Convert BTC to USD - Unit Converter

easy method to covert USD to Bitcoin

I am looking to get bitcoin,I am looking and creating accounts in many sites but nothing worked for me. what is the easy site/place to convert 3.5$ to bitcoin using PayPal??
submitted by caliboyy03 to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

trying to buy something off the Internet and bitcoin is the only accepted currency - any easy sites that covert usd via credit card to btc? /r/Bitcoin

trying to buy something off the Internet and bitcoin is the only accepted currency - any easy sites that covert usd via credit card to btc? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

06-13 07:34 - 'False! Gladstein is a right-wing terrorist who defaming and pretending to be [[link]] / Ask Gladstein for Blockchain records! Ask "HRF" to show any records on the blockchain about they supposed activism! They will not, t...' by /u/TwitterTerrorism removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-5min

False! Gladstein is a right-wing terrorist who defaming and pretending to be [[link]5
Ask Gladstein for Blockchain records! Ask "HRF" to show any records on the blockchain about they supposed activism! They will not, they can't and he can't give you anything and you know why? Because he is a fraud scammer shit who receives MILLIONS OF USD EVERY YEAR from the U.S. Government! Why they would need Bitcoin if they have millions of dollars for propaganda every single year? Well, because Alex Gladstein and Thor Halvorssen Mendoza laundering money! Using Bitcoin to finance fascist groups in Caracas and Hong Kong and that Bitcoin is directly used to BURN PEOPLE ALIVE!!!!! I'm not kidding! They burning people alive!
Alex Gladstein did not even know what is Bitcoin until 2016! His very first public article about Bitcoin was published on December of 2018.
On March of 2019 the so called "HRF" (CIA covert operation) actually did copied the entire [[link]5 page to [[link]7 Absolutely scam! They even claimed that they accepting Bitcoin donations since 2013 (because []4 founded in 2014) but they quickly removed that part from they website.
Gladstein laundering money and working with the U.S. State Department because he is a fraud, scammer fascist shit! Alex Gladstein is a defamatory right-wing shit and should be treated as such!
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: TwitterTerrorism
1: human*i*hts.f*undatio*/don*t***it**in.html 2: *umanrights*fo*nda*ion/d**ate-b*tco*n.h*m* 3: we*.ar***ve.or*/*/hrf**r**dona*e-bitcoin 4: h**anrights*found**i*n 5: *u*anr*g**s.foundat**n/d*nate-b*tcoi**html]^*1 6: hu*anrig****te-b*t*o**.**ml]^*1 7: w*b.arch**e.or*/\*/**na*e-bitc*i**^*3
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]


Hi everyone,
Yesterday around 5pm I Successfully withdrew a large sum of bitcoin from the trading platform to my Coinbase wallet.
Does anyone know how I can covert my BTC to USD from coinbase and into my bank account?
At the moment I currently hold BTC and I am thinking of transferring it over from Coinbase to GDAX then selling BTC for USD, then withdrawing USD to Bank account.
Or Option B, buy ETH with BTC then transfer ETH to GDAX then sell ETH for USD then withdraw to my bank account. Which method would be cheapest? If there is another way, let me know. I have never "cashed" out before from Crypto this is my first time.

submitted by Bennymartinc55 to BusinessInsiders [link] [comments]

BTC To Paypal USD for cryptocurrency exchange paypal cash out

BTC To Paypal USD for cryptocurrency exchange paypal cash out submitted by sallwords to u/sallwords [link] [comments]

New dai explainer website aimed for beginners

As promised a couple of weeks ago, I created a simple, minimal consumer-facing explainer site for Dai. The idea is to explain the very basics to a crowd that is likely not a crypto expert, in other words - not people who are likely to own ETH and feel comfortable with opening a CDP.
I created a couple of websites; what's there now is just a first step but hopefully already helpful:
It's a free resource. I wanted to share this here in hope the community finds it useful. Feedback is of course welcome :)
Longer background and notes follow if you're interested:
I originally wanted to create a fiat on/off ramp for Dai, but since I didn't see a way to make it a viable business (I want the fees to be minimal), I figured I'd at least create a community resource to promote Dai.
Please feel free to write me:
Some ideas I have for the future:
I considered making this open source, but since I have no idea how I'm going to evolve this in the future - perhaps it'd be a viable business someday - it feels unfair to encourage anyone to contribute to content that may end up being used by a business. I do promise this resource will always be ethical, honest and to the benefit of the community - but that does not preclude it being a business someday... Or not. Lol.
Feedback welcome! Please remember, this is a project worked on my free time, not a money-making endeavor. Hopefully it's still helpful. Thank you :)
submitted by itamarro to MakerDAO [link] [comments]

