Where can I see the current size of the bitcoin blockchain

Since they're calling for r/btc to be banned...

Maybe it's time to discuss bitcoin's history again. Credit to u/singularity87 for the original post over 3 years ago.

People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs.
bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person.
For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network.
Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain.
Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network.
Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past.
A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making.
Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird.
After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels.
While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin).
As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream.
There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good.
To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision.
Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation.
The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
submitted by CuriousTitmouse to btc [link] [comments]

LOEx Market Research Report on July 7: Due to insufficient energy, BTC stagfled and the second-line collective rose

LOEx Market Research Report on July 7: Due to insufficient energy, BTC stagfled and the second-line collective rose
[Today's Hot Tips]
1. [Gyeonggi-do Program, South Korea to launch the Universal Basic Income Program (UBI) supported by local stablecoins]
According to cryptonews, as part of the post-coronavirus pandemic economic stimulus package, Gyeonggi-do, South Korea now hopes to advance the Universal Basic Income Program (UBI), which will use existing or new stablecoins to replace fiat currencies. Stablecoins can be used through QR codes and smart phone-based wallets. The province plans to issue stablecoins worth about $1 billion this year, double the number issued last year. Projects of this size are likely to require approval from the central government, but the South Korean government has previously stated that it is prepared to weigh UBI's arguments-a debate on the feasibility of UBI issuance is scheduled for later this year.
2. [3400 points on the Shanghai Index Station, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange Blockchain 50 Index rose 0.61%]]
At the opening of the A-share market, the Shanghai index rose by more than 2%, standing at 3,400 points, a new high since February 2018. The Shanghai Stock Exchange Index reported 3405.6 points (+2.18%), the Shenzhen Stock Exchange Component Index reported 13116.15 points (+1.36%), and the Shenzhen Blockchain 50 Index reported 3970.33 points (+0.61%). Straight Flush digital currency sector rose 1.12%.
3. [Iran requires cryptocurrency miners to register with the government within one month]
According to Coindesk's news on July 7, Iranian Vice President Eshaq Jahangiri announced on Monday that the country's cryptocurrency miners must register mining machines with the government within a month.
[Today's market analysis]
Bitcoin (BTC)
https://preview.redd.it/ied8x5tjxd951.png?width=554&format=png&auto=webp&s=72664361b1019e3e283bddb48facb1fc8194d889
In the early hours of this morning, BTC slightly increased above 9300 USDT and then fell back. It is now fluctuating around 9290 USDT. Mainstream currencies have risen. BTC is currently reported at 9272 USDT on LOEx Global, a drop of 0.32% in 24h.
The stock has been rising, but the currency circle has been standing still. It is reasonable to say that the stock market said last time to absorb the currency circle funds. But once the magical place like the currency circle is launched, the stock market is only a small increase.
Yesterday’s BSV suddenly started, and this strong currency has burst by 30% in one day, driving the rise of the entire second-tier currency. Therefore, the rally in the currency circle was much better than the stock market yesterday. Users who bought BSV made a big profit directly .
BSV often takes an independent market. As long as the hotspots related to Auburn Seng can rise or fall sharply, the BSV surge is related to the cases of 1.1 million Bitcoin in the Auburn Sat and Chelsea family. It will be sentenced in the near future, but no news has been received yet.
The current market is that it cannot rise, the currency market lacks funds to make a breakthrough, and it cannot fall. There is a certain amount of support at the early stage of the volume pile. It does not fall so fast, so it can only be that the pie does not rise, and other second-tier currencies rise, but it is a rising way of shrinkage, and the high level should not stay for a long time.
Operation suggestions:
Support level: the first support level is 9200 points, the second support level is 9000 integers;
Resistance level: the first resistance level is 9300 points, the second resistance level is 9500 points.
LOEx is registered in Seychelles. It is a global one-stop digital asset service platform with business distribution nodes in 20 regions around the world. It has been exempted from Seychelles and Singapore Monetary Authority (MAS) digital currency trading services. Provide services and secure encrypted digital currency trading environment for 2 million community members in 24 hours.
submitted by LOEXCHANGE to u/LOEXCHANGE [link] [comments]

Let's discuss the 'one chain or none approach' and BSV winning narrative - aside from CSW!

It's been a bit quiet on here, and since a lot of things are up in the air about the court case currently, I thought I would start a discussion that is largely unrelated to CSW except for in addressing some of the broadly accepted statements and predictions for the longer term performance of BSV.
I wanted to make this thread because there have been fragmented discussions on this that I have found interesting and engaging, and I would like to put it in one place. I think it also addresses a very key point which I believe both sides will agree on - the 'survival' of BSV regardless of whether CSW is Satoshi.
I feel there are a few key areas around which this revolves so I will attempt to capture them below and hopefully we can address each one and why it could/couldn't leave BSV as the sole survivor without it descending into bickering.
  1. The whole bitcoin whitepaper narrative, and the flaws of other chains, in particular bitcoin core and cash. Aside from interpretations of the whitepaper, a lot of this narrative is based on things that BTC or other chains have done wrong which prevent scaling. My issues with this argument are primarily that some the 'facts' that are used as an argument against BTC are basically not true. Blocks are not actually capped at 1MB, Segwit does not break the chain of digital signatures and non segwit nodes can still verify transactions that have happened using segwit. Obviously segwit didn't fix all the problems it was meant to and the lightning network is awful, but it seems like one of the first arguments presented against BTC in favour of BSV relates to the above, but just because they are repeated incessantly does not make them true. If core presented a valid scaling solution within certain parameters surely this is a huge setback for BSV. For other chains I'll be more general, but I think it comes across as ignorant to say that the system proposed in the whitepaper is the only thing that could ever work. What if something that does not yet exist comes along tomorrow (like it has done before) and is better. Ethereum has it's flaws, but on the back end it is a proof of work chain that has consistently achieved higher daily transactions and an order of magnitude greater functionality than bitcoin since some point in 2017 with the downside that the blockchain is bigger. This obviously does not phase the BSV camp, so why fork from something that was already 'on the back foot' with respect to the metrics that are hailed as important. I do not see BSVs unique proposition in this respect.
  2. The crude approach to scaling metrics. I will concede this is more just a thing that annoys me which I want to address and for the purpose of my posts define, obviously people are free to disagree and discuss. A lot of the social media debates revolve around 'scaling' and for good reason. But I want to explore the definition of that word. To me, doubling a block size to double the number of transactions is not scaling, that is a crude way to increase throughput. Scaling would be fitting twice the number of transactions into the same block, for example. They are not the same thing, and crudely increasing throughput will have diminishing returns effects in relation to performance. The other scaling metric that annoys me is quotes in TPS when we're talking about bitcoin rules which is a new block every 10 minutes. Functionally this is completely misleading and should be looked at with respect to finality. If I had an account with a bitcoin in it, I could spam a bunch of 'valid' 1 bitcoin transactions to nodes, yet after the block is mined obviously only one of those can be valid. Daily transaction metrics are good, or unique address interactions etc, but quoting 'high' TPS just because a big block was mined after 10 minutes does not necessarily make that any more useful. I do not see BSVs unique proposition in this respect.
  3. The legal compliance thing vs anarachist thing that is being pushed and about it being the 'only' legal compliant chain. This is basically nonsense, code is code, obviously it is not law. Code is a neutral ruleset which people choose to participate with and abide by. Nothing is black and white, one could choose to be completely legal things on any other chain and completely illegal things on BSV to the same effect. I don't think there is a BSV vs other chains argument to be made here from either perspective. The law is the law, it doesn't matter which software you use to abide by it or break it with.
  4. The decentralisation debate. I have less to say on this one but I don't think it's a compelling case for any approach as being objectively better or worse. Decentralisation is a spectrum and there is no universal sweet spot. On one end we have the 'everyone run a node' approach and on the other end we have host everything on AWS. BSV is somewhere in the middle of this, no one knows what the 'correct' amount of decentralisation is for general purposes so I do not see how it can be claimed that BSV has an optimal approach as long as it remains functional.
  5. This is my personal point of greatest interest. I wouldn't say I'm a die hard supporter of any chain in particular, so I do think it is a worthwhile experiment trying the big block approach to see what happens. The issue is the assumption that this is the correct and best solution for doing everything on the blockchain. This leads me to the thinking that BSV is getting stuck in a 'jack of all trades - master of none' scenario. Whilst this means it may perform 'fine' functionally at the moment, it feels that all things equal, it may not survive long term and will certainly never be the dominant chain because there will always be a better alternative for a specific purpose, four general examples that I can think of below:
    1. Security of a significant transaction. Lets say a house purchase, if I had to choose a chain I would obviously choose BTC because it has the greatest hashrate by orders of magnitude. I will happily pay a fee and wait for a few confirmations to know that as far as blockchains go, my transaction is as final as possible. Obviously this example uses current state of things, but obviously this use case will always go to the most secure chain, which could be anything. I cannot see a compelling case for this becoming BSV.
    2. Microtransactions. I agree this is very important, and this narrative is pushed a lot in BSV. The problem is, there are plenty of chains currently that allow fast transactions with finality in seconds that are literally fee free. Whilst it is true that BSV can do really cheap transactions, what is the point when there is a faster and cheaper alternative. The same applies to SPV and 0-conf, while they might be 'fine' most of the time, why rely on them when you don't have to. Whilst there are more concerns over security for these fast and free chains, if we're talking beer money or whatever it's less of an issue if you're paying for convenience. This sort of echoes what Craig said in the bitcoin vision video from the other day that I agree with, except for the BSV part, so again I don't think this is a compelling case for only BSV, in fact I already think it is on the back foot.
    3. Privacy. It's a controversial topic for sure, but the fact remains that people will sometimes for whatever reason want to be able to transact privately and for illicit reasons. BSV does not intend to cater for this, but there is a market for this regardless, and a number of chains that offer it to varying degrees.
    4. Smart contracts. Another big one which encompasses a lot of things from tokens to actual contracts to provably fair gaming and gambling. There is already a host of account based chains with far more advanced functionality and greater developer communities than BSV. The 10 minute block finality is also an issue here, as for many of the above you presumably will want finality to transactions. I know BSV is expanding the 'smart contract' capabilities but I do not see a unique or compelling case for it to suddenly dominate or even make an impact any time soon. Once again, I do not see any kind of unique selling point.
So all in all, there is a fierce discussion aside from CSW about whether BSV is superior and can survive and thrive. I am obviously of the belief that the 'one chain or none' approach will not be the case, but I would be curious to here why people on both sides of the fence agree or disagree on the various points, and whether there will be one chain to rule them all..!
submitted by Martin1209 to bitcoinfights [link] [comments]

Why I am supporting Bitcoin Cash

First, I want to say that I believe that Bitcoin (BTC) will moon and that lambo will rain, for several reasons that I won’t explain here and now. So please don't shit on me or down vote this post without explaining yourself properly. I'm saying this because the crypto community is full of young and emotional person insulting each other all the time without being able to explain their view clearly. I’m just sharing my story and my opinion, if I say something wrong, please let me know. No need to be emotional.
My story: I’m French (Forgive my English), a software engineer, working from home, previously in the banking industry, big noob in blockchain code related. I have been supporting bitcoin for a couple of times now, unfortunately I discovered it a bit late, promoting it to people around me as the peer to peer cash system and hoping that it will give us our financial freedom.
During this bear market and after losing a big part of my coins, I finally took the time to get a better understanding of each coin I’m holding and I quickly realised that Bitcoin Cash wasn’t a scam, that Bitcoin BTC is purely a speculative asset, the playground of professional traders, used to rekt noobs and that Lightning network will end as custodial wallets because no one will take the time/risk for opening/closing/securing a channel, especially poor people (few billions). There is no benefit for the average user in maintaining a LN node. I believe it will be more interesting to mine Bitcoin rather than maintaining a LN node.
So basically, I lost faith in the promise made by the Lightning Network which made me focusing on why Bitcoin Cash is the answer to a decentralized peer-to peer electronic cash system. I can confess that in the past I used to believe that second layer solution was the solution for everything, but I changed my mind.
To make it simple, BCH allows to make instant payment for very cheap whereas BTC can’t and won’t.

