Bitcoin (BTC) Real-Time Price Index and Chart — CoinDesk 20

Is segwit2x the REAL Banker takeover?

DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
  1. MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
  2. Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistance in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
EDIT: Let's not forget that Blockstream is also beholden to the same investors, DCG.
Link to Part 2:
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/75s14n/is_segwit2x_the_real_banker_takeover_part_two/
submitted by poorbrokebastard to btc [link] [comments]

Exposed: How Bankers are trying to centralize and highjack Bitcoin by buying "supporters" and promoters (like OpenBazaar team) for the B2X (S2X/NYA) attack on Bitcoin.

*Open Bazaar was crossed-out after their S2X support retraction, see edit at bottom.
These guys have deep pockets, but as you will see below, they are funded by even deeper pockets.
We can't leave this to chance or "the markets to decide" when there is such a malicious intent to manipulate the markets by those powerful players. So that's why all the people saying: "Don't worry, S2X won't happen" or "S2X is DOA" need to stop, we are at a 'make-or-break' moment for Bitcoin. It's very dumb to underestimate them. If you don't know yet who those malicious players are, read below:
We need to keep exposing them everywhere. Using Garzik as a pawn now, after they failed when they bought Hearn and Andresen (Here are the corrupted former 'good guys'), they are using the old and effective 'Problem-Reaction-Solution' combined with the 'Divide & Conquer' strategies to try to hijack Bitcoin. Well, effective before the current social media era, in which hidden motives can be brought to the light of day to be exposed.
Public pressure works when your profits depend on your reputation. The social media criticism worked for companies like Open Bazaar, which after weeks of calling them out on their S2X support, they finally withdrew it.
Please contact the companies on these lists if you have any type of relationship with them, we have just a few days left until the fork:
Regarding OpenBazaar:
* openbazaar (OB1) developer appears to be spreading pro s2x fud. someone needs to fork their project
* PSA : Open Bazaars latest investment round was for 200K from Barry Silberts DCG (Digital Currency Group)
(See edit at the bottom)
B2X (S2X/NYA) is nothing more than an open attack on Bitcoin, not an "upgrade" as they want to sell it. This attack has no 'consensus', at all. It was "agreed" by a bunch of miners and corporations behind closed doors, with no community nor developers support. Only miners and a few millionaires that stand to profit from the B2X attack support it. The vast majority of the Bitcoin community is totally against this attack on Bitcoin. Most of those companies are under DCG group:
Every bitcoiner should know about what DCG (Digital Currency Group) is, and call out publicly these crooks and the people they bribed that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin:
Brian Armstrong, Winklevoss brothers, Bobby Lee, Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team)(see edit at the bottom), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins (Federal Reserve Board of Directors), Bill Barhydt and Jiang Zhuoer.
Once people are informed, they won't be fooled (like all the poor guys at btc) and will follow Bitcoin instead of the S2X or Bcash or any other centralized altcoin they come up with disguised as Bitcoin.
DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Blythe Masters:
Former executive at JPMorgan Chase.[1] She is currently the CEO of Digital Asset Holdings,[2] a financial technology firm developing distributed ledger technology for wholesale financial services.[3] Masters is widely credited as the creator of the credit default swap as a financial instrument. She is also Chairman of the Governing Board of the Linux Foundation’s open source Hyperledger Project, member of the International Advisory Board of Santander Group, and Advisory Board Member of the US Chamber of Digital Commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Masters
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
  1. MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
  2. Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistant in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
And before you dismiss all those hard and documented facts as just a 'conspiracy theory', think about this:
Of course, who thought that the ones holding the centralized financial power today (famous for back-door shady plots to consolidate even more power and control), would sit on their hands and let Bitcoin just stroll in and easily take that power away from them?
So, it is not a crazy conspiracy theory, but more like the logical and expected thing to happen. Don't let it happen.
Edit: Formatting.
Edit 2: Brian Armstrong taken out of the 'bad guys' list.
Edit 3: Welp, Brian Armstrong back on the blacklist for this flip-flop. And added Winklevoss Brothers for this, and Bobby Lee for this.
Edit 4: Due to Brian Hoffman just issuing this excellent and explicit S2X/NYA support retraction, I created this post to apologize for my previous posts (calling them out for the S2X support) and I will be editing my posts to reflect this positive change. I'm gladly back to being a supporter of the great and promising project that OpenBazaar has proven to be.
Edit 5: Added Blythe Masters (How could we leave her out?).
Edit 6: Added links to lists of companies supporting S2X/NYA.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Top 10 Richest People in the World, in Bitcoin

