, so even if Bitcoin is obtained in a peer to peer deal it may still be tracked by blockchain forensics firms working for the exchanges and government. There are options available to increase anonymity, like using a mixer which sends the Bitcoin between numerous addresses, mining the Bitcoin yourself, or using a fully stealth cryptocurrency like Monero. Cypherpunk Labs does not advocate the use of cryptocurrency for illegal activity, but privacy and anonymity is a basic human right, and cryptocurrency users should be aware that cryptocurrency lacks anonymity nowadays due to the rise of blockchain forensics, if proper steps are not taken.
Burstcoin (BURST): A Dark Horse That Could Become A Major Cryptocurrency, The King of Proof of Capacity
https://preview.redd.it/nt1qbc9cq4221.png?width=572&format=png&auto=webp&s=d867a4c98e7ab7e9c37c7dc23cc7fb251a5ecec7 https://cryptoiq.co/burstcoin-burst-a-dark-horse-that-could-become-a-major-cryptocurrency-the-king-of-proof-of-capacity/ Currently the cryptocurrency space is flooded with copycat coins and initial coin offering (ICO) tokens, most of which are moving steadily down the ranks on CoinMarketCap as the bear market of 2018 continues. This bear market is weeding out cryptocurrencies that have little long term potential, and cryptocurrencies that have strong communities and unique technology are rising to the top. Burstcoin (BURST) is one such cryptocurrency that is rising to the top, like cream in a glass of fresh milk. This is because the Burstcoin community is filled with diehard Cypherpunks, and BURST is the king of Proof of Capacity. Back in the middle of October 2018 BURST was at #248 on CoinMarketCap, which was before the ‘nuclear’ bear market took effect, where the support level was broken due to the Bitcoin Cash hard fork, Bakkt delaying the launch of physical Bitcoin futures, and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) initiating its first civil enforcement penalties against ICOs. BURST has decreased in price like every other cryptocurrency, but is rising relative to other cryptocurrencies, and as of 3 December 2018 sits at #199 on CoinMarketCap with a market cap of USD 13.5 million. This increase in the price of BURST relative to other cryptocurrencies is due to Burstcoin’s unique technology. Burstcoin is the king of Proof of Capacity, a mining algorithm that uses the hard drive, versus raw computational power like with Proof of Work, and is much more energy efficient than Proof of Work. Proof of Capacity works by writing cryptographic hashes to an allotted segment of a hard drive called a plot. This plot is then read during mining to find the correct cryptographic hash, and whoever finds the cryptographic hash the fastest receives the block reward. More hard drive space dedicated to the plot equals more cryptographic hashes available, making it easier to find an answer and earn the BURST block reward. Currently 1TB generates 1-2 BURST per day, and even though this is only equivalent to about a penny, it is all profit since reading the plot file requires a negligible amount of energy, and BURST miners can use their computer for other activities without impediment. Compare this to Proof of Work, which slows down personal computers and costs more electricity than the cryptocurrency it mines. BURST is one of the only cryptocurrencies that can be profitably mined on personal computers. Further, unlike with Proof of Work where specialized mining equipment is required like application specific integrated circuits (ASICs), anyone with a computer or even mobile phone can mine BURST, and if they decide to stop mining BURST they can simply delete their plot file and use the hard drive space for other things. This is unlike ASICs, which cannot be used for anything but mining, so if someone decides to stop mining they lose all the money invested into the ASIC. The ease of mining and negligible energy usage has led to the formation of a strong BURST mining community, with over 200,000 TB securing the BURST network. This is equivalent to hundreds of thousands of personal computers. The expansive mining community gives BURST value, and some of these miners are blockchain developers, and they have been building a full suite of technology based on the Burstcoin blockchain. CloudBurst immutably stores files directly on the Burstcoin blockchain, for a small 1-time fee. Real blockchain storage is a rarity in the cryptocurrency world. The file will be stored as long as the Burstcoin blockchain exists, which is the foreseeable future and beyond considering the expansive BURST mining community. Cloudburst would be useful if you lost your computer and all of your backups in a natural disaster like a hurricane, and is a more secure solution than cloud storage like Google. Also, the Burstcoin wallet can be used to easily issue cryptocurrencies that are based off of the Burstcoin blockchain, and there is a decentralized exchange built-in to the wallet to trade these crypto assets. Cryptocurrency scalability is a problem even for major cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum, but Burstcoin has tackled and solved this problem with the launch of the Dymaxion. The scalability of the Dymaxion is so powerful that it can handle all the non-cash transactions in the world. This is done via the utilization of tangle-based lightning networks on top of the Burstcoin blockchain. Transactions done via the Dymaxion are instant, with no fees and practically no energy expenditure. The Dymaxion gives Burstcoin the room to grow as much as it needs to. When people look for the cryptocurrencies that will survive long term, it can be confusing due to the 2,000+ cryptocurrencies listed on CoinMarketCap. However, it is clear that cryptocurrencies with truly unique and useful technology, as well as strong communities will always be around and gain value long term relative to all the ICOs and copycats. Bitcoin is the king of SHA-256, Litecoin is the king of Scrypt, Ethereum is the king of blockchain-based dApps, Dogecoin is the king of the shibes on Reddit, Dash is the King of X11, Monero is the king of privacy coins, IOTA is the king of Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs), and Burstcoin is the king of Proof of Capacity. These kings of cryptocurrency will definitely be the winners and survivors when the fallout from the ICO apocalypse is over. This is for educational purposes only and is not investment advice. We are not paid by BURST to write this article.