For each crypto project, I look at those different points:
1. Length of the chain
BTC and BCH are sharing the longest chain, it has been working well without any issues since now 10 years. No other project has such a good track record. This make me feel confident that the chance that this will continue to work as well for years or decades.

2. Community behind it
A good community for me is when you see technical people, risking their reputation/identity by posting videos, writing stuff and talking in public events about the project they support. Based on that, I believe the BCH community is the biggest of all. By technical people I mean someone talking using technical approach to back their opinion rather than beliefs based on emotions. Usually in the crypto space, those people are developers but it’s not always the case.
I made a small list of technical people supporting BCH:
-Peter R. Rizun: Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Unlimited.
-Vitalik Butterin (he often showed his support regarding BCH but didn’t produce any content)
-Jonald Fyookball: Electron Cash Developer
-Jonathan Toomim: Bitcoin cash developer who made interesting proof regarding scaling onchain)
-George Hotz: no need to present this awesome crazy dude!
-Amaury Séchet: Bitcoin Cash Developer and French! 😊
-Rick Falkvinge: Founder of the swedish pirate party, watch his youtube channel.
-Gabriel Cardona (Bitcoin cash developer)
-Justin Bons : Founder & CIO of Cyber Capital
-Dr. Mark B. Lundeberg: Developer researcher
And there is a lot more, but those people are people that I personally trust for their work they shared and that I like following.
Recently we had the Bitcoin cash city conference, another event full of people supporting BCH, that kind of thing doesn’t happen with other crypto. So many brilliant people supporting BCH, how could it be possible that all those guys are supporting a scam or a shitcoin. As well, there is often meetups and conferences all over the world.
The developer community is not centralized, there is multiple teams (BitcoinABC, Bitcoin Unlimited, BCHD, Bcash, Bitcoin Verde…) independent of each other arguing sometimes about technical and political stuff, this ensure that developments and important decisions are not centralized. I find this very healthy. If a fork occurs, it’s not a problem, it will simply double your coin and allows two different ways of thinking to grow and compete. This won’t happen in Bitcoin (BTC) anymore, the way of thinking is centralized for BTC, they all share the same view: the segwit workaround + small block + layer 2 = (moon + lambo) in 18 months.
Regarding CSW, I don’t believe in this guy for now but maybe I’m wrong, maybe this guy is wrongly understood but based on all the things I know about him, he seems too complicated to be someone honest. Honesty comes with simplicity.
Finally, regarding Roger Ver: He is hated a lot and I still don't understand why, I feel sorry for him, I really tried my best to hate him like the crowd, but I couldn’t find any reasons. Many people are saying that he is lying and scamming people but none of them are technically able to explain why. It's really a crazy story and I understand why some people call him "Bitcoin Jesus". I personally think he is doing a great job and I thank him.

3. The current and future adoption
BCH is used by reel people and reel shops (check the bitcoin cash map), there are transactions on the network to buy and sell real things that exist in the real world. Can you believe this? Maybe the only blockchain having that. Please let me know if you know another blockchain which is today serving the real world.
The Bitcoin cash wallet app is easy and exciting to use. Same for the app for merchant. This can be used by my old mum! The BCH roadmap shows that more features will be added to simplify and enhance the user experience. I can’t find other blockchain having that level of user friendliness.
Recently Roger Ver announced HTC mobile phone with a BCH wallet preinstalled. I read as well that Burger King is accepting BCH, but I haven’t verified if this was legit or not.

4. Existing features and roadmap
-Multiple wallets built on all platform.
-Bitcoin Cash point of sales: this app is the app that merchant should use to accept Bitcoin, as well very easy to use and takes 5min to install.
-Cash shuffle with Cash fusion allowing to transact anonymously, making BCH competing with privacy focused coins such like Zcash, Monero, Dash. I heard this function will be implemented as well on mobile devices.
-SLP token: The simplicity of creating a token and sending dividends make BCH a bit competing with all smart blockchain. Anyone can create a token, raise funds and send dividends easily and it works! Will Bitcoin Cash evolve to a smart economy?
-memo.cash: A social network stored on the blockchain, fixing the problem of censorship we have on reddit for example. I recently discovered it, it’s awesome to know that you can write whatever you want, and nobody will be able to delete it and this forever. It’s really an awesome experience. I invite you to test it. For example, yesterday I had fun creating, sending token and being tipped in BCH or in any token by random people, it really shows the potential of BCH. I think I made around 50 on chain transactions in less than one hour with less than 10 cents.
-Stable coins: We can build stable coin on BCH; this is something very important as well.
Regarding the roadmap: It’s well described on bitcoincash.org and looks promising, but no update since the last 5 months. Not sure if it’s normal.

5. Security
SHA256 based algorithm are I believe the most secure, I don’t think we need to add more regarding this. Maybe someone can help me to find some downside regarding security, often some people talk about the potential 51% attack that could occurs on BCH but I couldn’t manage to have my own opinion regarding this.
Regarding the double spending attack because of the zero confirmation, I have asked many people to explain to me how this could potentially be a problem for a real merchant. I think that small and insignificant amount doesn’t need instant confirmation but if you sell a lambo then of course you should wait for at least 5 confirmations.
To summarize I would even consider that zero conf is more advantageous than Lightning Network if you take everything into consideration. Worth case scenario if your restaurant is victim of a double spending attack a few times, you will just increase the confirmation level and prevent your customer from living your place. I think that it’s easier to print fake fiat money and try to pay with it rather than trying a double spending attack. But again, I might have misunderstood something or maybe there is more sophisticated exploits that I haven’t thought of.

6. Price
21 million coins, no inflation, the price currently around 300usd, a boiling community. The potential gains could be as good as BTC and even more. Maybe it’s the so waited coin that you will never convert back to that shit fiat. Certainly, one of the best coins to invest in now.

7. Electricity and efficiency
Since the cost of electricity is the same whatever the size of the block, it means that BCH is more environment friendly than BTC for the same amount of transaction or we can say that it’s "wasting" less energy. Maybe if LN works one day this will change.

My Conclusion:
Bitcoin is technically the worst coin; all others existing coins are better technically. But Bitcoin survives because of the network effect, illustrated by its biggest hash rate, making BTC the most secure blockchain. As well because of promises made by the Lightning Network. Bitcoin is the gold of crypto currencies. Bitcoin like Gold have both almost no utility. In a traditional market, gold drop when economy goes well and goes up when investors need to find a refuge. BTC is the drop zone for fresh meat.
Most of the BTC holders cannot think clearly regarding the BTC/BCH debate, they become completely irrational. This kind of behaviour leads to ruin, especially in trading/investment.With low fees, instant transaction, smart contracts, big community, user friendly apps, stable coin and a lot more to come, Bitcoin Cash has clearly a good future. I hope that someone will find my post useful. Cheers.
submitted by talu3000 to btc [link] [comments]

Reddcoin (RDD) 02/20 Progress Report - Core Wallet v3.1 Evolution & PoSV v2 - Commits & More Commits to v3.1! (Bitcoin Core 0.10, MacOS Catalina, QT Enhanced Speed and Security and more!)