Bitcoin has been given the nickname “digital gold”. This is because of its characteristic as a store of wealth. Many big investors are resorting to Bitcoin as a good place to put their money. The reason for this is not just because it can be sustained, but also because of the high tendency of appreciation in value. Here we shall be considering the top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin.
We will take a look at their net worth, and how much that amounts to in Bitcoin. We will also consider their primary business and a little bit of their history. How they started out in the Bitcoin ecosystem and what they have achieved so far will also enable us to understand more about them.
So, here is a list of the top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin.
10. Matthew Roszark
Matthew Roszark is the founder of Tally Capital, and co-founder of Bloq. Roszark is widely known as the man who gave Richard Branson and Bill Clinton their first Bitcoins. Roszark made it early into the Bitcoin space and participated in the very first ICO in 2013. Although that wasn’t what it was called at the time.
Roszark has investments in 20 startups in the cryptocurrency ecosystem, some of which have gone ahead to do great things. Some of the startups that he invested in include Coinbase, Kraken and BTCC.
Roszark’s net worth is $1 billion, which amounts to 102,712.94 BTC (at the time of writing).
  1. Anthony Di Iorio
Anthony Di lorio is the founder of Jaxx and Decentral, and co-founder at Ethereum. Having studied a bit of economics and trying to find out the true essence of money after the recession of early 2000, Di lorio discovered Bitcoin and decided to explore. He started a Toronto Bitcoin-meetup, where he met his eventual co-founder of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin.
Di lorio contributed his personal funds towards the coding of Ethereum, and has since been involved in a number of other crypto assets. Some of them include Qtum, VeChain and ZCash.
Di lorio is a serial investor who commits to projects at an early stage, then after levelling up, he pulls his funds and moves on to something new. His net worth of $1 billion is the equivalent of 102,712.93 BTC.
  1. Michael Novogratz
This CEO of Galaxy Digital is also popular in the field of macro hedge fund management. Novogratz started investing in cryptocurrencies in 2013 and two years later he left his position at Fortress Investment Group to focus on crypto.
In the cryptocurrency industry, Novogratz is known as a seasoned trader who believes that the crypto market as it is today is a bubble. According to him, his aim is to make as much money as possible from the bubble before it bursts.
Novogratz is worth $1 billion which is the equivalent of 102,712.92 BTC
  1. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss
The Winklevoss twins arrived in the face of the public through the controversial law suit against Facebook for intellectual property theft. They eventually won the case and were paid $11 million in compensation.
With many Silicon Valley startups not wanting to get into Facebook’s black book, the twins seemed to not have where to invest their money. They were introduced to Bitcoin by Brooklyn-based investor David Azar in 2012, and found their new investment ecosystem.
Over the years, the astronomic rise in Bitcoin price has turned their $11 million investment to a $1 billion portfolio of 102,712.91 BTC.
  1. Matthew Mellon
Matthew Mellon’s money started as old money which he inherited from family sources. However, through his “crazy” investment approach, he has been able to build a fortune out of his family inheritance.
Having bought into Bitcoin some years ago, Mellon abandoned his early investments and sold his Bitcoins at some point. His attachment with the banking industry and the XRP feasibility attracted him to the coin.
Mellon spent $2 million to acquire XRP tokens a few years back. That investment has grown to $1 billion, in the equivalence of 102,712.90 BTC.
  1. Zhao Chaopeng
Zhao Chaopeng popularly known as CZ, is the founder of cryptocurrency exchange, Binance. Within one year of its launch, Binance became the largest cryptocurrency exchange in terms of volume.
The platform’s tokens were sold at a price of 10 cents during its ICO. At the time of writing, the price of the coin has risen to over $27 and CZ owns a huge volume of the coins.
In 2014, CZ sold his house in Shanghai, which was practically all he had, to go all out into Bitcoin. Today, his net worth is $1.3 billion, which is equivalent to 133,523.65 BTC.
  1. Brian Armstrong
Brian Armstrong is the CEO of Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in America. Coinbase was founded in 2012, and is the most patronized cryptocurrency exchange in the US. The exchange has also expanded, and is now available in many countries of the world.
In 2018, the exchange embarked on a financing round that saw it raise $300 million, and the company is now valued at $8 billion.
Armstrong’s net worth stands at $1.3 billion, with equates to 133,523.64 BTC.
  1. Jihan Wu
Johan Wu is the co-founder of Bitmain, a China-based Bitcoin mining giant. Together with Micree Zhan Ketuan, they have grown Bitmain to become a household name in the industry, and the main supplier of ASIC-chip miners. Wu is also popular for his open support of Bitcoin Cash.
Wu is estimated to be worth up to $1.5 billion, which translates in Bitcoin to 154,065.75 BTC.
  1. Chris Larsen
Chris Larsen is the co-founder of Ripple, a company which was founded in 2012 with Jed McCaleb, the founder of Mt Gox.
Larsen is regarded as a self-made billionaire, with the bulk of his wealth coming from cryptocurrency enterprises. Ripple boasts many top end customers in its portfolio. Among the list includes Bank of America, Santander and Mitsubishi Financial.
Larsen’s net worth is estimated at $1.5 billion, which is equivalent to 154,065.74 BTC.
  1. Micree Zhan Ketuan
Zhan is the co-founder of Bitmain technologies. Bitmain is regarded as the biggest Bitcoin mining company in China. The company is also known to specialize in the sale of ASIC-chip miners.
Zhan is an electrical engineer by training and is the builder of the ASIC chips on the Bitmain hardware. He is an acclaimed self-made billionaire whose source of wealth is the manufacturing and sales of cryptocurrency mining chips.
Zhan’s net worth is estimated at $2.7 billion, which when converted to Bitcoin is 215,692.05 BTC.
Conclusion
The dominant investment industry concept is evolutionary. At different eras of existence, different industries have produced different money magnates. Serial investors at the same time have found ways of aligning with the prevailing markets as the times change.
With the advent of Bitcoin and blockchain technology, the digital assets ecosystem appears to be making a strong statement in the wealth sector. The number of self made billionaires within this sector is a testimony to the impact of this concept in today’s world.
The top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin, parades some names that can stand side-by-side with money magnates of traditional industries. With more developments likely to emerge in the crypto ecosystem, it will not be surprising to see the number of crypto-made billionaire skyrocket in the near future.
https://medium.com/@4kingsocials/top-10-richest-people-in-the-world-in-bitcoin-94183268189b
submitted by OliAustin101 to CryptoNewsandTalk [link] [comments]

It is time to unite, organize and squeeze-out any possible viability for S2X/NYA.