A signed version of this message can be found here https://pastebin.com/Lp5Djs5R Hello. I am the BearWhale. After a series of bad experiences with the banking system, I invested most of my life savings into bitcoin when the price was fairly low, around $8. For years I was a HODLer. I was holding when Trendon Shavers ripped everyone off. I was holding when the price was over a thousand, and I held after MtGox imploded. I believe strongly in Bitcoin’s decentralized promise of displacing immoral national currencies. The price kept drifting downwards until finally at a little over $300 I had enough. I sold off everything, based on an accumulation of information I gathered mostly from social media such as bitcointalk.org and reddit:
The block size limit of 1MB was a threat to bitcoin’s future
“Satoshi’s vision” was unlimited block sizes
Gavin was ousted by a cabal of self-interested engineers, a.k.a. “Blockstream”
Blockstream took control of bitcoin’s source code repository
Theymos colluded with Blockstream to censor block size increase discussions
The subreddit bitcoin heavily censored block size increase discussions
Blockstream wanted the block size low to promote its proprietary Lightning Network
Gregory Maxwell was a bad actor and Luke-Jr was a religious nut
The market agreed with the above, leading to the then-decline in price towards $300
At this point I should state that I am a highly technical person. I understand all of the math behind the bitcoin whitepaper and the software that powers it. Although, I am not a security expert nor am I a cypherpunk - only a little experience in the type of adversarial thinking necessary to be a competent steward of the technology. I don’t regret selling, as I made an enormous profit. The decision was a rational one based on available information. However, in 2017 I went all-in on bitcoin again and here’s why: None of the supposed facts which motivated my decision to sell were correct. It was all a carefully crafted and funded disinformation campaign launched by Roger Ver and his cronies, perhaps Jihan Wu, to discourage improvements to the bitcoin protocol to achieve financial gain at the expense of the community. Once I recognized the moves to discredit the core developers for what it was, a covertly operated smear campaign fought on social media, funded by enormous enrichment from bitcoin, carried out with sock puppets and appeals to emotion, I looked at bitcoin and the greater community again with a more critical eye and I came to the following conclusions:
Bitcoin is working great: look at the fees people are willing to pay
Resistance to poorly thought out protocol changes is a feature not a bug
Core developers are highly competent, from reading the mailing list
SegWit is incredibly well engineered to create the least network disruption
The subreddit btc is filled with negativity and meaningless attack
Roger Ver is a con man who uses his bitcoin.com domain to push his agenda
Bitcoin mining is centralized due to Bitmain’s temporary monopoly on retail hardware
ASICBoost is an exploit which has broken some economic incentives of bitcoin
Absent Bitmain, bitcoin the currency is far superior to altcoins
Although I am of course an adult fully responsible for my decisions, I want to make it clear that Roger Ver’s agenda was successful at convincing me that bitcoin had a “governance crisis” and was at risk of being overtaken by altcoins. My reason for this open letter s simple: I want the community to know that I fully support the core developers. I am strongly in favor of UASF as a mechanism for liminating the centralizing effect of miner control illusions. I support SegWit as a sensible technology for moving Bitcoin forward. I reject a block-size increase hard fork at the present time. I reject a phony “compromise.” And I especially resent and reject a consortium of suits coming to an “agreement” on what source-code base will be named “bitcoin” without that code base being thoroughly vetted over a suitable long time-frame by industry professionals. Those industry professionals include Gregory Maxwell and most of the people who participate regularly on the bitcoin developers mailing list and contribute pull requests to the bitcoin-core repository. tl;dr; I am the BearWhale: I sold Bitcoin for the wrong reasons, and now I am all-in and long bitcoin again.