What was the Hypocrisy behind the Russia Probe?...could it be linked to Cryptocurrencies?

(First posted on July 9th 2019 on Tumblr, which caused my account to be classified as presenting explicit material...a nice way of saying suspended)
Consider all through this article that I am expressing a personal theory...Consider that both the Special Councils Office, and Counsel Mueller himself, and the Federal Reserve may be in Breach of Federal Law to have plotted to interfere with the sound Integrity of the US Currency, a Federal Crime.
What the Mueller probe should have exposed were the political strategies from Western World Central Banks to Institutionalize Cryptocurrency and take, at least, partial control of these through some form of Banking regulations. But it did not, what it did is assist in a Bitcoin bear market and stall for time in order to give the chance at Facebook to present the Libra.
It’s no secret that Jewish persons head and control all of the Western world central banks (Recent exception appears to be Christine Lagarde, New head of the European Central Bank who appears to be partially Christian). Yet, the Bitcoin is not controlled by Jewish interests, while most Western Currencies, through the directional leadership of Jewish owned and lead financial Institutions and through central banking, are.
Now, wall street banking institutions have a taste for crypto-currencies all right, and there lies the core of the “Russia” probe motivations, according to my opinion.
Donald Trump sold a condo in NY in 2013 for 24,700 Bitcoins. Here is the story (click here, NY DailyNews). Effectively, the condo was selling only in Bitcoins, no cash offer accepted. It appears to be the first official registered real estate transaction done in Bitcoins. At the top of the Bitcoin value (19,700 USD per Bitcoins in 2017), Donald’s position was valued at close to half a billion dollars. But this could be considered pocket money, since it is estimated that the greatest holder of Bitcoins is our dear “pal” Valdimir (Putin) himself. “Experts” estimate that "Vlad’s" position in the Bitcoin is close to 500,000 units, which would have put his net worth in Bitcoins close to 10 Billions USD at the top of the Bitcoin bull rally.
Now, you may not remember well, but at the end of 2017, at the peak of the Bitcoin fever, many central Bankers expressed the “need” for virtual money, and they dispelled the fraudulent nature of virtual money explaining that: “Well, while some transaction may serve organized crime, we believe that virtual currencies may serve a useful purpose in finance…”. Even Canada’s central bank Governor, Stephen Poloz supported openly this view: "Bank staff are exploring the circumstances under which it might be appropriate for the central bank to issue its own digital currency for retail transactions.” . The thing is that they were trying to bring the focus away from the Bitcoin (which they exposed as a gambling tool and a criminal currency) and towards other Cryptocurrencies.
Now, Donald Trump is not the only Washington DC person with a big position on the Bitcoin, it is believed that most high ranking DC politicians all have important positions in this currency.
I requested from the Justice Department, and from the FBI, and even the Mueller Investigation, that all Members of Congress and the White House divulge their position in the Bitcoin…naturally, being a nobody, I never even got a acknowledgement of receipt (and they will explain it is not under their authority...yet, do you believe I would have gotten another kind of response from the White House or Congress?). Yet, my request is strongly tied to National Security. Why? Because the sound value of the US currency is central to stability of the country, a stability that a Virtual Currency supremacy could threaten. A consideration presented with "zeal" by Fed Chief Powell this past July 10 in his testimony to Congress. In fact, politically, it is the biggest threat to all Western Democracies. (good reading here: Facebook's Libra Project Is Getting Hammered From All Sides, With Fed Chair Raising 'Serious Concerns')
But when you read the precedent article, you have to know how high finance is patient and plans way ahead. While the Chief of all central banks want to show they are prudent, it is clear they are negotiating a foot in the door of Facebook, a foot they should never set. Central Bank should not get into cryptocurrencies, and that is it, because anything they will do with it, they won't be able to mitigate the illegitimate use of it.
Further, in terms of security, these Bitcoin mining farms growing all over the US are a covert operation which has nothing to do with “mining Bitcoins”.
For those not familiar with the subject, many Americans (Canadians also), especially in rural areas, and in states and provinces where electricity is cheap, create Bitcoin mining farms. What does this consist of? Well, you need to purchase a small specialized computer (Bitmains are the most popular, about 500US) which you connect to the internet, and the electric grid and you don’t have to do nothing else, it is all controlled by China (the manufacturer of Bitmains)…it supposedly searches for fractions of Bitcoins called Satochies (1/100,000,000 of a Bitcoin), a bit like a treasure hunt. The Bitmain promoters argue they are plenty of Satochies indexed everywhere on the internet which belong to no one. Bitmains pretend finding them and putting a virtual Klondike on them.