And the simplest, cheapest, fastest and more efficient way to do it is this one:
Expose to the sunlight what DCG is and who is behind it
First, let's just post the links to the sites listing all the companies supporting the attack for quick reference:
https://coin.dance/poli
http://segwit.party/nya/
Then, let's post a list of the individuals still supporting this attack despite the overwhelming evidence presented to them about how and why S2X is not only totally pointless from the technical as well as economical (benefit for the whole ecosystem and not just a few) points of view and also about how and why S2X is an open attack on Bitcoin.
Those guys are pure greed, they don't care about the 7 billion of people on this planet. Expose them and don't give them your business. Starve the beast. They will regret sticking with the B2X altcoin that will go the BCH way (and all the other highjack attempts before them). Moneybadger don't care and only gets stronger and immunized after each snake-bite, that is as a system, but we, as individuals, do care and must be proactively working against this attack.
Actually >99% of the Bitcoin community supports the real Bitcoin. The centralized B2X-coin attack is only supported by a handful of rich crooks and the people they've managed to bribe with their deep pockets, so here they are:
Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Brian Armstrong, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins and Jiang Zhuoer.
DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
  1. MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
  2. Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistant in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
Edit: Formatting.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I propose to start a 'class action' lawsuit against all the companies and individuals involved with S2X/NYA in any capacity. Hear me out:

Edit- For all the people saying that we shouldn't use the law against S2X. Thanks exab for this post Satoshi's verdict: Use laws to protect yourself and Bitcoin!
Satoshi's source code (comment) in every file he created:
// Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
I trust it ends the narrative that we should not use laws to protect ourselves or Bitcoin.
We don't need to wait anymore, certainly not until they do a real damage to the Bitcoin structure or decentralization, we have now enough documented evidence of malicious intent and fraud. We will give an ultimatum and a one week grace period to give a chance to drop out before a company/individual is listed as a defendant in the lawsuit. It is time we organize properly, like they did, and defend against this ridiculous and malicious take-over attempt.
This is an actual Trojan Horse and we are welcoming in with our complacency by saying: "Bitcoin has survived all past attacks, honeybadger don't care", don't forget that 'honeybadger' is all of us, united. This attack is not like the others, this one has the backing of the most powerful companies in the space plus most of the miners.
They want to succeed were the banker's special forces led by Blythe Masters failed to infiltrate and highjack Bitcoin since she was well known by many people and could not run incognito.
Now they are doing it from the inside, including the purchase of weak-morals developers like Garzik, Hearn and Andersen, as well as entrepreneurs like Ver, Voorhees, Jihan and Pair (maybe even Armstrong).
Stop underestimating these people, they are very smart and have very deep pockets (hundreds of billions of printed to infinity fiat deep).
Here is a list of the people who should not be trusted at all and many of them will probably be listed as defendants: Gavin Andersen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham and Brian Armstrong.
By now, they should be considered as enemies of Bitcoin and decentralization. Their credibility, reputation, and businesses will be run into the ground by no other than their own greed, selfishness and seek for more power and control, unless they come out publicly against S2X/NYA.
We, the people/users/nodes, and the hardworking and honest Core developers are the honeybadger: WE ARE BITCOIN. This is not FUD, Bitcoin will survive, there is no way to put it back into Pandora's Box, but we need to be conscious that we can easily avoid any damage if we remain united. Let's swarm the S2X/NYA beast and show it the real power of Decentralization. Exciting times we are living... this will be fun!
Edit- Great post on btc against S2X... This attack is so blatant that even they are seeing through it now. OP is a well-known poster there (strongly anti-bitcoin and strong bcash supporter), the post is surprisingly being upvoted and even gilded:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/743qb8/is_segwit2x_the_real_banker_takeove
DCG (digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why NYA is an attack on Bitcoin and why it will fail (long)