My thoughts and observations on XMR: I have been following cryptocurrencies since 2010; however I did not have the requisite computer literacy at the time to effectively understand and use them. Several years ago, I bought a small amount of Bitcoin, but did not truly pusue it. Recently, I resolved to become sufficiently computer savvy. After months of self-study, I decided to test my skills with a desktop home build, to feed my gaming addiction. A friend of mine suggested I should mine Monero while the rig was idle. I had only heard of Monero as 1 of 1000 altcoins. I was intrigued by XMR's CPU minability, something I thought no longer existed in the cryptosphere. I've been mining ever since. (My rig sports an i7-6700K CPU and dual GTX 1070's.) I started mining in December of last year. I'm a hobbyist miner, nothing more, but I can say that mining has had a psychological effect on me. I follow the story of Monero with an excitement that my Bitcoin purchase never brought me. Perhaps this is because mining is an ongoing process instead of a single accumulation event. Here is a summary of what drew me to Monero, what it has already accomplished, where I think it needs to go, and what I think some of its most special features are. As a zealous convert from Bitcoin, I can't help but think of BTC as a foil for XMR. First and foremost, I was drawn to Monero due to it's ability to be feasibly mined on both CPUs and GPUs. I like the idea of being able to put idled pieces of technology to work; old phones and computers could be utilized to mine. ASICs are expensive, closely tied to the price of the coin they mine, and provide no other utility to my life. CPUs and GPUs are a less risky investment, because they have utility and value independent of crypto mining. When I joined the Monero revolution, hardware wallets were not available yet; this means there was also an opportunity to use truly ancient tech as an air gapped wallet, allowing me to even utilize machines that were uneconomic to mine with. I have always been a sort of scrap-oriented hacker, and I take pride in mining on computers and phones that I have assembled, upgraded, or refurbished myself. This is an experience that cannot be replicated by plugging in an ASIC; one of the biggest things that drew me to Monero was the dev team's commitment to mining on consumer technology. My faith in the project was affirmed by the recent PoW change. The second major factor that drew me to Monero related to the (in my opinion) greater utility of the address format and mnemonic seed, as compared to Bitcoin. I've always felt that BTC's mnemonic seeds and HD wallets were sort of grafted on to the underlying protocol. As an example, not all HD wallet seeds are compatible; you need to be running a program (such as Electrum) that works with that seed. In Monero, the mnemonic seed was considered from the beginning, and integrated into the core client. We can carry our XMR seeds across platform without worry. If memory serves correctly, GUI seeds can be used in Monerujo and MyMonero. I've been told they work with Cakewallet as well. This a great convenience I think we often overlook. I feel like my next point is somewhat related to the above point; we do not have to hassle with xpubs. Using xpubs means you need to give out a new address every transaction, or deal with the consequences of address reuse. Monero's automatic stealth address integration not only addresses some of these drawbacks, but it also offers the convenience of only having to copy a QR code once. Your XMR address never changes, so it's a lot more convenient to have something like a donation address or pre-printed QR codes, for example. Another feature of XMR that I think sets it apart is it's tail emission; surprisingly few coins have it. Not only does a tail emission incentivizes mining indefinitely, it also replenishes the coin supply. Coins will inevitably be lost over time as people die or lose their seeds; in the long term this could result in volitility due to a lack of liquidity, which is detrimental to the whole crytpo ecosystem. I think Monero's conservative tail emission is forward thinking in that respect. Enough coins will be replaced to ensure ongoing mining as well as general liquidity. Thus far, I haven't even mentioned the privacy aspects. Ring Signatures, Ring CT, and Stealth Addresses all work together to give Monero users a great degree of privacy. These are great features that would have drawn me to hold the coin, even if they didn't pique my interest to mine it. There can still be improvements on this front, and in fact there