When you participate in this activity, you are part of a kind of Chinese “coop”, which registers any Satochies your device may find, put them in a pot, and then you receive a pro-rata of the total Bitcoins found every month based on your number of Bitmains devices.
The thing is, that if you do the math, this endeavor cannot be profitable, yet everybody involved explains they are making tons of money. A Bitmain costs about 500USD and costs about 500USD in electricity to run per year @12cents/Kwh. They run 24/7 all year long..
Now considering that there is a limited fixed float of Bitcoins, 26,000,000; this would mean that to be profitable, when the bitcoin was valued at 1,000 USD, and there were around 4 million estimated Bitmains, and the likes, worldwide in 2016 (2,5 millions in the USA), you would have needed to find the equivalent of 30% of the currency float lost somewhere on the internet, with no apparent owner…make me laugh.
The real job of these computers is to launder money worldwide. It is estimated that between 100 and 300 Billion dollars are laundered worldwide on a daily basis. It appears that the Bitmains and similar devices are acquiring the principal share of this market. And the money Bitmain owners receive is for laundering money.
China is believed to be the greatest trader of Bitcoins, while Russia is believe to be where the biggest amount of Bitcoins are owned…No wonder Canadian banks and the Central Bank of Canada want to get in this business, they are losing market share in Money Laundering to the Bitcoin. Canada is the world Mecca of institutionalized money laundering through its 6 big large Chartered Banks plus the Mouvement des Caisses Desjardins).
As a reference, from Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Global News,,
· Ottawa's secret report on money-laundering points finger at Canada's banks
· Canada’s doors are ‘wide open’ for criminals to launder money in real estate: report
· Why Canada Stands Out As A Money Laundering Haven
· Canada Would Be In A Recession Without Money Laundering
· Weak rules have made Canada a magnet for money laundering: Don Pittis
From the CDC Howe Institute (Famed Canadian Think-tank, and From the British Columbia Attorney General's Office and Bank of Canada:
Why we fail to catch money launderers 99.9% of the time, May 7 2019
British Columbia AG Officer releases report on Money Laundering
Discussion Paper staff Bank of Canada On Cryptocurrencies
Bank of Canada to review Facebook's cryptocurrency white paper 'very carefully
Further, the estimated 2,5 million Bitmains unit in the US could serve to hack America as a whole, starting with the electric grid.
Arrogantly, Bitcoin “experts” on Wall Street have expressed, last year, that while the Bitcoin had fallen from its highs, it was only temporary, and that they projected the Bitcoin to surge back up and reach the value of 100,000 USD per untit by the end of 2020, and 1,000,000USD by the end of 2024.
While this appears ridicule to the naive mind, Wall Street’s arrogance and power are real, and if the Jewish financial interests from Wall Street need a 1,000,000 USD Bitcoin or other virtual currency to perpetuate their financial Coup d’État on the planet, they will get it.
As you have noticed, since the Mueller report has been closed, the Bitcoins which had been on a tear, suddenly reversed course, and it has gone up 400% from its lows in a few months. Since the end of the Mueller Investigation, Trump’s estimated gain with the Bitcoin is 250 Million USD.
Interestingly, the Mueller report ending coincides with the creation of Facebook’s Libra, a direct competitor of the Bitcoin, at least this is what is hoped…hum…interesting..a fully privately owned and controlled by Jewish financial and power interest cryptocurrency. They should have called it the Ziona…
Now, a 1,000,000USD per Bitcoin value means that the float of the Bitcoin would be close to the value of Worldwide M3 Money Supply. If you control the Bitcoin, or probably its replacement, the Libra, you control the Planet’s economy…
Interestingly, while I am not an important person at all, I had published 3 paragraphs on this observation in 2017 in an article, on my wordpress blog, concerning ethics and the white house. I had also 2 paragraphs on Papadopoulos (a Jew of Greek origin), the shamed White House staffer imprisoned for lying to the FBI. Papadopoulos, as I explained in my blog, had a plan where is was trying to convince Washington DC to take a US Navy Flotilla in the Eastern Mediterranean Sea, between Cyprus and Israel, to allow Israel to take property (to loot) an underwater gas reserves which belong officially to Cyprus (International Tribunals twice determined that the reserves were 80% Cyprian, and 20% Israelite), but that Israel is trying to claim for itself. This is the open subject of white papers published by Think-tanks from Washington DC.
Well, my 3 paragraphs on the Bitcoin and 2 paragraphs on Papadopoulos were magically erased. It is funny because my Wordpress blog was not accessible anyway, because it was never indexed by Google.
So, could it be that the Mueller report was mainly a strategy to intimidate market makers for the Bitcoins, while the Wall Street Establishment and Central Bankers awaited Facebook's announcement on the Libra. Remember that every time the Libra market announcement was postponed, so was the deposed date for the Mueller report.
And effectively, the Libra, if the Central bankers get their way, will bury the Bitcoin in oblivion within 8 to 10 years...but for the worst of our Democracies. Cryptocurrencies announce the End of the Nation States.
submitted by Denys_Picard to u/Denys_Picard [link] [comments]