I wrote a rather lengthy response to a reddit post that I think is worth sharing, especially for newcomers to dispell some false narratives about S2X and Barry Silberts' New-York Agreement aka hostile takeover attempt of Bitcoin that is doomed to fail.
big block hard-liners wanted block size only, no SegWit.
Which doesn't make any logical sense. A lot of fud was actively being spread about how segwit was unsafe (such as the ANYONECANSPEND fud) but segwit is ofcourse working as intended thanks to the world class engineering of the Bitcoin Core developers. This led to the suspicion that BitMain was behind the opposition of segwit. BitMain miners use "covert AsicBoost" which is a technique that allows their rigs to use less electricity than competing mining equipment. However, segwit introduced changes to Bitcoin that made using covert AsicBoost impossible, which would explain their fierce opposition to segwit. We're talking big money here - the AsicBoost advantage is worth US$ 100 million according to estimates of experts.
After segwit was finalized, the Bitcoin software was programmed to activate segwit but not before 95% of the hashpower signalled to be ready. After all, miners are tasked with creating valid blocks and should be given the opportunity to update their software for protocol changes such as segwit. As a courtesy to the miners, the Bitcoin software basically said: "ok, segwit is here, but I'll politely hold off its activation until 95% of you say that you're ready to deal with this protocol change".
Sadly, mining is heavily centralized, and segwit was never getting activated due to the opposition of a few or perhaps even a single person: Jihan Wu of BitMain. As an aside, the centralization of hash power is also a direct result of AsicBoost. How this works: since AsicBoosted rigs are able to mine more efficiently than their competitors, these rigs drive up the difficulty and with that the average amount of hashes required to find a block. This in turn causes less efficient rigs to mine at a loss because they need to expend more energy to find a block. As a result, BitMain competitors got pushed out and BitMain became the dominant self-mining ASIC manufacturer.
After segwit was finalized, it required 95% of the hashpower to activate but it never gained more than around 30%. So 70% of hash power abused the courtesy of the Bitcoin software to wait until they were ready for activation and refused to give the go ahead. This went on for months and worst case it would have taken until August 2018 before segwit would activate.
let's do a compromise- we do SegWit AND we hard fork
In March 2017 a pseudonymous user called Shaolin Fry created BIP148 which is a softfork that invalidates any block that wouldn't signal segwit readiness starting August 1st 2017. This also became known as the UASF (User-Activated Soft Fork, as opposed to the original miner-activated soft fork that didn't work as intended). This patch saw significant adoption and miners would soon be forced to signal segwit or else see their blocks being invalidated by the network, which would cause them significant financial losses.
In May 2017 so after BIP148, the backroom New-York Agreement (NYA) was created by the Digital Currency Group of Barry Silbert together with businesses in the Bitcoin space such as BitPay and almost all miners. The NYA was the beginning of an outright misinformation campaign.
The NYA was trumpeted to be a "compromise". Miners would finally agree to activate segwit. In return, Bitcoin would hardfork and double its capacity on top of the doubling already achieved by segwit. In reality, BIP148 was already going to force miners to signal the activation of segwit. Also, developers and most users were notably absent in this NYA. So, given that segwit was already unstoppable because of BIP148, the parties around the table had to "compromise" to do something that they all wanted: hardfork Bitcoin to increase its capacity.
Or, is it all in fact really about increasing capacity? After all, segwit already achieved this. Bcash was created which doubled block size as well but without segwit. And then there is good old Litecoin having four times the transaction capacity of Bitcoin and segwit. Plenty of working alternatives that obsolete the need for yet another altcoin. So, perhaps transaction capacity is used as an excuse to reach a different goal. Let's explore.
Apparently after not-so-careful study of the Bitcoin whitepaper, the NYA participants came up with an absurd redefinition of what is "Bitcoin". According to this bizarre definition, they started to claim that Bitcoin is being defined as:
  1. Any blockchain that has the most cumulative hashpower behind it (measured from the Genesis block at the inception of Bitcoin):
  2. Using the SHA256 hashing algorithm;
  3. Having the current difficulty adjustment algorithm (resetting difficulty every 2016 blocks).
Ad 1. Note that it starts with "any blockchain". This also includes blockchains that contain invalid blocks, in other words, blocks that Bitcoin nodes would reject.
This is ofcourse bizarre but it is exactly what the NYA participants claim. It effectively puts all power in the hand of miners. Instead of nodes validating blocks, according to this novel and absurd interpretation of Bitcoin it will be miners that call the shots. Whatever block a miner produces will be valid as long as they mine on top of their own block, because that chain will then have the most cumulative hash power. Nodes become mere distributors of blocks and lose all their authority as they can no longer decide over the validity of a block. MinerCoin is born.
The Bitcoin whitepaper actually mentions this scenario where a majority of the hashpower takes over the network and starts producing invalid blocks and refers to it as being an attack. It is worth quoting this section 8, second paragraph in its entirety:
"As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification." (emphasises mine).
Any doubt left whether "most hashpower wins" is an attack should be removed by a telling remark in the release notes of 0.3.19:
"Safe mode can still be triggered by seeing a longer (greater total PoW) invalid block chain."
As mentioned, miners representing 95% of all hash power participate in the NYA. They are currently expressing their support for the NYA by putting "NYA" inside blocks. The NYA participants intend to remove their hash power from Bitcoin completely and point it towards their altcoin. To double down on their claim that Bitcoin is defined by hashpower, they show some serious audacity by referring to their altcoin as... "Bitcoin". Anyone not part of the NYA refers to their coin as segwit2x, S2X or sometimes 2x.
The NYA participants proceed to proclaim victory. They reason that with all hash power on their blockchain and hardly any left for Bitcoin, "legacy Bitcoin" will be stuck as blocks will be created so slowly that Bitcoin becomes unusable, forcing everyone to switch to the "real" Bitcoin (sic). In other words, it was part of the plan was to remove hash power from Bitcoin to disrupt and force users into their altcoin.
Ofcourse, Bitcoin Core would not just sit idle and let such an attack happen. There are several ways to defend against this attack. As a last resort, an emergency difficulty reset combined with a change in the PoW algorithm can be deployed to get Bitcoin going again.
This is not likely to be necessary however as miners simply can't afford to mine a coin that has a small fraction of the value of Bitcoin. They have large bills to pay which is impossible by mining a coin that has half or even less the value of Bitcoin. In other words, miners would bankrupt themselves unless their altcoin attains the same value as Bitcoin. Given the lack of user, community and developer support it is save to say that this is not going to happen. Their coin will have only a small fraction of the value of Bitcoin and miners have no choice but to continue mine Bitcoin in order to receive the income necessary to pay for their huge operational expenses.
A moment was set for the hardfork: block 494,784 a big block will be produced such that it is invalid for the current Bitcoin network and will discard it.
Ofcourse, some nodes must accept the new, bigger S2X blocks. Therefore, Jeff Garzik (co-founder of a company called Bloq) started out to create btc1 which is a fork of the Bitcoin node software and which is adapted such that it accepts blocks up to twice in size, so that the segwit2x altcoin can exist. Note the 1 in btc1 which refers to their version numbering. Bitcoin Core releases are still 0.x but btc1 is numbered 1.x. This is to send the message that they have released the real Bitcoin that is now no longer a beta 0.x release but a production ready 1.x. This nonwithstanding the fact that btc1 is a copy of Bitcoin 0.14 with some minor changes and without any significant development causing it to quickly fall behind Bitcoin.
The NYA participants go on to claim that when hash power is on the btc1 blockchain, and Bitcoin is dead as a result because no or hardly any new blocks are being created, then the Bitcoin Core developers have no choice but to start contributing to their btc1 github controlled by Jeff Garzik.
In the NYA end state, Bitcoin is a coin of which miners set the consensus rules, and the Core developers sheepishly contribute to software in a repository controlled by Jeff Garzik or whoever pays him.
Needless to say, this is never ever going to happen.
The small block hard-liners are now against 2x and want SegWit only.
There is no such thing as small block hardliners. As is probably clear by now, NYA is not about block size. It is about control over Bitcoin. As a matter of fact, Bitcoin Core has never closed the door on a block size increase. In the scaling roadmap published in December 2015, Bitcoin Core notes:
"Finally--at some point the capacity increases from the above may not be enough. Delivery on relay improvements, segwit fraud proofs, dynamic block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals (such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase). Bitcoin will be able to move forward with these increases when improvements and understanding render their risks widely acceptable relative to the risks of not deploying them. In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the basic software engineering from being the limiting factor."
Bitcoin Core literally says here very clearly that further increases of block size are on the table as an option in the future.
For my personal opinion-
I hope that your personal opinion has changed after taking notes of the above.
submitted by trilli0nn to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What is up with all these Bitcoin devs who think that their job includes HARD-CODING CERTAIN VALUES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE USER-CONFIGURABLE (eg: "seed servers")?