Reddcoin (RDD) Core Dev Team Informal Progress Report, Feb 2020 - As any blockchain or software expert will confirm, the hardest part of making successful progress in blockchain and crypto is invisible to most users. As developers, the Reddcoin Core team relies on internal experts like John Nash, contributors offering their own code improvements to our repos (which we would love to see more of!) and especially upstream commits from experts working on open source projects like Bitcoin itself. We'd like tothank each and everyone who's hard work has contributed to this progress.
As part of Reddcoin's evolution, and in order to include required security fixes, speed improvements that are long overdue, the team has up to this point incorporated the following code commits since our last v3.0.1 public release. In attempting to solve the relatively minor font display issue with MacOS Catalina, we uncovered a complicated interweaving of updates between Reddcoin Core, QT software, MacOS SDK, Bitcoin Core and related libraries and dependencies that mandated we take a holistic approach to both solve the Catalina display problem, but in doing so, prepare a more streamlined overall build and test system, allowing the team to roll out more frequent and more secure updates in the future. And also to include some badly needed fixes in the current version of Core, which we have tentatively labeled Reddcoin Core Wallet v3.1.
Note: As indicated below, v3.1 is NOT YET AVAILABLE FOR DOWNLOAD BY PUBLIC. We wil advise when it is.
The new v3.1 version should be ready for internal QA and build testing by the end of this week, with luck, and will be turned over to the public shortly thereafter once testing has proven no unexpected issues have been introduced. We know the delay has been a bit extended for our ReddHead MacOS Catalina stakers, and we hope to have them all aboard soon. We have moved with all possible speed while attempting to incorproate all the required work, testing, and ensuring security and safety for our ReddHeads.
Which leads us to: PoSV v2 activation and the supermajority on Mainnet at the time of this writing has reached 5625/9000 blocks or 62.5%. We have progressed quite well and without any reported user issues since release, but we need all of the community to participate! This activation, much like the funding mechanisms currently being debated by BCH and others, and employed by DASH, will mean not only a catalyst for Reddcoin but ensure it's future by providing funding for the dev team. As a personal plea from the team, please help us support the PoSV v2 activation by staking your RDD, no matter how large or small your amount of stake.
Every block and every RDD counts, and if you don't know how, we'll teach you! Live chat is fun as well as providing tech support you can trust from devs and community ReddHead members. Join us today in staking and online and collect some RDD "rain" from users and devs alike!
If you're holding Reddcoin and not staking, or you haven't upgraded your v2.x wallet to v3.0.1 (current release), we need you to help achieve consensus and activate PoSV v2! For details, see the pinned message here or our website or medium channel. Upgrade is simple and takes moments; if you're nervous or unsure, we're here to help live in Telegram or Discord, as well as other chat programs. See our website for links.
Look for more updates shortly as our long-anticipated Reddcoin Payment Gateway and Merchant Services API come online with point-of-sale support, as we announce the cross-crypto-project Aussie firefighter fundraiser program, as well as a comprehensive update to our development roadmap and more.
Work has restarted on ReddID and multiple initiatives are underway to begin educating and sharing information about ReddID, what it is, and how to use it, as we approach a releasable ReddID product. We enthusiastically encourage anyone interested in working to bring these efforts to life, whether writers, UX/UI experts, big data analysts, graphic artists, coders, front-end, back-end, AI, DevOps, the Reddcoin Core dev team is growing, and there's more opportunity and work than ever!
Bring your talents to a community and dev team that truly appreciates it, and share the Reddcoin Love!
And now, lots of commits. As v3.1 is not yet quite ready for public release, these commits have not been pushed publicly, but in the interests of sharing progress transparently, and including our ReddHead community in the process, see below for mind-numbing technical detail of work accomplished.
e5c143404 - - 2014-08-07 - Ross Nicoll - Changed LevelDB cursors to use scoped pointers to ensure destruction when going out of scope. *99a7dba2e - - 2014-08-15 - Cory Fields - tests: fix test-runner for osx. Closes ##4708 *8c667f1be - - 2014-08-15 - Cory Fields - build: add funcs.mk to the list of meta-depends *bcc1b2b2f - - 2014-08-15 - Cory Fields - depends: fix shasum on osx < 10.9 *54dac77d1 - - 2014-08-18 - Cory Fields - build: add option for reducing exports (v2) *6fb9611c0 - - 2014-08-16 - randy-waterhouse - build : fix CPPFLAGS for libbitcoin_cli *9958cc923 - - 2014-08-16 - randy-waterhouse - build: Add --with-utils (bitcoin-cli and bitcoin-tx, default=yes). Help string consistency tweaks. Target sanity check fix. *342aa98ea - - 2014-08-07 - Cory Fields - build: fix automake warnings about the use of INCLUDES *46db8ad51 - - 2020-02-18 - John Nash - build: add build.h to the correct target *a24de1e4c - - 2014-11-26 - Pavel Janík - Use complete path to include bitcoin-config.h. *fd8f506e5 - - 2014-08-04 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - qt: Demote ReportInvalidCertificate message to qDebug *f12aaf3b1 - - 2020-02-17 - John Nash - build: QT5 compiled with fPIC require fPIC to be enabled, fPIE is not enough *7a991b37e - - 2014-08-12 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - build: check for sys/prctl.h in the proper way *2cfa63a48 - - 2014-08-11 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - build: Add mention of --disable-wallet to bdb48 error messages *9aa580f04 - - 2014-07-23 - Cory Fields - depends: add shared dependency builder *8853d4645 - - 2014-08-08 - Philip Kaufmann - [Qt] move SubstituteFonts() above ToolTipToRichTextFilter *0c98e21db - - 2014-08-02 - Ross Nicoll - URLs containing a / after the address no longer cause parsing errors. *7baa77731 - - 2014-08-07 - ntrgn - Fixes ignored qt 4.8 codecs path on windows when configuring with --with-qt-libdir *2a3df4617 - - 2014-08-06 - Cory Fields - qt: fix unicode character display on osx when building with 10.7 sdk *71a36303d - - 2014-08-04 - Cory Fields - build: fix race in 'make deploy' for windows *077295498 - - 2014-08-04 - Cory Fields - build: Fix 'make deploy' when binaries haven't been built yet *ffdcc4d7d - - 2014-08-04 - Cory Fields - build: hook up qt translations for static osx packaging *25a7e9c90 - - 2014-08-04 - Cory Fields - build: add --with-qt-translationdir to configure for use with static qt *11cfcef37 - - 2014-08-04 - Cory Fields - build: teach macdeploy the -translations-dir argument, for use with static qt *4c4ae35b1 - - 2014-07-23 - Cory Fields - build: Find the proper xcb/pcre dependencies *942e77dd2 - - 2014-08-06 - Cory Fields - build: silence mingw fpic warning spew *e73e2b834 - - 2014-06-27 - Huang Le - Use async name resolving to improve net thread responsiveness *c88e76e8e - - 2014-07-23 - Cory Fields - build: don't let libtool insert rpath into binaries *18e14e11c - - 2014-08-05 - ntrgn - build: Fix windows configure when using --with-qt-libdir *bb92d65c4 - - 2014-07-31 - Cory Fields - test: don't let the port number exceed the legal range *62b95290a - - 2014-06-18 - Cory Fields - test: redirect comparison tool output to stdout *cefe447e9 - - 2014-07-22 - Cory Fields - gitian: remove unneeded option after last commit *9347402ca - - 2014-07-21 - Cory Fields - build: fix broken boost chrono check on some platforms *c9ed039cf - - 2014-06-03 - Cory Fields - build: fix whitespace in pkg-config variable *3bcc5ad37 - - 2014-06-03 - Cory Fields - build: allow linux and osx to build against static qt5 *01a44ba90 - - 2014-07-17 - Cory Fields - build: silence false errors during make clean *d1fbf7ba2 - - 2014-07-08 - Cory Fields - build: fix win32 static linking after libtool merge *005ae2fa4 - - 2014-07-08 - Cory Fields - build: re-add AM_LDFLAGS where it's overridden *37043076d - - 2014-07-02 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - Fix the Qt5 build after d95ba75 *f3b4bbf40 - - 2014-07-01 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - qt: Change serious messages from qDebug to qWarning *f4706f753 - - 2014-07-01 - Wladimir J. van der Laan - qt: Log messages with type>QtDebugMsg as non-debug *98e85fa1f - - 2014-06-06 - Pieter Wuille - libsecp256k1 integration *5f1f2e226 - - 2020-02-17 - John Nash - Merge branch 'switch_verification_code' into Build *1f30416c9 - - 2014-02-07 - Pieter Wuille - Also switch the (unused) verification code to low-s instead of even-s. *1c093d55e - - 2014-06-06 - Cory Fields - secp256k1: Add build-side changes for libsecp256k1 *7f3114484 - - 2014-06-06 - Cory Fields - secp256k1: add libtool as a dependency *2531f9299 - - 2020-02-17 - John Nash - Move network-time related functions to timedata.cpp/h *d003e4c57 - - 2020-02-16 - John Nash - build: fix build weirdness after 54372482. *7035f5034 - - 2020-02-16 - John Nash - Add ::OUTPUT_SIZE *2a864c4d8 - - 2014-06-09 - Cory Fields - crypto: create a separate lib for crypto functions *03a4e4c70 - - 2014-06-09 - Cory Fields - crypto: explicitly check for byte read/write functions *a78462a2a - - 2014-06-09 - Cory Fields - build: move bitcoin-config.h to its own directory *a885721c4 - - 2014-05-31 - Pieter Wuille - Extend and move all crypto tests to crypto_tests.cpp *5f308f528 - - 2014-05-03 - Pieter Wuille - Move {Read,Write}{LE,BE}{32,64} to common.h and use builtins if possible *0161cc426 - - 2014-05-01 - Pieter Wuille - Add built-in RIPEMD-160 implementation *deefc27c0 - - 2014-04-28 - Pieter Wuille - Move crypto implementations to src/crypto/ *d6a12182b - - 2014-04-28 - Pieter Wuille - Add built-in SHA-1 implementation. *c3c4f9f2e - - 2014-04-27 - Pieter Wuille - Switch miner.cpp to use sha2 instead of OpenSSL. *b6ed6def9 - - 2014-04-28 - Pieter Wuille - Remove getwork() RPC call *0a09c1c60 - - 2014-04-26 - Pieter Wuille - Switch script.cpp and hash.cpp to use sha2.cpp instead of OpenSSL. *8ed091692 - - 2014-04-20 - Pieter Wuille - Add a built-in SHA256/SHA512 implementation. *0c4c99b3f - - 2014-06-21 - Philip Kaufmann - small cleanup in src/compat .h and .cpp *ab1369745 - - 2014-06-13 - Cory Fields - sanity: hook up sanity checks *f598c67e0 - - 2014-06-13 - Cory Fields - sanity: add libc/stdlib sanity checks *b241b3e13 - - 2014-06-13 - Cory Fields - sanity: autoconf check for sys/select.h *cad980a4f - - 2019-07-03 - John Nash - build: Add a top-level forwarding target for src/ objects *f4533ee1c - - 2019-07-03 - John Nash - build: qt: split locale resources. Fixes non-deterministic distcheck *4a0e46e76 - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: fix version dependency *2f61699d9 - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: quit abusing AMCPPFLAGS *99b60ba49 - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: avoid the use of top and abs_ dir paths *c8f673d5d - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: Tidy up file generation output *5318bce57 - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: nuke Makefile.include from orbit *672a25349 - - 2019-06-29 - John Nash - build: add stub makefiles for easier subdir builds *562b7c5a6 - - 2020-02-08 - John Nash - build: delete old Makefile.am's *066120079 - - 2020-02-08 - John Nash - build: Switch to non-recursive make
Whew! No wonder it's taken the dev team a while! :)
TL;DR: Trying to fix MacOS Catalina font display led to requiring all kinds of work to migrate and evolve the Reddcoin Core software with Apple, Bitcoin and QT components. Lots of work done, v3.1 public release soon. Also other exciting things and ReddID back under active dev effort.
submitted by TechAdept to reddCoin [link] [comments]

[UPDATE][M] Ryo Currency 0.5.0.0 "Fermi Paradox"

[UPDATE][M] Ryo Currency 0.5.0.0
https://preview.redd.it/o6o6y8g9rwi41.jpg?width=1920&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fe52faff108d163f476907e004cac1ef47aaa1a9
[M] - Mandatory. The update contains security fixes or contains fork update (wallet will stop working after some height reach).
IMPORTANT: The latest version is 0.5.0.1 (contains minor update after 0.5.0.1)
Meet Ryo Currency 0.5.0.0 update - Fermi Paradox. In this update we will discuss 3 updates and do one announcement in the source code, 2 of them will be the first among any Cryptonote projects:
  • Wallet Scan speedup thanks to ECC and multi-threading library. Increased wallet scan speed when processing blockchain. New Elliptic Curve Cryptography library combined with implemented multi-threading that ustilises user's CPU results in reduced block verification up to 5x times compared with previous modes.
  • Plateau emission curve. Ryo's block reward changes every 6-months following a "Plateau Curve" distribution model. The modification of emission curve was initiated and debated with Ryo community. The following fork will finalise and implement that change.Notice: the difference between previous and this model will take effect at block height 394470.Read more about Ryo plateau emission curve
  • Various code edits, refactoring and minor fixes. There are multiple code fixes and edits that could be considered minor when looked in particular, but when looked in general - result in more than 35.000 lines of code being changed making core code more clean, optimised and bugfixed.Check Ryo Github repository
https://preview.redd.it/qv27xxdarwi41.png?width=2000&format=png&auto=webp&s=34836461eb348619f37f75fbc91e94a58dc065f8
Research and studies of Ryo Dev team showed that current ring signature technology as it is - is obsolete and has too many flaws to be considered as a means for reaching the goal of the second level of of privacy. Therefore we will be replacing ring signatures with second generation ZK-proofs technology in observable future and temporarily downgrade privacy level to 1.
In general, you can consider privacy levels like that:
  • level 0 - everyone can look into your wallet and know your transactions (BTC level)
  • level 1 - nobody can see inside of your wallet, but each note has a serial number (yes, this is real life money level and in CN coins is implemented using stealth addresses)
  • level 2 - notes you have don't have a serial number to a guy that gave you one, and no-one can't know if you spent it later (In CN coins it is implemented using ring signatures - which are the failing ones)
What we are saying is over the past year or two, researches stripped ring signatures of their privacy properties so much, that we think it is no longer fair to say that we (or Monero, which is even worse since it has even smaller ring size compared to Ryo) or any other CN project that uses it - meet the level 2 of privacy.
So, summarising in non-tech words what does it mean - when you are doing a transaction and want to imagine how it looks like in system:
  • bitcoin - "I spent output 10, worth 1 BTC and output 22, worth 0.5 BTC"
  • ring signature (current CN coins) - "I spent output 10, 14, 18 or 20, and output 16, 18, 19, or 22"
  • zk-proof - "I spent something."

Fork is scheduled on block 362000: you can check fork countdown on Ryo Currency website

Please update your wallets before this block, or your previous wallet will stop synchronising after the block 362000:
  • Ryo Wallet Atom: download latest Atom installer when annouced update to version 1.5.0, start it and perform reinstall.
  • Ryo cli binaries: download or compile from source updated binaries from Github version 0.5.0.0 and unzip it, and place your wallet key files in new folder.
  • Pool owners and exchanges are notified about updating their nodes to the latest version before the fork.
Questions you might have regarding the fork:
  • What will happen with mining algorithm - will it change or what does "fork" mean - coin is split on 2? No, "fork" basically means major code update that is being activated on a specified block height. There will be no mining algorithm change or chainsplit.
  • Ryo roadmap indicates that you had in plans reaching 100x ring sizes. In light of future introduction of ZK-proofs does it mean that this is not aplicable? Yes, we eventually will be replacing ring signature technology on ZK-proofs, which is more fundamental change than trying to "beat dead horse" with ring signatures.
  • What about atomic swaps? Ryo roadmap indicates it being planned, is it still possible with introducing ZK-proofs? Yes it is! And we aim to implement this feature after all necessary updates in core code. It is important to have everything implemented and tested before adding that feature.
  • What is a ZK-proof? ZK stands for zero-knowledge. In cryptography, a zero-knowledge proof is a method by which one party (the prover) can prove to another party (the verifier) that they know a value x, without conveying any information apart from the fact that they know the value xYou can read more about zero-knowledge proof (with real life examples) here.
  • Will blockchain grow faster (what about tx size) when moving to ZK-proofs? Overall, transactions and blocks using ZK-proofs will be even smaller in size than pre-fork ring signatures with bulletproofs! Plus it enables transactions to be aggregated together - this is obviously a major scalability gain for Ryo Currency.
  • I heard or as far I understand that ZK-proofs are somewhat less private? Does it mean that you are not privacy-oriented project anymore? No, in short - we decided to do this change to second gen. ZK-proofs, because ring signatures as is are too weak on providing enough for us default level of privacy and overall are considered now as an obsolete technology. So we don't want to say that we have a privacy level of 2, when research shows that it is not.
  • Ok, after 0.5.0.0 fork - will we be using uniform payment ID-s to do transactions on exchanges? Yes. There are no changes regarding usage of payment ID-s and integrated addresses. We will be still using ring signatures, but also are announcing our goal on moving to ZK-proofs.
  • What else is there in plans/ideas you have in development of Ryo? Besides all plans and development ongoing with Ryo (wallets, infrastructure, core code and researches) we also developed and improve Mining platform RagerX. It is a all-in-one mining platform that unites a miner, pplns pool, OS, GUI flasher utillity, pool frontend and has advanced social features as well as 2 level affiliate program. In observable future we will add Cryptonight-GPU mining possibillity.We are implementing RagerX so people can mine CPU coins and Ryo simultaneously. Which means more eyes on Ryo, especially from fresh members.
  • Are the ring signature issues that have been discovered are applicable to other ring signature based coins like Monero? Yes.
https://preview.redd.it/x5jqtb8brwi41.png?width=1000&format=png&auto=webp&s=06a0de33b10014e0fdf1b847939718475cbe6fbe
submitted by RyocurrencyRu to ryocurrency [link] [comments]