The Hansa darknetmarket has been seized by law enforcement

Takedown of AlphaBay and Hansa will lead to hundreds of new investigations in Europe Months of preparation and coordination have resulted today, 20 July 2017, in the takedown of two of the largest criminal Dark Web markets, AlphaBay and Hansa. Two major law enforcement operations, led by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the US Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) and the Dutch National Police, with the support of Europol, have shut down the infrastructure of an underground criminal economy responsible for the trading of over 350 000 illicit commodities including drugs, firearms and cybercrime malware. The coordinated law enforcement action in Europe and the US ranks as one of the most sophisticated takedown operations ever seen in the fight against criminal activities online.
"This is an outstanding success by authorities in Europe and the US," Rob Wainwright, the Executive Director of Europol, said today, while appearing alongside the US Attorney General, Acting FBI Director and Deputy Director of the US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), at a special press conference in Washington DC. "The capability of drug traffickers and other serious criminals around the world has taken a serious hit today after a highly sophisticated joint action in multiple countries. By acting together on a global basis the law enforcement community has sent a clear message that we have the means to identify criminality and strike back, even in areas of the Dark Web. There are more of these operations to come," he added.
Dimitris Avramopoulos, European Commissioner for Migration, Home Affairs and Citizenship, said: "The Dark Web is growing into a haven of rampant criminality. This is a threat to our societies and our economies that we can only face together, on a global scale. The take-down of the two largest criminal Dark Web markets in the world by European and American law enforcement authorities shows the important and necessary result of international cooperation to fight this criminality. I congratulate the American and Dutch authorities for their successful work, as well as Europol for centrally supporting this endeavour. Our fight against criminal activities online and offline will continue and intensify."
Julian King, EU Commissioner for the Security Union, said: "This latest success demonstrates not just the growing threat posed by increasingly sophisticated criminal enterprises exploiting the largely unregulated space occupied by the internet but also the vital role of international cooperation among law enforcers, the private sector, national authorities and international organisations in making all of us safer from global, borderless menaces."
Popular Dark Web marketplaces AlphaBay was the largest criminal marketplace on the Dark Web, utilising a hidden service on the Tor network to effectively mask user identities and server locations. Prior to its takedown, AlphaBay reached over 200 000 users and 40 000 vendors. There were over 250 000 listings for illegal drugs and toxic chemicals on AlphaBay, and over 100 000 listings for stolen and fraudulent identification documents and access devices, counterfeit goods, malware and other computer hacking tools, firearms, and fraudulent services. A conservative estimation of USD 1 billion was transacted in the market since its creation in 2014. Transactions were paid in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Hansa was the third largest criminal marketplace on the Dark Web, trading similarly high volumes in illicit drugs and other commodities. The two markets were created to facilitate the expansion of a major underground criminal economy, which affected the lives of thousands of people around the world and was expressly designed to frustrate the ability of law enforcement to bring offenders to justice.