Recently, the developer of SegWit2x / BTC1, Jeff Garzik, caused some controversy by hard-coding the "seed servers" which Bitcoin uses to first start hunting for "peers".
Worse than that: apparently one of the "seeds" is a company he started, variously named Chainalysis / Skry / Bloq - which apparently specializes in de-anonymizing Bitcoin transactions and performing KYC/AML - and which also has apparently entered into agreements with Interpol.
Seriously, WTF???
This is what "Bitcoin devs" still consider to be part of their "job" - hard-coding parameters like this, which affect everyone else on the network - and which could easily be "exposed" to be made user-configurable - instead of being baked into the source code and requiring a friggin' recompile to change???
This recent event has refocused attention on the fact all these past years, most of these seed servers in "the" existing (legacy) client running on most of the network have _also been hard-coded - to domains under the control of "devs associated with Blockstream".
I don't like the list of seed servers in Bitcoin Core
Pieter Wuille - does not support BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Matt Corallo - does not support BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Luke Dashjr - supports BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Christian Decker - supports BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Jonas Schnelli - supports BIP148
Peter Todd - supports BIP148 - worked for Samson Mow who works for Blockstream
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6nd50h/i_dont_like_the_list_of_seed_servers_in_bitcoin/
The corporate takeover of bitcoin illustrated in 1 commit
In The corporate takeover of bitcoin illustrated in 1 commit a user complains that btc1 changing the seed servers to servers run by some companies (see commit) equals a "corporate takeover of bitcoin". I never really took much care who runs these seed server, although they do posses a certain power over the network as correctly pointed out by P. Todd in the same thread:
...and the key thing with that is being able to control what nodes a node connects to can be a very powerful tool to attack new nodes, as it lets you prevent a node from learning about the valid chain with the most work.
[...]
4 out of 5 people running the bitcoin networks seed servers are directly associated with Blockstream!
I don't even believe that Blockstream is actually plotting an evil, forceful takeover of bitcoin using the seed servers. However it beautifully counteracts Adam's "decentralization is everything" arguments. What is most troublesome to me, is that this simple information is not allowed to appear on r\bitcoin at all.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6n8vqc/the_corporate_takeover_of_bitcoin_illustrated_in/
Seriously?
Bitcoin is almost 9 years old - and most people are still running clients which use hard-coded values (which require an inconvenient recompile to reconfigure) for the "seed servers"??
Maybe this is, in some sense, part of the reason why people like BlueMatt and Luke-Jr and Pieter Wiulle think they can lord it over us and tell everyone else what to do? ...because they have quietly (and unfairly / incompetently) hard-coded their own friggin' server domain names directly into everyone else's client code, as our "seed servers"?
Is the low level of "quality" we - as a community - have become accustomed to from our devs?
Do other clients (Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin ABC) also gratuitously hard-code their "seed servers" like this?
Here's a post from a year ago regarding "seed servers" in Classic:
How come "classic" uses the same alert keys/DNS seeds as Core?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/44atsp/how_come_classic_uses_the_same_alert_keysdns/
Meanwhile, here's the main question:
Why are any "serious" Bitcoin clients still "gratuitously" hard-coding any values like this?
Why has our "ecosystem" / "community" not naturally evolved to the point where we have some public "wiki" pages listing all the "good" (community-recognized, popular) seed servers - and every user configures their own client software by choosing who they want from this list?
(Maybe because we've been distracted by bullshit for these past few years, fighting with these very same devs because they've refused provide any support for users who want bigger blocks?)
What would users have to do if (God forbid) something were to happen to the servers of those 4-5 seed servers which are currently hard-coded into nearly everyone's clients?
In that situation (assuming some "new" seed servers quickly appeared) people would be have two options:
  • Edit their C++ source code and download/install a (trusted, verified) C++ compiler (if they don't already have one), and recompile the friggin' code; or
  • Wait until new binaries got posted online - and download them (and verify them).
Seriously?
This unnecessary "centralization point" (or major inconvenience / bottleneck) has been sitting in our code this entire time - while these supposedly knowledgeable devs keep beating us over their head with their mantra of "decentralization" - which they have actually been doing so little to maximize?
Psycho-Socio-Economic Side Bar
Serious (but delicate/senstive) question: How many of these "devs" have developed (possibly unconscious?) behaviors in life where they try to make users dependent on them?
"Vendor lock-in" is a thing - a very bad thing, which certain Bitcoin devs have exhibited a tendency to inflict on users - in many cases due to rather obvious (psychological, social, and/or economic) reasons.
We should gently (but firmly) reject these tendencies whenever any dev exhibits them.
Our community should expect and demand an accessible, user-friendly interface for all user-configurable parameters - to maximize decentralization and autonomy
  • In "command-line" versions of the client program, these kind of parameters should be:
    • in a separate config file - using some ultra-simple, standard format such as YAML or JSON
    • also configurable via options (eg, --seed-server) upon invocation on the command-line
  • In GUI versions version of the client program (using some popular cross-platform standard such as Qt, HTML, etc.) these kind of parameters should be exposed as user-configurable options.
Yes, these user-configurable values for things like "seed servers" (or "max blocksize") could come pre-configured to "sensible defaults - so that the software will work "out of the box" (immediately upon downloading and installing) - with no initial configuration required by the user.
Yes: Even the blocksize has always been user-configurable - but most users don't know this, because most devs have been hiding this fact from us.
Three recent posts by u/ForkiusMaximus explained how Adjustable-Blocksize-Cap (ABC) Bitcoin clients shatter this illusion:
Adjustable-blocksize-cap (ABC) clients give miners exactly zero additional power. BU, Classic, and other ABC clients are really just an argument in code form, shattering the illusion that devs are part of the governance structure.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/614su9/adjustableblocksizecap_abc_clients_give_miners/
Adjustable blocksize cap (ABC) is dangerous? The blocksize cap has always been user-adjustable. Core just has a really shitty inferface for it.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/617gf9/adjustable_blocksize_cap_abc_is_dangerous_the/
Clearing up Some Widespread Confusions about BU
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/602vsy/clearing_up_some_widespread_confusions_about_bu/
Note about Bitcoin ABC vs Bitcoin Unlimited:
There is a specific new Bitcoin client called Bitcoin ABC, which functions similar to Bitcoin Unlimited - with the important difference that Bitcoin ABC is _guaranteed to hard-fork to bigger blocks on August 1_.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. Documentation for the behavior of these various hard-forks is currently still rather disorganized :-)
All serious devs should be expected to provide code which does not require a "recompile" to change these "initial, sensible" default parameters.
I mean - come on. Even back in the 80s people had "*.INI" files on DOS and Windows.
Nearly all users understand and know how to set user-configurable values - for decades.
How many people are familiar with using a program which has a "Preferences" screen? (Sometimes you may have to close and re-open the program in order for your new preferences to take effect.) This is really basic, basic functionality which nearly all software provides via a GUI (and or config file and/or command-line options).
And nearly all devs have been offering this kind of functionality - in either command-line parameters, config files, and/or graphic user interfaces (GUIs).
Except most Bitcoin devs.
The state of "software development" for Bitcoin clients seems really messed up in certain ways like this.
As users, we need to start demanding simple, standard features in our client software - such as accessible, user-friendly configurability of parameter values - without the massive inconvenience of a recompile.
What is a "Bitcoin client"?
After nearly 9 years in operation, our community should by now have a basic concept or definition of what a "Bitcoin client" is / does - probably something along the lines of:

A Bitcoin client is a device for reading (and optionally appending to) the immutable Bitcoin Blockchain.

Based on that general concept / definition, a program which does all of the above and also gratuitously "hard-codes" a bunch of domain names for "seed servers" is not quite the same thing as a "a Bitcoin client".
Such an "overspecialized" client actually provides merely a subset of the full functionality of a true "Bitcoin client", eg:
  • An "overspecialized" client only enables connecting to certain "seed servers" upon startup (in accordance with the "gratuitous opinion" of the dev who (mis)translated the community's conceptual specifications to C++ code)
  • An "overspecialized" client only enables mining blocks less that a certain size (in accordance with the "gratuitous opinion" of the dev who (mis)translated the community's conceptual specifications to C++ code)
One of the main problems with nearly all Bitcoin clients developed so far is that they are gratuitously opinionated: they "gratuitously" hard-code particular values (eg, "max blocksize", "seed servers") which are not part of the whitepaper, and not part of the generally accepted definition of a "Bitcoin client".
This failure on the part of devs to provide Bitcoin clients which behave in accordance with the community's specification of "Bitcoin clients" is seriously damaging Bitcoin - and needs to be fixed as soon as possible.
Right now is a good opportunity - with so many new Bitcoin clients popping up, as the community prepares to fork.
All devs working on various Bitcoin client software offerings need to wake up and realize that there is about to be a major battle to find out which Bitcoin client software offering performs "best" (in the user-interface sense - and ultimately in the economic sense) at:

reading (and optionally appending to) the immutable Bitcoin Blockchain

The Bitcoin client software offerings which can optimally (and most simply and securely :-) "satisfy" the above specification (and not merely some gratuitously overspecialized "subset" of it) will have the most success.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Top 10 Richest People in the World, in Bitcoin