Time for a reminder and history lesson: People should get the full story of r/bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs

People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs.
bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person.
For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network.
Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain.
Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network. Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past.
A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making.
Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird. After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels.
CONTINUE READING THE FULL POST HERE...
This post was written by Singularity87 in 2017. Thanks to Jessquit for the reminder about this post in another comment of his.
submitted by BitcoinXio to btc [link] [comments]

An in-depth analysis of Bitcoin's throughput bottlenecks, potential solutions, and future prospects

I've recently spent altogether too much time putting together an analysis of the limits on block size and transactions/second on the basis of various technical bottlenecks. The methodology I use is to choose specific operating goals and then calculate estimates of throughput and maximum block size for each of various different operating requirements for Bitcoin nodes and for the Bitcoin network as a whole. The smallest bottlenecks represents the actual throughput limit for the chosen goals, and therefore solving that bottleneck should be the highest priority.
The goals I chose are supported by some research into available machine resources in the world, and to my knowledge this is the first paper that suggests any specific operating goals for Bitcoin. However, the goals I chose are very rough and very much up for debate. I strongly recommend that the Bitcoin community come to some consensus on what the goals should be and how they should evolve over time, because choosing these goals makes it possible to do unambiguous quantitative analysis that will make the blocksize debate much more clear cut and make coming to decisions about that debate much simpler. Specifically, it will make it clear whether people are disagreeing about the goals themselves or disagreeing about the solutions to improve how we achieve those goals.
There are many simplifications I made in my estimations, and I fully expect to have made plenty of mistakes. I would appreciate it if people could review the paper and point out any mistakes, insufficiently supported logic, or missing information so those issues can be addressed and corrected. Any feedback would help (especially review of my math)!
Here's the paper: https://github.com/fresheneesz/bitcoinThroughputAnalysis
Oh, I should also mention that there's a spreadsheet you can download and use to play around with the goals yourself and look closer at how the numbers were calculated. Also, there was a discussion on BitcoinDiscussion a while back.
tl;dr
submitted by fresheneesz to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Technical: The `SIGHASH_NOINPUT` Debate! Chaperones and output tagging and signature replay oh my!

Bitcoin price isn't moving oh no!!! You know WHAT ELSE isn't moving?? SIGHASH_NOINPUT that's what!!!
Now as you should already know, Decker-Russell-Osuntokun ("eltoo") just ain't possible without SIGHASH_NOINPUT of some kind or other. And Decker-Russell-Osuntokun removes the toxic waste problem (i.e. old backups of your Poon-Dryja LN channels are actively dangerous and could lose your funds if you recover from them, or worse, your most hated enemy could acquire copies of your old state and make you lose funds). Decker-Russell-Osuntokun also allows multiparticipant offchain cryptocurrency update systems, without the drawback of a large unilateral close timeout that Decker-Wattenhofer does, making this construction better for use at the channel factory layer.
Now cdecker already wrote a some code implementing SIGHASH_NOINPUT before, which would make it work in current pre-SegWit P2PKH, P2SH, as well as SegWit v0 P2WPKH and P2WSH. He also made and published BIP 118.
But as is usual for Bitcoin Core development, this triggered debate, and thus many counterproposals were made and so on. Suffice it to say that the simple BIP 118 looks like it won't be coming into Bitcoin Core anytime soon (or possibly at all).
First things first: This link contains all that you need to know, but hey, maybe you'll find my take more amusing.
So let's start with the main issue.

Signature Replay Attack

The above is the Signature Replay Attack, and the reason why SIGHASH_NOINPUT has triggered debate as to whether it is safe at all and whether we can add enough stuff to it to ever make it safe.
Now of course you could point to SIGHASH_NONE which is even worse because all it does is say "I am authorizing the spend of this particular coin of this particular value protected by my key" without any further restrictions like which outputs it goes to. But then SIGHASH_NONE is intended to be used to sacrifice your money to the miners, for example if it's a dust attack trying to get you to spend, so you broadcast a SIGHASH_NONE signature and some enterprising miner will go get a bunch of such SIGHASH_NONE signatures and gather up the dust in a transaction that pays to nobody and gets all the funds as fees. And besides; even if we already have something you could do stupid things with, it's not a justification for adding more things you could do stupid things with.
So yes, SIGHASH_NOINPUT makes Bitcoin more powerful. Now, Bitcoin is a strong believer in "Principle of Least Power". So adding more power to Bitcoin via SIGHASH_NOINPUT is a violation of Principle of Least Power, at least to those arguing to add even more limits to SIGHASH_NOINPUT.
I believe nullc is one of those who strongly urges for adding more limits to SIGHASH_NOINPUT, because it distracts him from taking pictures of his autonomous non-human neighbor, a rather handsome gray fox, but also because it could be used as the excuse for the next MtGox, where a large exchange inadvertently pays to SIGHASH_NOINPUT-using addresses and becomes liable/loses track of their funds when signature replay happens.

Output Tagging

Making SIGHASH_NOINPUT safer by not allowing normal addresses use it.
Basically, we have 32 different SegWit versions. The current SegWit addresses are v0, the next version (v1) is likely to be the Schnorr+Taproot+MAST thing.
What output tagging proposes is to limit SegWit version ranges from 0->15 in the bech32 address scheme (instead of 0->31 it currently has). Versions 16 to 31 are then not valid bech32 SegWit addresses and exchanges shouldn't pay to it.
Then, we allow the use of SIGHASH_NOINPUT only for version 16. Version 16 might very well be Schnorr+Taproot+MAST, with a side serving of SIGHASH_NOINPUT.
This is basically output tagging. SIGHASH_NOINPUT can only be used if the output is tagged (by paying to version 16 SegWit) to allow it, and addresses do not allow outputs to be tagged as such, removing the potential liability of large custodial services like exchanges.
Now, Decker-Russell-Osuntokun channels have two options:
The tradeoffs in this case are:
The latter tradeoff is probably what would be taken (because we're willing to pay for privacy) if Bitcoin Core decides in favor of tagged outputs.
Another issue here is --- oops, P2SH-Segwit wrapped addresses. P2SH can be used to wrap any SegWit payment script, including payments to any SegWit version, including v16. So now you can sneak in a SIGHASH_NOINPUT-enabled SegWit v16 inside an ordinary P2SH that wraps a SegWit payment. One easy way to close this is just to disallow P2SH-SegWit from being valid if it's spending to SegWit version >= 16.

Chaperone Signatures

Closing the Signature Replay Attack by adding a chaperone.
Now we can observe that the Signature Replay Attack is possible because only one signature is needed, and that signature allows any coin of appropriate value to be spent.
Adding a chaperone signature simply means requiring that the SCRIPT involved have at least two OP_CHECKSIG operations. If one signature is SIGHASH_NOINPUT, then at least one other signature (the chaperone) validated by the SCRIPT should be SIGHASH_ALL.
This is not so onerous for Decker-Russell-Osuntokun. Both sides can use a MuSig of their keys, to be used for the SIGHASH_NOINPUT signature (so requires both of them to agree on a particular update), then use a shared ECDH key, to be used for the SIGHASH_ALL signature (allows either of them to publish the unilateral close once the update has been agreed upon).
Of course, the simplest thing to do would be for a BOLT spec to say "just use this spec-defined private key k so we can sidestep the Chaperone Signatures thing". That removes the need to coordinate to define a shared ECDH key during channel establishment: just use the spec-indicated key, which is shared to all LN implementations.
But now look at what we've done! We've subverted the supposed solution of Chaperone Signatures, making them effectively not there, because it's just much easier for everyone to use a standard private key for the chaperone signature than to derive a separate new keypair for the Chaperone.
So chaperone signatures aren't much better than just doing SIGHASH_NOINPUT by itself, and you might as well just use SIGHASH_NOINPUT without adding chaperones.
I believe ajtowns is the primary proponent of this proposal.

Toys for the Big Boys

The Signature Replay Attack is Not A Problem (TM).
This position is most strongly held by RustyReddit I believe (he's the Rusty Russell in the Decker-Russell-Osuntokun). As I understand it, he is more willing to not see SIGHASH_NOINPUT enabled, than to have it enabled but with restrictions like Output Tagging or Chaperone Signatures.
Basically, the idea is: don't use SIGHASH_NOINPUT for normal wallets, in much the same way you don't use SIGHASH_NONE for normal wallets. If you want to do address reuse, don't use wallet software made by luke-jr that specifically screws with your ability to do address reuse.
SIGHASH_NOINPUT is a flag for use by responsible, mutually-consenting adults who want to settle down some satoshis and form a channel together. It is not something that immature youngsters should be playing around with, not until they find a channel counterparty that will treat this responsibility properly. And if those immature youngsters playing with their SIGHASH_NOINPUT flags get into trouble and, you know, lose their funds (as fooling around with SIGHASH_NOINPUT is wont to do), well, they need counseling and advice ("not your keys not your coins", "hodl", "SIGHASH_NOINPUT is not a toy, but something special, reserved for those willing to take on the responsibility of making channels according to the words of Decker-Russell-Osuntokun"...).

Conclusion

Dunno yet. It's still being debated! So yeah. SIGHASH_NOINPUT isn't moving, just like Bitcoin's price!!! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? A analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). [Part 2]

Part 1
It's been a bit of time since the first post during which I believe things have crystallised further as to the intentions of the three primary bitcoin variants. I was going to go on a long winded journey to try to weave together the various bits and pieces to let the reader discern from themselves but there's simply too much material that needs to be covered and the effort that it would require is not something that I can invest right now.
Firstly we must define what bitcoin actually is. Many people think of bitcoin as a unit of a digital currency like a dollar in your bank but without a physical substrate. That's kind of correct as a way to explain its likeness to something many people are familiar with but instead it's a bit more nuanced than that. If we look at a wallet from 2011 that has never moved any coins, we can find that there are now multiple "bitcoins" on multiple different blockchains. This post will discuss the main three variants which are Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Cash and Bitcoin SV. In this respect many people are still hotly debating which is the REAL bitcoin variant and which bitcoins you want to be "investing" in.
The genius of bitcoin was not in defining a class of non physical objects to send around. Why bitcoin was so revolutionary is that it combined cryptography, economics, law, computer science, networking, mathematics, etc. and created a protocol which was basically a rule set to be followed which creates a game of incentives that provides security to a p2p network to prevent double spends. The game theory is extremely important to understand. When a transaction is made on the bitcoin network your wallet essentially generates a string of characters which includes your public cryptographic key, a signature which is derived from the private key:pub key pair, the hash of the previous block and an address derived from a public key of the person you want to send the coins to. Because each transaction includes the hash of the previous block (a hash is something that will always generate the same 64 character string result from EXACTLY the same data inputs) the blocks are literally chained together. Bitcoin and the blockchain are thus defined in the technical white paper which accompanied the release client as a chain of digital signatures.
The miners validate transactions on the network and compete with one another to detect double spends on the network. If a miner finds the correct solution to the current block (and in doing so is the one who writes all the transactions that have elapsed since the last block was found, in to the next block) says that a transaction is confirmed but then the rest of the network disagree that the transactions occurred in the order that this miner says (for double spends), then the network will reject the version of the blockchain that that miner is working on. In that respect the miners are incentivised to check each other's work and ensure the majority are working on the correct version of the chain. The miners are thus bound by the game theoretical design of NAKAMOTO CONSENSUS and the ENFORCES of the rule set. It is important to note the term ENFORCER rather than RULE CREATOR as this is defined in the white paper which is a document copyrighted by Satoshi Nakamoto in 2009.