The investigations Europol has been supporting the investigation of criminal marketplaces on the Dark Web for a number of years. With the help of Bitdefender, an internet security company advising Europol's European Cybercrime Centre (EC3), Europol provided Dutch authorities with an investigation lead into Hansa in 2016. Subsequent enquiries located the Hansa market infrastructure in the Netherlands, with follow-up investigations by the Dutch police leading to the arrest of its two administrators in Germany and the seizure of servers in the Netherlands, Germany and Lithuania. Europol and partner agencies in those countries supported the Dutch National Police to take over the Hansa marketplace on 20 June 2017 under Dutch judicial authorisation, facilitating the covert monitoring of criminal activities on the platform until it was shut down today, 20 July 2017. In the past few weeks, the Dutch Police collected valuable information on high value targets and delivery addresses for a large number of orders. Some 10 000 foreign addresses of Hansa market buyers were passed on to Europol. In the meantime, an FBI and DEA-led operation, called Bayonet, was able to identify the creator and administrator of AlphaBay, a Canadian citizen living a luxurious life in Thailand. On 5 July 2017, the main suspect was arrested in Thailand and the site taken down. Millions of dollars worth of cryptocurrencies were frozen and seized. Servers were also seized in Canada and the Netherlands.
Law enforcement strategy In shutting down two of the three largest criminal marketplaces on the Dark Web, a major element of the infrastructure of the underground criminal economy has been taken offline. It has severely disrupted criminal enterprises around the world, has led to the arrest of key figures involved in online criminal activity, and yielded huge amounts of intelligence that will lead to further investigations. But what made this operation really special was the strategy developed by the FBI, DEA, the Dutch Police and Europol to magnify the disruptive impact of the joint action to take out AlphaBay and Hansa. This involved taking covert control of Hansa under Dutch judicial authority a month ago, which allowed Dutch police to monitor the activity of users without their knowledge, and then shutting down AlphaBay during the same period. It meant the Dutch police could identify and disrupt the regular criminal activity on Hansa but then also sweep up all those new users displaced from AlphaBay who were looking for a new trading platform. In fact they flocked to Hansa in their droves, with an eight-fold increase in the number of new members of Hansa recorded immediately following the shutdown of AlphaBay. As a law enforcement strategy, leveraging the combined operational and technical strengths of multiple agencies in the US and Europe, it has been an extraordinary success and a stark illustration of the collective power the global law enforcement community can bring to disrupt major criminal activity.
Europol as a central hub Europol has played a coordinating and de-conflicting role in both investigations. From the outset, Europol’s European Cybercrime Centre (EC3) provided technical and forensic support to the Hansa marketplace investigation. In addition Europol’s technical expertise was made available to the Dutch investigators in clouding on-the-spot deployment, as they gained control of Hansa. Subsequently to this, intelligence packages were prepared and sent out to law enforcement partners across 37 countries, spawning many follow-up investigations across Europe and beyond. Some of the intelligence extracted contains relevant information regarding the destination of drugs and is meant to inform the relevant countries about planned shipments of drugs. Overall more than 38 000 transactions have been identified and Europol sent more than 600 communications. To ensure smooth coordination between the two investigations into AlphaBay and Hansa, Europol hosted a coordination meeting with leading law enforcement partners. Overall, 12 different agencies sat down together and collectively mapped out and agreed the overall strategy for the two operations. In early July, Europol hosted a command post staffed with representatives from the US FBI, DEA and Department of Justice, working alongside specialist staff from EC3. This command post was the central hub for information exchange during the AlphaBay operation. Europol’s secure communication channels were used to exchange information between and receive data contributions from partners. Europol continues to support the FBI, DEA, the Dutch National Police and other partners on the forensic work that needs to be performed on huge amounts of seized material.
submitted by Fuyuki_Wataru to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Core/AXA/Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are sabotaging Bitcoin - but they lack the social skills to even feel guilty for this. Anyone who attempts to overrule the market and limit or hard-code Bitcoin's blocksize must be rejected by the community.