have been and there will continue to be. Minimum Mixins have been increasing, improving plausible deniability. Subaddresses give Monero users the ability to utilize multiple receive addresses, gaining some of the advantages of BTC's xpubs. Bulletproofs are coming, increasing the efficiency of Monero's cryptography. Kovri is coming, not just for the official GUI wallet but hopefully also for mining pools as well. There have been other recent innovations as well such as multi-signature transactions which allow Monero to take advantage of escrow abilities. The ecosystem around the blockchain has grown as well, notably in the realm of hardware wallets. The use of Monero will likely soar as a result of these new augmentations. Here are some of the developments I have witnessed in my short time as a part of this community: (1) Multi-signature Support (2) Subaddress Generation (3) Hardware Wallet Support (4) Anti-ASIC PoW Change (5) Mixin Size Increase Here's what I am looking forward to as catalysts: (1) Kovri integration (2) Mobile hardware wallet support via Monerujo (3) Monero as a Debian package integrated into Tails OS (4) Bulletproof transaction size reduction Continuing PoW forks to combat ASICs (5) XMR adoption as base currency on Bisq These factors are what galvanize my belief that Monero will only increase in utility over time. XMR has lost over half it's value since I started mining, and I can't but help to see it as an opportunity. XMR is only getting steadily better than Bitcoin; parity may be closer than we think. There is only one major roadblock to adoption, in my mind, and I believe it is an inevitable consequence of our encrypted blockchain. Frankly, making a view-only wallet is a cumbersome pain. The private view key only lets you see incoming transactions, so you need to import the signed key images from another machine. This is a much more painstaking process than simply exporting a Bitcoin xpub. Thankfully, hardware wallets can be a solution to this problem, as a means of providing access to private keys and key images. Technical difficulties are quickly melting away, priming to release Monero's revolutionary potential. Monero is my dream coin, embodying what I feel are all the central tenants of the original cypherpunk cryptocurrency movement. What else are you looking forward to in the future of Monero? Does anyone else share my sense of giddyness for the future?
Further, Bitcoin uses strong cryptography, indicating that the creator of Bitcoin, Satoshi Nakamoto, had a strong desire for privacy. Indeed, Satoshi was an active member of the Cypherpunk mailing list and collaborated with various Cypherpunks to develop Bitcoin. The origins of Bitcoin can be traced to the CypherPunk movement.. The Cypher punk movement started arguably on the back of work by David Chaum – one of the usual suspects to be Satoshi Nakomoto.. David Chaum published a paper in 1985 discussing anonymous digital cash and pseudonymous reputation protocols – Security without Identification: Transaction Systems to Make Big Brother Obsolete. The cypherpunks, a ragtag group of tech tinkerers, cryptographers, and privacy advocates, were obscure in their 1990s heyday. And it would have remained that way in perpetuity were it not for a certain Satoshi Nakamoto launching a digital currency in 2009 encapsulating their core beliefs. We don’t know if Satoshi was a cypherpunk. But what […] The Cypherpunks Tapping Bitcoin via Ham Radio For a small group of bitcoin enthusiasts, the internet is a vulnerability. They're using satellites, ham radios, and mesh networks to stay current on Skip to content
Presentation at the Chicago Bitcoin and Open Blockchain Meetup February 18, 2017 Paul Rosenberg discusses the early history of the cypherpunks and their interest in digital cash leading up to the ... Bitcoin adalah salah satu dari implementasi pertama dari yang disebut cryptocurrency (mata uang kripto?), pertama kali di deskripsikan oleh Wei Dai pada tahun 1998 dalam milis cypherpunks. https ... Et si nous plongions dans le mouvement cypherpunk, à l'origine de Bitcoin ? Quelles inventions en sont nées ? Grâce à qui ? Et dans quel contexte ? Dans ce troisième épisode, découvrez Tor ... Presentation at the Chicago Bitcoin and Open Blockchain Meetup February 18, 2017 Paul Rosenberg discusses the early history of the cypherpunks and their interest in digital cash leading up to the... Bitcoin History: From the Cypherpunk Movement to JPMorgan Chase Blockchain at Berkeley. ... Tezos Kathleen Breitman on cypherpunks & crypto-anarchy & world-changing potential of cryptocurrency ...