Now if we look at the three primary variants of bitcoin understanding these important defining characteristics of what the bitcoin protocol actually is we can make an argument that the variants that changed some of these defining attributes as no longer being bitcoin rather than trying to argue based off market appraisal which is essentially defining bitcoin as a social media consensus rather than a set in stone rule set.
BITCOIN CORE: On first examination Bitcoin Core appears to be the incumbent bitcoin that many are being lead to believe is the "true" bitcoin and the others are knock off scams. The outward stated rationale behind the bitcoin core variant is that computational resources, bandwidth, storage are scarce and that before increasing the size of each block to allow for more transactions we should be increasing the efficiency with which the data being fed in to a block is stored. In order to achieve this one of the first suggested implementations was a process known as SegWit (segregating the witness data). This means that when you construct a bitcoin transaction, in the header of the tx, instead of the inputs being public key and a signature + Hash + address(to), the signature data is moved outside of header as this can save space within the header and allow more transactions to fill the block. More of the history of the proposal can be read about here (bearing in mind that article is published by the bitcoinmagazine which is founded by ethereum devs Vitalik and Mihai and can't necessarily be trusted to give an unbiased record of events). The idea of a segwit like solution was proposed as early as 2012 by the likes of Greg Maxwell and Luke Dash Jnr and Peter Todd in an apparent effort to "FIX" transaction malleability and enable side chains. Those familiar with the motto "problem reaction solution" may understand here that the problem being presented may not always be an authentic problem and it may actually just be necessary preparation for implementing a desired solution.
The real technical arguments as to whether moving signature data outside of the transaction in the header actually invalidates the definition of bitcoin as being a chain of digital signatures is outside my realm of expertise but instead we can examine the character of the individuals and groups involved in endorsing such a solution. Greg Maxwell is a hard to know individual that has been involved with bitcoin since its very early days but in some articles he portrays himself as portrays himself as one of bitcoins harshest earliest critics. Before that he worked with Mozilla and Wikipedia and a few mentions of him can be found on some old linux sites or such. He has no entry on wikipedia other than a non hyperlinked listing as the CTO of Blockstream. Blockstream was a company founded by Greg Maxwell and Adam Back, but in business registration documents only Adam Back is listed as the business contact but registered by James Murdock as the agent. They received funding from a number of VC firms but also Joi Ito and Reid Hoffman and there are suggestions that MIT media labs and the Digital Currency Initiative. For those paying attention Joi Ito and Reid Hoffman have links to Jeffrey Epstein and his offsider Ghislaine Maxwell.

Ghislaine is the daughter of publishing tycoon and fraudster Robert Maxwell (Ján Ludvík Hyman Binyamin Hoch, a yiddish orthodox czech). It is emerging that the Maxwells are implicated with Mossad and involved in many different psyops throughout the last decades. Greg Maxwell is verified as nullc but a few months ago was outed using sock puppets as another reddit user contrarian__ who also admits to being Jewish in one of his comments as the former. Greg has had a colourful history with his roll as a bitcoin core developer successfully ousting two of the developers put there by Satoshi (Gavin Andreson and Mike Hearn) and being referred to by Andreson as a toxic troll with counterpart Samon Mow. At this point rather than crafting the narrative around Greg, I will provide a few links for the reader to assess on their own time:
  1. https://coinspice.io/news/btc-dev-gregory-maxwell-fake-social-media-account-accusations-nonsense/
  2. https://www.trustnodes.com/2017/06/06/making-gregory-maxwell-bitcoin-core-committer-huge-mistake-says-gavin-andresen
  3. https://www.ccn.com/gavin-andresen-samson-mow-and-greg-maxwell-toxic-trolls//
  4. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/business/dealbook/the-bitcoin-believer-who-gave-up.html
  5. https://www.coindesk.com/mozilla-accepting-bitcoin-donations
  6. https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup
  7. https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/68pusp/gavin_andresen_on_twitter_im_looking_for_beta/dh1cmfl/
  8. https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/d14qee/can_someone_post_the_details_of_the_relationships/?ref=tokendaily
  9. https://www.coindesk.com/court-docs-detail-sexual-misconduct-allegations-against-bitcoin-consultant-peter-todd
  10. https://coinspice.io/news/billionaire-jeffrey-epstein-btc-maximalist-bitcoin-is-a-store-of-value-not-a-currency/
  11. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7579851/More-300-paedophiles-arrested-worldwide-massive-child-abuse-website-taken-down.html
  12. https://news.bitcoin.com/risks-segregated-witness-opening-door-mining-cartels-undermine-bitcoin-network/
  13. https://micky.com.au/craig-wrights-crackpot-bitcoin-theory-covered-by-uks-financial-times/
  14. https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/74se80/wikipedia_admins_gregory_maxwell_of_blockstream/

Now I could just go on dumping more and more articles but that doesn't really weave it all together. Essentially it is very well possible that the 'FIX' of bitcoin proposed with SegWit was done by those who are moral reprobates who have been rubbing shoulders money launderers and human traffickers. Gregory Maxwell was removed from wikipedia, worked with Mozilla who donated a quarter of a million to MIT media labs and had relationship with Joi Ito, the company he founded received funding from people associated with Epstein who have demonstrated their poor character and dishonesty and attempted to wage toxic wars against those early bitcoin developers who wished to scale bitcoin as per the white paper and without changing consensus rules or signature structures.
The argument that BTC is bitcoin because the exchanges and the market have chosen is not necessarily a logical supposition when the vast majority of the money that has flown in to inflate the price of BTC comes from a cryptographic USD token that was created by Brock Pierce (Might Ducks child stahollywood pedo scandal Digital Entertainment Network) who attended Jeffrey Epstein's Island for conferences. The group Tether who issues the USDT has been getting nailed by the New York Attorney General office with claims of $1.4 trillion in damages from their dodgey practices. Brock Pierce has since distanced himself from Tether but Blockstream still works closely with them and they are now exploring issuing tether on the ethereum network. Tether lost it's US banking partner in early 2017 before the monstrous run up for bitcoin prices. Afterwards they alleged they had full reserves of USD however, they were never audited and were printing hundreds of millions of dollars of tether each week during peak mania which was used to buy bitcoin (which was then used as collateral to issue more tether against the bitcoin they bought at a value they inflated). Around $30m in USDT is crossing between China to Russia daily and when some of the groups also related to USDT/Tether were raided they found them in possession of hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of counterfeit physical US bills.
Because of all this it then becomes important to reassess the arguments that were made for the implementation of pegged sidechains, segregated witnesses and other second layer solutions. If preventing the bitcoin blockchain from bloating was the main argument for second layer solutions, what was the plan for scaling the data related to the records of transactions that occur on the second layer. You will then need to rely on less robust ways of securing the second layer than Proof Of Work but still have the same amount of data to contend with, unless there was plans all along for second layer solutions to enable records to be deleted /pruned to facilitate money laundering and violation of laws put in place to prevent banking secrecy etc.
There's much more to it as well and I encourage anyone interested to go digging on their own in to this murky cesspit. Although I know very well what sort of stuff Epstein has been up to I have been out of the loop and haven't familiarised myself with everyone involved in his network that is coming to light.
Stay tuned for part 3 which will be an analysis of the shit show that is the Bitcoin Cash variant...
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

Establishing a smart contract commercial scenario: Chainlink, Zk-Snarks and sharding technology work together to make the ultimate killer