Centrally planned blocksize is not a desirable feature - it's an insidious bug which is slowly and quietly suppressing Bitcoin's adoption and price and market cap.
And SegWit's dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" hack isn't just a needless kludge (which Core/Blockstream/AXA are selfishly trying to quietly slip into Bitcoin via a dangerous and messy soft fork - because they're deathly afraid of hard fork, knowing that most people would vote against their shitty code if they ever had the balls to put it up for an explicit, opt-in vote).
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is a poison-pill for Bitcoin
SegWit is brought to you by the anti-Bitcoin central bankers at AXA and the economically ignorant, central blocksize planners at Blockstream whose dead-end "road map" for Bitcoin is:
AXA is trying to sabotage Bitcoin by paying the most ignorant, anti-market devs in Bitcoin: Core/Blockstream
This is the direction that Bitcoin has been heading in since late 2014 when Blockstream started spreading their censorship and propaganda and started bribing and corrupting the "Core" devs using $76 million in fiat provided by corrupt, anti-Bitcoin "fantasy fiat" finance firms like the debt-backed, derivatives-addicted insurance mega-giant AXA.
You Do The Math, and follow the money, and figure out why Bitcoin has been slowly failing to prosper ever since AXA started bribing Core devs to cripple our code with their centrally planned blocksize and now their "Anyone-Can-Spend" SegWit poison-pill.
Smart, honest devs fix bugs. Fiat-fueled AXA-funded Core/Blockstream devs add bugs - and then turn around and try to lie to our face and claim their bugs are somehow "features"
Recently, people discovered bugs in other Bitcoin implementations - memory leaks in BU's software, "phone home" code in AntMiner's firmware.
And the devs involved immediately took public responsibility, and fixed these bugs.
So the difference is: BU's and AntMiner's devs possess enough social and economic intelligence to fix bugs in their code immediately when the community finds them.
Meanwhile, most people in the community have been in an absolute uproar for years now against AXA-funded Blockstream's centrally planned blocksize and their deadly Anyone-Can-Spend hack/kludge/poison-pill.
Of course, the home-schooled fiat-fattened sociopath Blockstream CTO One-Meg Greg u/nullc would probably just dismiss all these Bitcoin users as the "shreaking" [sic] masses.
Narcissistic sociopaths like AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell and CTO Adam and their drooling delusional attack dog Luke-Jr (another person who was home-schooled - which may help explain why he's also such a tone-deaf anti-market sociopath) are just too stupid and arrogant to have the humility and the shame to shut the fuck up and listen to the users when everyone has been pointing out these massive lethal bugs in Core's shitty code.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr, and Theymos are the most damaging people in Bitcoin
These are the four main people who are (consciously or unconsciously) attempting to sabotage Bitcoin:
These toxic idiots are too stupid and shameless and sheltered - and too anti-social and anti-market - to even begin to recognize the lethal bugs they have been trying to introduce into Bitcoin's specification and our community.
Users decide on specifications. Devs merely provide implementations.
Guys like Greg think that they're important because they can do implemenation-level stuff (like avoiding memory leaks in C++ code).
But they are total failures when it comes to specification-level stuff (ie, they are incapable of figuring out how to "grow" a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market by maximally leveraging available technology).
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos apparently lack the social and economic awareness and human decency to feel any guilt or shame for the massive damage they are attempting to inflict on Bitcoin - and on the world.
Their ignorance is no excuse
Any dev who is ignorant enough to attempt to propose adding such insidious bugs to Bitcoin needs to be rejected by the Bitcoin community - no matter how many years they keep on loudly insisting on trying to sabotage Bitcoin like this.
The toxic influence and delusional lies of AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are directly to blame for the slow-motion disaster happening in Bitcoin right now - where Bitcoin's market cap has continued to fall from 100% towards 60% - and is continuing to drop.
When bitcoin drops below 50%, most of the capital will be in altcoins. All they had to do was increase the block size to 2mb as they promised. Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
u/FormerlyEarlyAdopter : "I predict one thing. The moment Bitcoin hard-forks away from Core clowns, all the shit-coins out there will have a major sell-off." ... u/awemany : "Yes, I expect exactly the same. The Bitcoin dominance index will jump above 95% again."