Bitcoin has been given the nickname “digital gold”. This is because of its characteristic as a store of wealth. Many big investors are resorting to Bitcoin as a good place to put their money. The reason for this is not just because it can be sustained, but also because of the high tendency of appreciation in value. Here we shall be considering the top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin.
We will take a look at their net worth, and how much that amounts to in Bitcoin. We will also consider their primary business and a little bit of their history. How they started out in the Bitcoin ecosystem and what they have achieved so far will also enable us to understand more about them.
So, here is a list of the top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin.
10. Matthew Roszark
Matthew Roszark is the founder of Tally Capital, and co-founder of Bloq. Roszark is widely known as the man who gave Richard Branson and Bill Clinton their first Bitcoins. Roszark made it early into the Bitcoin space and participated in the very first ICO in 2013. Although that wasn’t what it was called at the time.
Roszark has investments in 20 startups in the cryptocurrency ecosystem, some of which have gone ahead to do great things. Some of the startups that he invested in include Coinbase, Kraken and BTCC.
Roszark’s net worth is $1 billion, which amounts to 102,712.94 BTC (at the time of writing).
  1. Anthony Di Iorio
Anthony Di lorio is the founder of Jaxx and Decentral, and co-founder at Ethereum. Having studied a bit of economics and trying to find out the true essence of money after the recession of early 2000, Di lorio discovered Bitcoin and decided to explore. He started a Toronto Bitcoin-meetup, where he met his eventual co-founder of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin.
Di lorio contributed his personal funds towards the coding of Ethereum, and has since been involved in a number of other crypto assets. Some of them include Qtum, VeChain and ZCash.
Di lorio is a serial investor who commits to projects at an early stage, then after levelling up, he pulls his funds and moves on to something new. His net worth of $1 billion is the equivalent of 102,712.93 BTC.
  1. Michael Novogratz
This CEO of Galaxy Digital is also popular in the field of macro hedge fund management. Novogratz started investing in cryptocurrencies in 2013 and two years later he left his position at Fortress Investment Group to focus on crypto.
In the cryptocurrency industry, Novogratz is known as a seasoned trader who believes that the crypto market as it is today is a bubble. According to him, his aim is to make as much money as possible from the bubble before it bursts.
Novogratz is worth $1 billion which is the equivalent of 102,712.92 BTC
  1. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss
The Winklevoss twins arrived in the face of the public through the controversial law suit against Facebook for intellectual property theft. They eventually won the case and were paid $11 million in compensation.
With many Silicon Valley startups not wanting to get into Facebook’s black book, the twins seemed to not have where to invest their money. They were introduced to Bitcoin by Brooklyn-based investor David Azar in 2012, and found their new investment ecosystem.
Over the years, the astronomic rise in Bitcoin price has turned their $11 million investment to a $1 billion portfolio of 102,712.91 BTC.
  1. Matthew Mellon
Matthew Mellon’s money started as old money which he inherited from family sources. However, through his “crazy” investment approach, he has been able to build a fortune out of his family inheritance.
Having bought into Bitcoin some years ago, Mellon abandoned his early investments and sold his Bitcoins at some point. His attachment with the banking industry and the XRP feasibility attracted him to the coin.
Mellon spent $2 million to acquire XRP tokens a few years back. That investment has grown to $1 billion, in the equivalence of 102,712.90 BTC.
  1. Zhao Chaopeng
Zhao Chaopeng popularly known as CZ, is the founder of cryptocurrency exchange, Binance. Within one year of its launch, Binance became the largest cryptocurrency exchange in terms of volume.
The platform’s tokens were sold at a price of 10 cents during its ICO. At the time of writing, the price of the coin has risen to over $27 and CZ owns a huge volume of the coins.
In 2014, CZ sold his house in Shanghai, which was practically all he had, to go all out into Bitcoin. Today, his net worth is $1.3 billion, which is equivalent to 133,523.65 BTC.
  1. Brian Armstrong
Brian Armstrong is the CEO of Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in America. Coinbase was founded in 2012, and is the most patronized cryptocurrency exchange in the US. The exchange has also expanded, and is now available in many countries of the world.
In 2018, the exchange embarked on a financing round that saw it raise $300 million, and the company is now valued at $8 billion.
Armstrong’s net worth stands at $1.3 billion, with equates to 133,523.64 BTC.
  1. Jihan Wu
Johan Wu is the co-founder of Bitmain, a China-based Bitcoin mining giant. Together with Micree Zhan Ketuan, they have grown Bitmain to become a household name in the industry, and the main supplier of ASIC-chip miners. Wu is also popular for his open support of Bitcoin Cash.
Wu is estimated to be worth up to $1.5 billion, which translates in Bitcoin to 154,065.75 BTC.
  1. Chris Larsen
Chris Larsen is the co-founder of Ripple, a company which was founded in 2012 with Jed McCaleb, the founder of Mt Gox.
Larsen is regarded as a self-made billionaire, with the bulk of his wealth coming from cryptocurrency enterprises. Ripple boasts many top end customers in its portfolio. Among the list includes Bank of America, Santander and Mitsubishi Financial.
Larsen’s net worth is estimated at $1.5 billion, which is equivalent to 154,065.74 BTC.
  1. Micree Zhan Ketuan
Zhan is the co-founder of Bitmain technologies. Bitmain is regarded as the biggest Bitcoin mining company in China. The company is also known to specialize in the sale of ASIC-chip miners.
Zhan is an electrical engineer by training and is the builder of the ASIC chips on the Bitmain hardware. He is an acclaimed self-made billionaire whose source of wealth is the manufacturing and sales of cryptocurrency mining chips.
Zhan’s net worth is estimated at $2.7 billion, which when converted to Bitcoin is 215,692.05 BTC.
Conclusion
The dominant investment industry concept is evolutionary. At different eras of existence, different industries have produced different money magnates. Serial investors at the same time have found ways of aligning with the prevailing markets as the times change.
With the advent of Bitcoin and blockchain technology, the digital assets ecosystem appears to be making a strong statement in the wealth sector. The number of self made billionaires within this sector is a testimony to the impact of this concept in today’s world.
The top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin, parades some names that can stand side-by-side with money magnates of traditional industries. With more developments likely to emerge in the crypto ecosystem, it will not be surprising to see the number of crypto-made billionaire skyrocket in the near future.
https://medium.com/@4kingsocials/top-10-richest-people-in-the-world-in-bitcoin-94183268189b
submitted by OliAustin101 to CryptocurrencyToday [link] [comments]

Is Segwit2x the real banker takeover?

DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistant in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
DCG's Board of Directors and Advisors is almost entirely made up of Central Bankers including one currently sitting Member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and another who was Chief Economist at the World Bank.
The CEO of the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement (Barry Silbert) is an ex investment banker at Houlihan Lokey. Also, Mastercard is an investor in the company DCG, which Barry Silbert is the CEO of.
The company overseeing development on Segwit2x, Bitgo, has a product/service that seems to only have utility if transacting on chain and using 0-Conf is inefficient or unreliable.
Segwit2x takes power over Bitcoin development from core, but then literally gives it to central bankers and Mastercard. If segwit2x goes through, BTC development will quite literally be controlled by central bankers and a currently serving member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
In my opinion, this really points to the cash fork being the real Bitcoin.
EDIT: I should clarify that it is not the 2x part only that I see as the takeover. I think somewhere my wording indicated I thought a block size increase part was bad, but that's not what I meant. Segwit2x is the trick that was used to get segwit on the chain, IMO, but the 2x part seems like the nail in the coffin, taking control of the protocol from Core, giving it right to bankers.
EDIT: Let's not forget that Blockstream is also beholden to the same investors, DCG.
By: u/poorbrokebastard
submitted by cryptotmm to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

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

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

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

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

Qtum Was Invited to Participate in the Penn Wharton Summit to Discuss the Challenges and Opportunities for Technological Innovation

On April 14th, US local time, the 2018 Penn Wharton China Summit was held in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Participants said that the two major countries, China and the United States, should go in the same direction. This is the blessing of the two countries and the people of the world.
 
The event was sponsored by the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and attracted Cui Tiankai, the Chinese Ambassador to the U.S.-Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Affairs, Fu Ying, Deputy Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the National People’s Congress, Guo Guangchang, Chairman of Fosun International, and Ted Smith, Global CEO of Sotheby’s Auction House. The famous director Chen Kaige and other global leaders jointly discussed the cooperation and development of the two major superpowers in the six major areas of finance, international relations, science and technology, real estate, society, and entertainment, and promoted cooperation between the two countries and looked forward to the future.
 
As the forerunner of the blockchain industry, the founder and CEO of Qtum was invited as a guest speaker in the field of technology innovation, together with Kuaidi Dache founder Chen Weixing, Bloq founder, Bitcoin core developer Jeff Garzik and other industry guests. Explore the challenges and opportunities for technological innovation.
 