This text was translated from Chinese, open following link in Chrome and translate to see all images:
https://bihu.com/article/1242138347
EDIT: found an English text with pictures:
https://medium.com/@rogerfeng/making-smart-contracts-work-for-business-how-chainlink-zk-snarks-sharding-finally-delivered-8f268af75ca2
Author: Feng Jie translation: Liu Sha
“The highest state of technology is to integrate into the various scenes of everyday life, to fade away from high-tech outerwear and become a part of everyday life.” – Mark Weiser
People in the future will not even think that smart contracts are "innovative." By that time, smart contracts would permeate every aspect of life, and people couldn't even imagine what the era of non-digital currency would look like.
Later historians may divide human business history into two eras, the pre-smart contract era and the post-smart contract era. After all, digital money has brought unprecedented changes to the nature and patterns of business practices in the real world. An anonymous member of the Chainlink community once said: "Smart contracts can change the DNA of the business."
Of course, like all the technological revolutions of the past, smart contracts also need to reach a "tipping point" to truly achieve large-scale applications. So we need to ask ourselves two questions:
  1. What exactly is this so-called tipping point?
  2. As of August 2019, have we reached this tipping point?
To reach the tipping point means unlocking the ultimate nirvana of business.
Tipping point We can think about this issue from the perspective of mainstream companies. Imagine what a perfect smart contract platform should look like. What characteristics should this platform have? Or what features must be possessed?
To reach the tipping point, you must establish a public chain with the following four characteristics:
  1. Privacy protection
  2. In addition to the cryptocurrency, the transaction can also be settled in mainstream legal currency and comply with the regulatory requirements of financial markets such as ISO 20022.
  3. Achieve scalability without sacrificing decentralization or security, that is, solving the "impossible triangle problem."
  4. Connect the external data under the chain, that is, solve the "prophecy problem."
Now that we have Chainlink, zk-snarks and sharding technology, we have reached this tipping point.
Next, let's explore how this ultimate nirvana is actually made. Our discussion will be mainly from the perspective of Ethereum, which is still the top smart contract platform for community size and mainstream applications.
So what about the private chain?
Before delving into it, I want to take the time to solve an unavoidable problem. The mainstream view has always believed that the private chain is a more suitable solution for the enterprise. Therefore, we first dialectically analyze the two advantages and two major drawbacks of the private chain.
Disadvantages
  1. Centralization leads to relatively lower security
It's not surprising that IBM and Maersk's blockchain freight alliances have a hard time finding customers who are willing to join. How can other freight companies be willing to let their biggest competitors (Maersk) verify their trading data? Only madmen dare to do this.
  1. The staking of the horses occupy the hills:
This problem is even more serious than centralization. John Wolpert, co-founder of the IBM blockchain, wrote an excellent article called Breaking the Barriers to Realize Security: Why Companies Should Embrace the Ethereum Public Chain, which he covered in detail in the article.
If every company builds its own private chain, it will lead to chaos in the mountains. Today's B2B ecosystem is very complex. Imagine the innumerable private chains of the world intertwined to form a huge "spider web." This is not only cost-effective, but also not scalable.
The starting point of the blockchain is to break down barriers instead of building more barriers.
"One day, one of your big buyers called you to ask if you want to join their private chain. You promised. The next day you received a call from the wholesaler to ask you the same question. Then came the supplier, freight. Business, insurance company or even bank, and each company may have several private chains! Finally you have to invest a lot of time and cost to operate dozens of blockchains every day . If there are partners to let you join them at this time The private chain, you might say "Forget it, or fax me the order!" ”—Paul Brody (Ernst & Young)
“Every time you connect two private chains through a system integrator, you have to pay a lot of money .”
Advantage
  1. Scalability: With the Ethereum public chain implementing fragmentation technology, this advantage is rapidly shrinking.
  2. Privacy protection: At this stage, the classification of public chain / private chain is actually not very accurate. The Aztec , Zether, and Nightfall protocols (both based on the zk-snarks protocol) effectively provide a "private chain model" for the Ethereum public chain, allowing it to switch between the public and private chains. Therefore, a more accurate classification should be the alliance chain and the public chain.
By 2020, the label of the public chain/private chain will gradually disappear. The public and private chains will no longer be two opposing concepts. Instead, the concept of publicly traded/private transactions and confidential contracts/open contracts is changed, and the scope of these transactions and contracts varies according to specific needs, either bilaterally or multilaterally or even publicly.
All in all, the private chain has two major drawbacks compared to the public chain. Not only that, but the two major advantages of the private chain are also rapidly disappearing.
“Technology will evolve over time, so there will be a variety of solutions to solve existing problems. Ultimately, the public-chain platform will have the same performance, scalability and data privacy as the private chain, while at the same time ensuring security and Decentralized."
Feature 1: Privacy protection (predictive machine and public chain privacy)
Enigma founder Guy Zyskind once joked in his MIT graduation thesis that smart contracts can only become commercially valuable if they become "confidential contracts." He later proposed that zk-snarks and Trusted Execution Environment (TEE) are the most promising solutions. He said nothing wrong.
What is zk-snarks ? Zk-snarks is a zero-knowledge proof mechanism (ZPK). So what is the zero-knowledge proof mechanism? In short: a zero-knowledge proof mechanism allows you to prove that you own certain information without revealing the content of the information.
Vitalik Buterin explained this concept in detail from a technical point of view in an article published in 2017. Hackernoon also wrote an excellent article explaining the concept in an easy-to-understand way with the example of a five-year-old child and Halloween candy.
What is the trusted execution environment? The trusted execution environment lets the code run on closed hardware, and
1 ) The guarantee result cannot be tampered with
2 ) Protecting absolute privacy, even hardware running code can't get confidential information.
The most well-known trusted execution environment is Intel SGX. Chainlink has established a partnership with Intel SGX after acquiring Tom Crier.
Ernst & Young released the Nightfall agreement on Github on May 31, 2019. A well-known accounting firm with a history of 100 years will choose to add privacy features to the public chain instead of developing a private chain. This is a problem.
Since then, the community has been actively developing on this basis, not only to improve the code, but also to develop a plug-and-play Truffle Box for those who are not good at writing code. Blockchain communities and businesses generally rarely collaborate, so these collaborations fully demonstrate the popularity of Nightfall.
Prior to this, two zk-snark-based Ethereum public chain privacy protocols were introduced, namely AZTEC (Consensys) and Zether (Stanford, JPMorgan Chase). An obvious trend is slowly taking shape.
In the field of oracles, Chainlink uses both zero-knowledge proof and a trusted execution environment to complement each other. Trusted execution environments guarantee data privacy, even for nodes that cannot access data (this feature is critical for bank accounts and API keys).
Chainlink is still trying to implement a trusted execution environment, and nodes can access data temporarily, so authentication services are also needed. Although the credible execution environment is almost 100% foolproof, in theory, a strong shield has a spear that can penetrate it. Therefore, the team is currently trying to run zk-snarks in a trusted execution environment (Thomas Hodges mentioned this in the 2019 Trufflecon Q&A session). The combination of the two can form a very robust and complete system. The attacker must find a way to strip all the layers of an onion at the same time to make any effective attack (and it is already difficult to peel off a layer of skin).
“Chainlink combines a trusted execution environment with zero-knowledge proof to build what we call a defense-in-depth system, which means they provide all the tools needed for smart contract developers, including trusted execution environments, multiple nodes, and Data sources, fine margins, reputation systems, asymmetric encryption, zero-knowledge proofs, WASM, and OTP+RNG, these features allow smart contract developers to adjust the confidentiality and cost of contracts based on specific budget and security needs. Machine, Chainlink and its four major application scenarios》
In the future, zk-snarks may be upgraded to zk-starks (a fully transparent zero-knowledge proof mechanism) that protects the system from quantum computer attacks. And the best thing about zk-starks is that it's more scalable than zk-snarks. In other words, it can better protect privacy, and the cost of gas will not increase.
If you want to learn more about zk-starks, you can read a popular science article written by Adam Luciano.
Feature 2: Scalability (scalability of predictive machines and public chains) To understand this problem, we can make an analogy like this:
A public chain is like a large enterprise, and every employee (ie, a node) must attend each meeting (ie, confirm each transaction). Imagine how inefficient this company is! Only customers who have a lot of money (ie gas fees) can get their requests to the forefront. And this is not the most serious problem. The most serious problem is that the more employees (ie nodes) who join the company, the harder it is for the company to function properly! In the end, the company not only failed to expand linearly, but also became smaller and smaller. Although this guarantees decentralization and security to the greatest extent, the price is completely abandoning scalability.
There are various temporary fire fighting solutions, but no one solution can completely solve this "impossible triangle problem." For example, EOS uses the DPOS mechanism (share authorization certification mechanism), where only 21 super nodes (many of which are well-known nodes) are responsible for verifying all transactions.
Sidechains (such as Bitcoin's Lightning Network and Ethereum's lightning network) guarantee scalability and decentralization at the expense of security.
So how to use the fragmentation technology to solve this problem? Let's make another analogy:
In reality, there is only one company that is not too much to ask everyone to attend all meetings, that is, small start-ups (that is, private chains that limit the number of nodes).
In most cases, large companies divide employees into thousands of teams (ie, shards), and each team's principal (ie, the certifier) ​​is responsible for reporting to the senior management (ie, the main chain). If people from different teams need to collaborate (and sometimes also), then they can collaborate by cross-shard receipts. If a new employee joins the company, the team can be re-segmented (ie re-sharding). This allows for linear expansion.
In fact, the process of developing a start-up to a large enterprise is surprisingly similar to the process of Ethereum 1.0 developing into Ethereum 2.0.
“The Ethereum 1.0 period is that several people who are alone are trying to build a world computer; and Ethereum 2.0 will really develop into a world computer.” Vitalik Buterin said in the first piece of the workshop.
Since Ethereum was not originally built on the principle of fragmentation, it takes seven steps to achieve the goal (this is a bit like the word morphing solitaire game). The first step is planned for January 3, 2020.
At the same time, developers can use many other blockchain platforms designed based on the fragmentation principle. Some platforms, including Zilliqa and Quarkchain, are already compatible with Chainlink.
If you want to see more in-depth technical analysis of shards, check out an article by Ramy Zhang.
In the field of oracles, Chainlink has the following two characteristics:
1 ) Use Schnorr threshold signatures to quickly reach consensus in a cost-effective manner. The next version of the chain only needs 16,000 gas.
2 ) We have previously discussed the need to use trusted execution environment hardware to ensure that nodes cannot access sensitive data. Since you have hardware in your hand, you can use it to do some actual computing work, so that you can properly reduce the amount of computation on the smart contract platform.
"With the SGX system (Town Crier) and zero-knowledge proof technology, the oracle can be truly reliable and confidential, so the boundaries between the oracle and the smart contract are beginning to flow... Our long-term strategy... is to let The predictor becomes the key chain of computing resources used by most smart contracts. We believe that the way to achieve this goal is to perform chain operations in the oracle to meet various computing needs, and then send the results to the smart contract."Chainlink White Paper, Section 6.3 (26 pages)
Of course, this “long-term strategy” has certain risks, unless Chainlink can implement a trusted execution environment and its service provider ecosystem can achieve a qualitative leap. However, the Chainlink team's vision is absolutely forward-looking: under-chain computing is a key factor in ensuring that blockchains are not dragged down by large amounts of IoT data.
The Internet of Things has dramatically increased the current state of big data. At present, most of the data is still generated on the software side, and it is not real-time data, and most of the data in the future will be real-time data generated on the sensor side. One of the big drawbacks of real-time data is that it increases storage pressure. For example, Coughlin Associates expects an unmanned car to generate 1G of data per second. This means that the same car will produce 3.6T data per hour!
The only viable solution is to do real-time analysis of the data, rather than storing the data first. In the Global Cloud Index: 2016-2021 Forecast and Methodology White Paper, Cisco predicts that more than 90% of data in 2021 will be analyzed in real time without storage.
That is to say, the essence of data is that it can only exist in just one instant. The nature of the blockchain is not to be modified, so the two are as incompatible as water and oil.
The solution is to analyze the raw data under the chain, extract the meaningful results and send them to the blockchain. The combination of fragmentation technology and trusted execution environment forms a new computing architecture, similar to the cloud computing-fog computing-edge computing architecture.
It should be noted here that it is good to improve computing power, but this is not the main purpose of the blockchain.
The fundamental purpose of the blockchain is not to reduce the original cost of computing and data storage. After all, technology giants such as Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Salesforce, Tencent, Alibaba, and Dropbox have built world-class cloud services. The centralized server wins high computational efficiency (but the blockchain will greatly improve the computational efficiency through fragmentation technology, and will catch up with it one day). The value of the blockchain is to reduce the cost of building trust. Nick Szabo calls it "social scalability" (this is a relative concept to the "operational" scalability we have been talking about). Vitalik Buterin also made it clear that the meaning of smart contracts is to accept small arithmetic delay penalties in exchange for a substantial reduction in "social costs."
Alex Coventry of the Chainlink team once raised the question: "We have missed many opportunities for cooperation and reciprocity because we can't confirm whether the other party will fulfill the promise?"
Is there any potential for data storage projects like Siacoin and IPFS? What about decentralized computing projects like SONM and Golem?
Siacoin 's core value proposition is not that its computing efficiency is higher than traditional cloud services. The cost of computing is required to split, repeat, and reassemble data. And companies are more capable of buying the latest and greatest hardware than individuals. Siacoin's core value proposition is to process data in an Airbnb-like mode, so management fees will be lower than traditional models. It also generates additional social value, such as flood control, privacy and security, and anti-censorship.
The same is true of Golem and SONM. Even with the most efficient protocol, it is inevitable that a small amount of delay will be imposed and fined to coordinate the hardware of different geographical locations. Therefore, under the condition that all other conditions are equal, the centralized hardware still has the advantage of faster computing speed. However, the core value proposition of the above project is to use the Airbnb-like model to reduce management costs.
We must strictly distinguish between "social scalability" and "operational scalability", and the two cannot be confused. I will explain these two concepts in detail when I discuss "Magic Bus and Lightweight Library" later.
Feature 3: Compatible with legal currency
Most mainstream companies do not regard cryptocurrencies as "real currencies." In addition, even if someone wants to use cryptocurrency for trading, it is very difficult to actually operate because of its high price volatility. I discussed the “price volatility problem” in detail in Chapters 8 and 9 of the previous article. These problems do not completely erase the existence value of cryptocurrencies, because cryptocurrencies also have many advantages that legal currency does not have. I am just emphasizing what we need to know more about the comfort zone of mainstream companies.
Chainlink acts as a universal API connector that triggers open banking payments. Chainlink is fully compliant with ISO 20022 and has established a long-term partnership with SWIFT (it is worth mentioning that SWIFT has not been updated for a long time and hopes to be updated after the SIBOS 2019 conference).
PSD2 will take effect on September 14, 2019. All banks in the EU will all comply with this new regulation by then. In other words, the bank must put all account data in the "front end" and can be called through the API. The approved third party (ie, the Chainlink node) can trigger the payment directly without the payment service provider.
Although the United States and Japan have not adopted similar laws, many banks still spontaneously promote the development of open banks. Banks open APIs to third-party developers to create new revenue streams and customer experiences that ultimately increase profitability. In addition, this will allow banks to better respond to competitors in the mobile payment and financial technology sectors in an APP-centric economic model.
As this open banking revolution continues, Chainlink will connect smart contracts with the world's major currencies (US dollar, euro, yen, etc.).
Only one external adapter is required to connect to the authenticated API. From a programming perspective, it is relatively simple to allow everyone in the community to contribute code to the code base (and thus achieve scalability). Chainlink has released adapters for PayPal and Mister Tango (European version of PayPal).
Feature 4: Data connection with the chain
Chainlink has been working on solving the "prophecy problem" and successfully succeeded on the main online line on May 30, 2019.
Chainlink has made many achievements in just a few months. Provable (formerly Oraclize) was successfully used on the Chainlink node and finally settled the debate about whether the predictor should be centralized or decentralized.
Synthetic Ether lost 37 million Ethercoins in a hack because it did not connect to Chainlink. Fortunately, the money was finally recovered and did not cause any loss. This lesson illustrates the importance of decentralized oracles.
In addition, both Oracle and Google have partnered with Chainlink to monetize their API data and create a virtuous circle to capture the market opportunities that Facebook missed.
There are new nodes coming online every week, and the network activity has been very high. The Chainlink team maintains a list of certified nodes in the documentation and Twitter releases. Twitter user CryptoSponge also set up a new development for the Tableau push update Chainlink team:
Regarding the importance of the current stage in the history of blockchain development, Brad Huston summed it up very brilliantly:
"The biggest problem with cryptocurrencies is to build bridges between cryptocurrencies, fiat currencies and big data. Chainlink is very beautifully narrowing the distance between the three. Now it can even be said: 'The bridge has been built.'"
Magic bus and lightweight library
Let's summarize what we discussed earlier. The real purpose of the blockchain is to reduce the cost of building trust and achieve "social scalability."
Therefore, according to this logic, the main application scenarios of platforms such as Ethereum 2.0 and Zilliqa should be in the B2B field. I quote a sentence I wrote in a previous article:
“My conclusion is: If the smart contract is successful, it will also succeed in the B2B field first.”
The private chain itself is self-contradictory and destined to fail. It has led to the phenomenon of occupying the hills, thus increasing the social cost, which is in opposition to B2B itself, and ultimately it is self-restraint. ”
Before the emergence of fragmentation technology, even simple games (ie, etheric cats) could not be smoothly run on the public chain, let alone dealing with complex B2B contracts and even changing commercial DNA. With the sharding technology, everything is ready.
Despite this, we can't use Ethereum 2.0 as an all-powerful platform. Just now we said that although it is a good thing to speed up the calculation, this is not the real purpose of Ethereum 2.0. And before we also said that due to the irreversible modification of the blockchain, it is not good to deal with a large number of fleeting real-time data of the Internet of Things. In other words, we must be soberly aware that Ethereum 2.0 will not replace traditional web 2.0. Instead, we should make better use of the real advantages of Ethereum 2.0:
“There is a new concept now, that is to think of the Ethereum main network as a global bus... We use the Ethereum 2.0 main network to treat various business resources as a working group on Slack: it can be easily built and integrated. And restructuring. The SAP inventory management system in your company, the dealer's JD Edwards ERP system, and the financial technology partner's tall blockchain system can seamlessly interface, eliminating the need to develop an infrastructure specifically for each partner." - John Wolper describes his ideal "magic bus"
Ethereum 2.0 should be an integration center, not a data center or computing center. It should be a library built specifically to store B2B contract terms (to be honest, even with fragmentation technology, the amount of data is large enough).
We should not expect Ethereum 2.0 to be an all-powerful platform, but rather develop it into a "lightweight library."
If we reorder the pyramid model just now, the architecture of the magic bus is obvious:
Of course, the positional relationship in the above model is not static. With the development of 5G technology, edge computing and IoT sensors, they may bypass the cloud to directly interact (or even bypass the fog end). If the collaboration between Iotex and Chainlink is successful, then the edge can interact directly with the trusted execution environment.
Time will tell if Airbnb's shared data storage and computing model can make management costs lower than the current mainstream Web 2.0 model. Time will also prove whether the market really needs anti-censorship, anti-tampering, security protection and privacy protection. Do users really care about these social values ​​and are willing to pay for them? Do they think these are just the icing on the cake or the most fundamental value?
in conclusion
Whether it is the battle between web2.0 and web3.0 or the battle between cryptocurrency and legal currency, one thing is beyond doubt:
We have reached the tipping point, and the era of smart contracts with commercial value has arrived.
In fact, the only problem at the moment is the time issue, and the main roadblocks have been basically cleared.
  1. When will Ethereum 2.0 finish these 7 stages and be officially released?
  2. When will Chainlink use a trusted execution environment on a large scale? If the cooperation between Intel SGX and Town Crier fails, what alternative plans are there? Will Chainlink communicate with other blockchain teams that plan to use a trusted execution environment (such as Dawn Song's Oasis Labs)?
At present, the main technical problems in the ecosystem have been solved, and now it is only necessary to recruit a group of enthusiastic developers to do the work of “connecting the line”.
Digital currency has changed commercial DNA, and the future is full of possibilities.
The only thing that hinders us now is our own imagination. The future is infinitely imaginative, and the future will be the world of developers. Dapps is already overwhelming. There is no doubt that we have found the ultimate nirvana.
This text was translated from Chinese, open following in Chrome and translate to see all images:
https://bihu.com/article/1242138347
submitted by QuantLink to LINKTrader [link] [comments]