Market volume (ie, blocksize) should be decided by the market - not based on some arbitrary number that some ignorant dev pulled out of their ass
For any healthy cryptocurrency, market price and market capitalization and market volume (a/k/a "blocksize") are determined by the market - not by any dev team, not by central bankers from AXA, not by economically ignorant devs like Adam and Greg (or that other useless idiot - Core "Lead Maintainer" Wladimir van der Laan), not by some drooling pathological delusional authoritarian freak like Luke-Jr, and not by some petty tyrant and internet squatter and communmity-destroyer like Theymos.
The only way that Bitcoin can survive and prosper is if we, as a community, denounce and reject these pathological "centralized blocksize" control freaks like Adam and Greg and Luke and Theymos who are trying to use tricks like fiat and censorship and lies (in collusion with their army of trolls organized and unleashed by the Dragons Den) to impose their ignorance and insanity on our currency.
These losers might be too ignorant and anti-social to even begin to understand the fact that they are attempting to sabotage Bitcoin.
But their ignorance is no excuse. And Bitcoin is getting ready to move on and abandon these losers.
There are many devs who are much better than Greg, Adam and Luke-Jr
A memory leak is an implementation error, and a centrally planned blocksize is a specification error - and both types of errors will be avoided and removed by smart devs who listen to the community.
There are plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in C++ - plus plenty of devs who can write Bitcoin implementations in other languages as well, such as:
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos are being exposed as miserable failures
AXA-funded Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, their drooling attack dog Luke-Jr and their censor Theymos (and all the idiot small-blockheads, trolls, and shills who swallow the propaganda and lies cooked up in the Dragons Den) are being exposed more and more every day as miserable failures.
Greg, Adam, Luke-Jr and Theymos had the arrogance and the hubris to want to be "trusted" as "leaders".
But Bitcoin is the world's first cryptocurrency - so it doesn't need trust, and it doesn't need leaders. It is decentralized and trustless.
C++ devs should not be deciding Bitcoin's volume. The market should decide.
It's not suprising that a guy like "One-Meg Greg" who adopts a nick like u/nullc (because he spends most of his life worrying about low-level details like how to avoid null pointer errors in C++ while the second-most-powerful fiat finance corporation in the world AXA is throwing tens of millions of dollars of fiat at his company to reward him for being a "useful idiot") has turned to be not very good at seeing the "big picture" of Bitcoin economics.
So it also comes as no suprise that Greg Maxwell - who wanted to be the "leader" of Bitcoin - has turned out to be one of most harmful people in Bitcoin when it comes to things like growing a potentially multi-trillion-dollar market and economy.
All the innovation and growth and discussion in cryptocurrencies is happening everywhere else - not at AXA-funded Blockstream and r\bitcoin (and the recently discovered Dragons Den, where they plan their destructive social engineering campaigns).
Those are the censored centralized cesspools financed by central bankers and overrun by loser devs and the mindless trolls who follow them - and supported by inefficient miners who want to cripple Bitcoin with centrally planned blocksize (and dangerous "Anyone-Can-Spend" SegWit).
Bitcoin is moving on to bigger blocks and much higher prices - leaving AXA-funded Blockstream's crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust
Let them stagnate in their crippled shit-coin with its centrally planned, artificial, arbitrary 1MB 1.7MB blocksize, and SegWit's Anyone-Can-Spend hack kludge poison-pill.
Bitcoin is moving on without these tyrants and liars and losers and sociopaths - and we're going to leave their crippled censored centrally planned shit-coin in the dust.
Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
1 BTC = 64 000 USD would be > $1 trillion market cap - versus $7 trillion market cap for gold, and $82 trillion of "money" in the world. Could "pure" Bitcoin get there without SegWit, Lightning, or Bitcoin Unlimited? Metcalfe's Law suggests that 8MB blocks could support a price of 1 BTC = 64 000 USD
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Why is Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc trying to pretend AXA isn't one of the top 5 "companies that control the world"? AXA relies on debt & derivatives to pretend it's not bankrupt. Million-dollar Bitcoin would destroy AXA's phony balance sheet. How much is AXA paying Greg to cripple Bitcoin?