“The development of blockchain technology has its historical opportunities, and the concept of decentralization will gradually infiltrate more individuals with the progress of human civilization. It turns out that blockchain technology will have potential in many industries in the future, and Promote the transformation of the Internet from information to value, and the decentralization and trust-free nature of the blockchain will greatly increase the efficiency of peer-to-peer transactions between companies and individuals, and at the same time, it will be traceable and will not be received. Some of the problems are due to the problem of centralized servers."
 
"Since last year, the blockchain has become a hot topic of discussion all over the world, but most of the time it is because of the wealth effect it has in development. But as For a group of people who entered the field earlier in China, I still think that the blockchain industry is still at a very early stage, and the underlying structure still needs a lot of time and energy to gradually improve. I think this is a 5-10 years. The fact that the widespread use of an emerging technology when it is still immature may have unavoidable negative impacts, so focus on developing the blockchain The underlying infrastructure is still the top priority in the industry."
 
“At present, there are many high-quality blockchain projects in the world, although the issues they want to solve are different, the consensus mechanisms are different, and the focus is not the same, but many open source code can be shared. The development of blockchain should be avoided. Closed doors and repetitive labor. The mutual exchanges between developers and learning can actually greatly improve the development efficiency and shorten the development cycle of blockchain technology,”
 
As Patrick Dai said, the development iterations of blockchain technology require the collaboration of developers from around the world. Both China and the United States have a solid foundation in computer science and ample talent pools. If we can find the correct development direction of blockchain technology and strengthen mutual learning exchange and resource sharing, blockchain technology will accelerate the pace of becoming the mainstream of society.
 
Original:https://mp.weixin.qq.com/s/Su0XEtxHcQ7xloyc_fE4Sg
submitted by thisthingismud to Qtum [link] [comments]

Can YOU Name ONE Exchange That Will List SegWit2X as Bitcoin BTC, POST Hard Fork?

As far as I am aware, ALL exchanges have agreed to list incumbent Bitcoin as BTC post the Hard Fork in November.
Is it because ALL the exchanges are betting on incumbent Bitcoin winning the battle of the Forks? What do they know, that we don’t?
Is this the final ‘Nail in the Coffin’ for B2X, being listed as just another free Alt Coin?
Could it be because SegWit2X futures are valued at less than 0.2BTC?
How long will miners mine at a loss, before moving back to incumbent BTC, if the futures markets are accurate, and price of SegWit2X (aka B2X) remains at, or below 0.2BTC? Will it be a matter of hours, days or weeks?
Has the market lost faith in Jeff Garzik, the main developer for SegWit2X, & the New York Agreement?
Bloq CEO Jeff Garzik, the main developer for SegWt2X, has been busy recently, getting his Alt Coin Metronome ready for launch. "It's sort of a best-of-all-worlds cryptocurrency," Garzik said. Does this mean that it is even better than Bitcoin BTC?
At launch, 2 million Metronome are being set aside for Bloq, with 8 million MTN being sold to the public. Am I right? This is a very clever way to raise money?
Source: https://www.coindesk.com/jeff-garzik-startup-bloq-launch-new-cryptocurrency-token-sale/
Bitcoins BTC Dominance Hit 55.9% Today - Source: https://coinmarketcap.com/
Please add any exchange that has agreed to list SegWit2X as Bitcoin BTC in the comments below.
This is an educational post, & is based on my current knowledge, which is limited. I could be wrong. Please carry out your own research.
submitted by BTCBCCBCH to btc [link] [comments]

When US Entrepreneur Meets Chinese Crypto Group Chat

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

Bitcoin always near its logarithmic regression How to trade BITCOIN and CRYPTO - YouTube Is Bitcoin Valuable? Bitcoin Price Today 'Fake Bitcoin' - How this Woman Scammed the World, then ...

Digital money that’s instant, private, and free from bank fees. Download our official wallet app and start using Bitcoin today. Read news, start mining, and buy BTC or BCH. Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash method calls use the same syntax. To make calls to both chains at once, the first step is to place the existing code into a function that takes the specified chain as the input. Make sure to update the 'coin' field to reflect the input chain value: Below that, place two method calls below the function. One for BTC ... San Francisco, California, United States About Blog With the largest bitcoin wallet platform in the world, Blockchain's software has powered over 100M transactions and empowered users in 130 countries across the globe to transact quickly and without costly intermediaries. We also offers tools for developers and real time transaction data for users to analyse the burgeoning digital economy. « Blog Home. How-to: Compare Block Times in Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. Posted on August 11, 2020 August 10, 2020 by Bloq. One way to get started with fundamental blockchain analytics is to compare the time between blocks. Longer than average block times in recent blocks results in higher transaction fees, longer confirmation times, and a larger mempool — that purgatory where unconfirmed ... Bitcoin has value because of the aspects that make its network reliable, flexible, available to all at all times, and incontrollable. Some of these aspects can be measured, others can’t. So, the next time someone asks why Bitcoin has value, you will be able to point out the complexity in measuring value in general, and how in many aspects, Bitcoin is already more valuable than many other ...

[index] [20201] [34913] [28769] [47261] [48969] [12579] [23884] [14945] [30399] [17808]

Bitcoin always near its logarithmic regression "fair-value" at the halving

Bienvenido! Si te gusto el video dale Like y Suscribite! Welcome! If you like please like and subscribe! ganar dinero desafio ganar dinero ganar dinero por i... Here we take a look at the "fair value" of BTC heading into the halving. Historically the price is around this long-term logarithmic regression curve. Sorry for the poor audio quality, will get it ... #Bitcoin Price Predictions: Up to $1 million or down to $200? How can Bitcoin have any value? Is Ethereum worthless? Well, yeah! But so are your dollars, euros, yens. Money is a weird thing. It is not backed by gold or silver, but by our belief in it. WELCOME TO MY BLOCKCHAIN CHANNEL GUYS! This channel is all about cryptocurrencies and the blockchain technology I'm also an international blockchain speaker and educator. If you want me to speak ...

#