Lessons learned - Crypto and Divorce - In January I was a millionaire thanks to BTC, then my wife divorces me and now I have $30,000 AMA

Crossreferencing u/nanoissuperior He wrote earlier today: https://www.reddit.com/CryptoCurrency/comments/a3n6uw/in_january_i_was_a_millionaire_thanks_to_nano_now/
Title: In January I was a millionaire thanks to Nano, now I have $25,000 AMA

I was replying to his post, but my reply ended up being a bit too large as a reply and steered off-topic, albeit an interesting one. So I decided to make it its own post, because there may be a good lessons to be learned and hoping some will come forward with good information to be shared.
I hope it can help anyone on this sub avoid the costly mistakes that I made. Here it goes: FLAIR: LEGAL (not in the list)
----
u/nanoissuperior are you who I think you are? I won't give out any further identifying clues, but I happen to know someone in the exact same position that could have written that exact same headline. If you read the first paragraph, you'll know if you know me.
The person I know bought Nano really early, based on a tip from a friend. I got in much later. By the time he told me it had already spiked to the $5 range, when I ended up buying. I then sold in the $20's so it was a good buy nonetheless. We were former colleagues at a large, large software company somewhere in the PNW, I left the company to venture out on my own and try to launch some projects I had in mind and relocated overseas for a few years. We lost contact with each other during my time away, but we connected again during the market runup and started exchanging coin information on a daily basis during the big bull run of late 2017. That was a crazy time.... the market trend was a few degrees short of vertical for pretty much all coins!

Hey, guess what? Now that I think about it, I could have written that same headline myself! In January 2018 I was a Millionaire too! Not with Nano, but thanks to purchasing a good chunk of Bitcoin in 2011 at $1.20 each. I ended up a single digit millionaire with what I had left in Bitcoin around January of 2018.
And, just like you, today, from all that wealth, I have about $30.000 left, with little to show for. Can we call that even? Although my disaster was not caused entirely by market fluctuation; Mine is a more complex story and I am going to mention it, because hopefully, it could serve as a lesson to be learned for any crypto holder out there, so they don't make the make mistake I made: Don't trust anyone. Always be skeptical and watch out for your own interests. Anyhow, here it goes:
After 5 years overseas, I had enough and wanted to come back to the States. My wife stated her preference to stay abroad, but eventually, she conceded albeit reluctantly. We chose a small town in CO to settle, and landed in November of 2017. We had plans to settle down and considered purchasing a home with my/our new fortune, based on the market price during that period. At the same time, I was also hesitant about the inherent tax payments due caused by such large liquidation. I was trying to have to pay taxes as far away as possible. So, I decided to wait till New Year's Eve and started liquidating my crypto on January 1st, 2018 right after midnight. This way, I would have 16 months (till April, 2019) to pay any capital gains taxes, and I was confident at the time that the market would give me that for free, especially at the pace that it was going. I have been an early adopter and have since then acquired the high levels of verification and trading limits per week, with many exchanges, but for a large sum like this, I needed several separate transactions, over the course of several weeks, especially wanting to do it with a US-based exchange that was linked to a US bank accounts, to avoid overseas wire transfers, meaning more fees. (Yes, I did look at all OTC options, but for reasons not relevant to the story, I couldn't make it happen, so I had to use the traditional Exchange channels for asset liquidation).
My wife and I, initially had some fundamental disagreements on the gross amount to be spent and the type of property we should be purchasing. I wanted a smaller place, with a denser, younger community, where there'd be kids our son's age for him to play. She insisted that we should go big; we had been traveling for so many years, and we had not been able to call any of our past residences our home. It was time to settle and nest; She convinced me that we should own a property of our own that we would be proud of living in for years. One that we could own outright and would not easily outgrow. We ended up splurging and purchased in cash two luxury cars for ourselves and set our sights on a large dream house in the city's Golf & Country Club, free and clear, for us and our two kids. I don't even play golf, nor do I even like it, but, if it makes her happy and it is within the safe margins of making it happen, I figured, why not? My concerns were largely financial and the numbers were adding up. It was a bit tight against my personal safe margins, but, at the same time, I was imagining to never have to make, or even have to think about, a car or home mortgage payment ever again! Bitcoin is on a roll and there is no sign of it stopping. Fine. Let's do it, before I change my mind.
Now, I admit I was extremely lucky with choosing the time of when to sell the assets. I had no clue the market would take a dive in February, and so it seemed to many that I had timed the market perfectly, selling most of my coins in the first two weeks of January of 2018. Many called me a genius for selling at the very top, as if I had some sort of wisdom to know when it would drop; the truth is much less flattering; it was nothing but dumb luck, based on me wanting to pay taxes in 2018 and defer to 2019. Awesome, well done! Yeah? well, slow down, son, not so fast.
So, I gather the 7-digit lumpsum in January 2018 and we write a check for the full amount at closing in February on the property of her dreams. A property that could easily be showcased on a luxury Real Estate magazine cover. Also, remember we had just moved back to the United States with just a few suitcases each from overseas. We had no furniture, kitchenware, curtains, TV's, bed sheets, winter clothing and so many other essential things that one usually purchases over time, but which we now had to purchase all at once. Not a problem, Bitcoin had dropped slightly but still well above $15k, I believe, at the time. And, earlier, in January, I had diligently taken this expense into account and effortlessly set aside a small fortune for equipping such a large house with everything we would ever need, brand new. It seemed we were protagonists of one of the Home Makeover Shows.
Finally, after working day and night, prepping the house non-stop for days and when every piece of furniture had finally arrived, been unpacked and carried to its corresponding room, it seemed most of the essentials were in place and the hard work was done. I longed for pouring myself a Scotch and to finally sit down and enjoy the fruits of my labor. I head downstairs to the dedicated walk-in, cigar-humidor / wine / Scotch cellar in the basement and grab the better bottle of Whisky of the few bottles of Scotch that I had bought earlier in the week. On my way up, I remember feeling a sense of calm, combined with a glow of excitement and this undescribable profound inner peace, all at once. This was such a rare, natural, non-drug induced high that I had never experienced. It felt so good! This sense of accomplishment of achieving that one thing I had been chasing and longing for my entire life. I had expected I would be chasing this goal for the next 15-20 years, and yet, here it was. No, where I was, was even better than expected! A place where not even my parents, who still have to make their monthly mortgage payments. I had done it! With a smile from ear to ear, I take a deep breath of relief and while looking around the property, I think to myself: "It's perfect, everything is in place and I can finally call this our home. We are so lucky and we are going to live a great life. A life that few can only dream of. So many concerns will be lifted and become redundant. Everything will be better. I'll start a fire in one of our two fireplaces and I am going to begin enjoying my semi-retired life with the first sip of my drink. That will be the official start of our new life".
I head over to the kitchen to get a glass and some ice cubes, while I struggle to find which one is the freezer among the many drawers in the kitchen. It was then when I notice a handwritten note placed front and center on the kitchen counter. It is from my wife and read: "There is no easy way to say this, so I am just going to say it..... I want to legally divorce [ ...]". It continued saying that she had taken our son, and had unequivocally decided to leave me. She had already filed the paperwork for divorce and that I should expect to be served in the morning.
My bliss had lasted less than 5 minutes and in less than two seconds, it turned dark, somber and I saw it all crumbling down in front of me. Like a long-awaited rocket launch, years in preparation, which then unexpectedly explodes on the launch pad during the countdown. My stomach, heart and everything in my body just sank and melted into one ball of poison in my core. I felt like throwing up. I was completely blindsided; she had played the game all along, not giving me the slightest hint of what was being concocted in the background. She had already engaged with her lawyers weeks beforehand. Her mother was already in town from another state to help out with I don't know what. I had been gaslighted and was threatened by her that I needed to see a psychiatrist due to a change in my temper that I had supposedly developed - my temper was awesome: with BTC at that price? Everything was perfect! But I obeyed and went anyhow (this would later fit her story that she had to leave with the child because she feared for her safety due to my supposed temper for which I was under treatment, therefore, I must have this temper problem, see?). Also, the purchase of the overpriced home also seemed clearly premeditated: Price was the main driver of the decision making; not location, demographics, taxes, etc. It was the wrong neighborhood for us (people much older than us, retired, golfers and no kids the same age as our son to play with). Our house happened to also be the most expensive in the neighborhood. I can see it all so clearly now.
See, your crypto coins on the blockchain, are not within the US court's jurisdiction (or, at least, it's quite debatable - a gray area - ask me for the seed and I can tell you that I may have the seed, or that I may not have the seed, I may have the wrong seed, I may have forgotten it, I may have lost it - you can't prove I did not forget, or lost it, etc). However, once it is in FIAT in a bank, or invested in a property, the courts can rule on the asset(s), freeze, disburse or order a sale of the property, etc. It's done all the time.
Also, the coins were technically mine, and by definition private property (not to be divided during the divorce) as they were acquired before the marriage. I could not prove its origins (I bought many of them via direct messaging members on Bitcointalk.org and mining rather than exchanges, so no records, receipts or nothing to prove otherwise: the big exchanges like BitStamp and Coinbase didn't start operations till 2013, if I m not mistaken. Instead, I would talk to one of the forum members offering coins we'd agree on a price, I'd send a check to wherever the individual seller instructed me to (Russia, Bulgaria, Japan, UK. etc) and the coins would be deposited to whatever address I provided. Yes, it was quite crude at the time.
However, once I converted my coins to cash and used that cash to buy a property for the benefit of the family, it became common property and thus she then had rights to a portion of it when divided between the two parties should a divorce occur - which ended up being almost 3/4 of all assets.
I was robbed in broad daylight. By the one person, I trusted with my life. The one you should trust with your life. Your life partner. And while I was in complete denial, trying to bargain, I waited too long to obtain good legal representation. When I finally ended up getting a lawyer, I was quite distraught and I clearly did not do the proper research and this resulted in a less than stellar performance and detrimental to me at many key steps in the process. I had to switch legal representation right before mediation and I can't blame my new lawyer either, as (s)he did not have the required time to catch up on all the details, (s)he did his/her best, but I was ultimately strongarmed into conceding my soon-to-be-ex-wife to let her return to the house, in exchange to obtain 50% of my son's custody, with serious and strict clauses I had to abide by. So, I had to move out, find a hole in the wall in a student apartment, pay my rent and pay our kids pre-school, while she lives grandiose, without monthly payments in the country club, till the house sells, which will likely be in the spring of next year. Nice!
Due to my delay, legal mishandling and somehow every other element in her favor, she inexplicably ended up with around 3/4 of the worth of all assets, free and clear, no taxes due. Mind you, she has never financially contributed, nor made a single $ during our entire marriage. She has never worked and had $0 in her pocket when we married. She didn't even have a checking account, well in her thirties. She is no dummy; she is street smart, knows how to manipulate people, get her way with flirting and charm, while I am more intellectual and book smart. and She beat me hands-down. She is walking away with a sum of, not quite 7 figures, but close.
With what I am left with from the sale of the house, I am responsible to pay for all the capital gains taxes from the liquidation to the IRS, which are due in April 2019. I don't expect there to be more left over than the estimated $30k mentioned above.
Hate the market all you want, I made peace with the market and am keeping busy at hating my ex for a while for putting me in the same situation. She tripped me 1 yard before the finish line and pushed me in the prickly bushes, to cross it by herself. Go figure. When I am done hating her, I'll get back to rebuilding my life again from scratch. I am not worried, I have done it before. Just pissed, I was so close and that I was so naive to not see it coming.
Sorry, I am not meaning to hijack the thread, just wanted you to know that others may have lost more than just "free" money; money we didn't really have to work for. We were the lucky ones. It is what I keep telling myself to stop me from jumping off a bridge.
PS - Woah: Sorry for the wall of text; I was just going to write the first paragraph and ended up venting about my current situation. I know, I should take this issue to /depressed, /exes or /whereisthenearestbridgeIcanjumpfrom.
Hopefully, this can be a lesson to those holding crypto and some can learn what NOT to do. I learned the hard way and was left with nothing. Don't be a nice guy. Don't trust anyone with your crypto. Anyhow, I am sure either our vigilant subreddit bot, or one of the mods will remove my post for not adhering to rule, and if not, I am sure that you fine people will downvote me to hell. Go ahead. Take away from me the little Karma I left too! Thanks!

I learned many lessons, but here are some key ones [IANAL - any crypto-educated AL opinion appreciated here, thanks] :
- Understand the concept of private property - property you acquire before getting married. INAL - this depends on the state legislation, but it is hard to prove with crypto, especially if you obtained your crypto through foreign exchanges, outside of legal jurisdictions, the petitioner might not understand or willing to invest in obtaining subpoenas and requests to businesses operating overseas, as this may result costly.
- Get a lawyer who understands, or is willing to understand crypto, its benefits of being somewhat unreachable and how that can work for you. Don't let them shortchange you with: "well, let's just convert the rest to cash, because that I understand" type of reasoning.
- If you do go to mediation, the above applies as well. This arbitrator or mediator needs to be one that understands the intrinsic details of crypto - for example, during the ATH, I bought 6 digits worth in $USD of Stellar. I used the very first version of the software, supporting Stellar on my hardware device, and put it all in a cold storage wallet somewhere around January. I routinely checked on my coins on the blockchain and they are there. A few months later, I try to access my account and the device returns a different public address, which contains 0 funds. I am still trying to debug this issue with the manufacturer, but the fact is that I was accused of hiding these coins or negligence and was demanded that I paid half of what was lost. or not lost, out of my pocket for money that I didn't have access either. I tried to explain it in the simplest terms, there are risks involved with using first come software. There is no 1800 number, mo tech support. no CEO, no, you can't call the BBB and complain, etc and no one seemed to be able to understand, nor willing to either. It became a huge roadblock for which I had to concede, not cash, but a concession, I was not wanting to concede. The petitioner leaned on the fact that I was either wilfully cheating or stupid enough to lose the coins and managed to create enough doubt in my character and integrity and there was nothing rational I could explain that she, or anyone else in the room would understand. Perhaps mutually contracting a seasoned crypto expert that can offer a neutral view and give his/her opinion might be worth considering. Andreas, where were you when I needed you? :)
- Other examples were some coins I had bought in 2012 and gifted to some of her family's kids. I was holding these, till they would turn 16 for them to pay themselves their college, or so I told them. These coins were demanded back by the petitioner. Ok, I suggested that I would send them, but with a CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY value with a block height of let's say,10 years from now, out of fear that she would spend the coins and the kids would never know (they are toddlers). No one understood what I was talking about, I was made out the crazy one, I gave up, sent her the coins, unlocked and, just as I expected, within 20 minutes of receiving them, she spent $1200 worth of it (for a flight, I think). If you are the only one speaking your language, no one is willing to listen or make an effort to understand you.
- It appears my coins were private property, which means, that I acquired them before the marriage and in case of divorce, if I have not moved them or used them for the common good of the marriage, then they remain mine. However, I liquidated them and cash ended up in my checking account to be used to buy groceries, cars and eventually a house, and it is then that they became common property. Only once they landed in my checking account on which she is named on. It appears that had I taken proper legal precautions with documentation, or a company/trust, where that money would have gone, instead of my checking accounts, elsewhere, I would have still been able to be the legal proprietor of the resulting cash. I can't quite remember the details, but it as something that was explained to me afterward, and I honestly think I just tuned it out, because it made me sick to know I could have held on to my wealth. Perhaps a lawyer can chime in? Again, much of the lack of information and every misstep taken was because of dealing with people that are accustomed to traditional assets and will not deviate from it. Crypto is different and is treated differently. It is so important to know the strengths and weaknesses when going into litigation about something that people don't understand.
- Some more I can think of, but this post is getting way out of hand in size. Feel free to comment/suggest your own and I'll add more to the comments.

Credits to: u/nanoissuperior Thanks for your post, it inspired me to write this one. Anyone, any karma you feels needs to go his way, for providing the source of inspiration, please give to O-OP.

TL;DR: Wife, having contributed $0 during entire marriage, waited until I cashed out all my crypto at the top of the bull market in January 2018, for a nice seven-figure amount, and then immediately divorced me for the money.

Edit: added TL;DR
submitted by mijalis to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Let's Talk Bitcoin! #217 The Bitcoin Block Size Discussion EB82 – Mike Hearn - Blocksize Debate At The Breaking Point Bitcoin Debate: Blocksize, Hard Fork, Code & Censorship! - Trace Mayer, Tone Vays, Dave Scotese KCN: Size of Bitcoin blockchain has exceeded 100 GB Eure Fragen zur #Block Size-Debatte  Ethereum-Schlösser  Wochenrückblick KW 12

Bitcoin Block Size Debate Explained And Why You Should Care. The bitcoin block size debate is important to the continued success of bitcoin and also to the user who is wondering what the fuss is about. Bitcoin Blocks. Blocks are records of recent bitcoin transactions and are published to the blockchain about every ten minutes by bitcoin miners. The debate which led to the creation of BCH had to do with the issue of scalability; the Bitcoin network has a strict limit on the size of blocks: one megabyte (MB). Bitcoin Classic, the most recent attempt to hard fork Bitcoin to a higher block size limit of 2 megabytes, has had roughly 5 percent support among the network hashrate since March of this year. An Overview of the Blockchain Size Debate Category / Bitcoin / Cloudmining Industry Published on 23.07.2015. We have to acknowledge up front that the whole conversation about increasing the block size is not one of imminent necessity, but more of a theoretical eventuality. Bitcoin used to show a higher correlation to the stock markets, especially amid the lowest point of the pandemic. However, it has taken a different route during the last few days. Bitcoin-S&P 500 Correlation Departs from ATH Typically, Bitcoin is regarded as an independent asset that often acts as a safe haven. Its fundamentals are […]

[index] [5889] [26184] [240] [21303] [1263] [17946] [19024] [27472] [13523] [20123]

Let's Talk Bitcoin! #217 The Bitcoin Block Size Discussion

Growing demand for Bitcoin increased the size of cryptocurrency blockchain. Bitcoins’ blockchain has exceeded 100 GB for the first time on Monday, the 19th of December. As Bitcoin grows, its blocks are starting to fill up, and thus discussion has been ongoing on how to best handle this. The block size limit is current 1mb per block, 4mb, 8mb and 20mb limits per ... Whether the block size should be increased to 20MB has created more controversy than any other question in Bitcoin's recent history. For some, it is an urgent and necessary step in Bitcoin's ... Blockchain Technology Explained (2 Hour Course) ... Scaling and the block size debate - Duration: 4:46. aantonop 13,705 views. ... Bitcoin Scaling Debate - Big Blocks, Hard Fork - Roger Ver, ... The bitcoin blocksize debate has been going for a while now. There is 2 factions that are discussing it. One side wants the blocksize to stay small, around 1 mb, and the other side wants the ...

Flag Counter