Here was an interesting brief exchange between Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc and u/BitAlien about AXA:
The "non-nullc" side of the conversation has already been censored by r\bitcoin - but I had previously archived it here :)
u/BitAlien says to u/nullc :
Blockstream is funded by big banks, for example, AXA.
u/nullc says to u/BitAlien :
is funded by big banks, for example, AXA
AXA is a French multinational insurance firm.
But I guess we shouldn't expect much from someone who thinks miners unilatterally control bitcoin.
Typical semantics games and hair-splitting and bullshitting from Greg.
But I guess we shouldn't expect too much honesty or even understanding from someone like Greg who thinks that miners don't control Bitcoin.
AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc doesn't understand how Bitcoin mining works
Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg's comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought "honest" meant "plays by Core rules." [But] there is no "honesty" involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus
AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc is economically illiterate
Adam Back & Greg Maxwell are experts in mathematics and engineering, but not in markets and economics. They should not be in charge of "central planning" for things like "max blocksize". They're desperately attempting to prevent the market from deciding on this. But it will, despite their efforts.
AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc doesn't understand how fiat works
Gregory Maxwell nullc has evidently never heard of terms like "the 1%", "TPTB", "oligarchy", or "plutocracy", revealing a childlike naïveté when he says: "‘Majority sets the rules regardless of what some minority thinks’ is the governing principle behind the fiats of major democracies."
AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc is toxic to Bitcoin
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
So here we have Greg this week, desperately engaging in his usual little "semantics" games - claiming that AXA isn't technically a bank - when the real point is that:
AXA is clearly one of the most powerful fiat finance firms in the world.
Maybe when he's talking about the hairball of C++ spaghetti code that him and his fellow devs at Core/Blockstream are slowing turning their version of Bitcoin's codebase into... in that arcane (and increasingly irrelevant :) area maybe he still can dazzle some people with his usual meaningless technically correct but essentially erroneous bullshit.
But when it comes to finance and economics, Greg is in way over his head - and in those areas, he can't bullshit anyone. In fact, pretty much everything Greg ever says about finance or economics or banks is simply wrong.
He thinks he's proved some point by claiming that AXA isn't technically a bank.
But AXA is far worse than a mere "bank" or a mere "French multinational insurance company".
AXA is one of the top-five "companies that control the world" - and now (some people think) AXA is in charge of paying for Bitcoin "development".
A recent infographic published in the German Magazine "Die Zeit" showed that AXA is indeed the second-most-connected finance company in the world - right at the rotten "core" of the "fantasy fiat" financial system that runs our world today.
Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream.
The link to the PDF at Die Zeit in the above OP is gone now - but there's other copies online:
Plus there's lots of other research and articles at sites like the financial magazine Forbes, or the scientific publishing site, with articles which say the same thing - all the tables and graphs show that:
AXA is consistently among the top five "companies that control everything";sequence=1
AXA is right at the rotten "core" of the world financial system. Their last CEO was even the head of the friggin' Bilderberg Group.
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
So, let's get a few things straight here.
"AXA" might not be a household name to many people.
And Greg was "technically right" when he denied that AXA is a "bank" (which is basically the only kind of "right" that Greg ever is these days: "technically" :-)
But AXA is one of the most powerful finance companies in the world.
AXA was started as a French insurance company.
And now it's a French multinational insurance company.
But if you study up a bit on AXA, you'll see that they're not just any old "insurance" company.
AXA has their fingers in just about everything around the world - including a certain team of toxic Bitcoin devs who are radically trying to change Bitcoin:
And ever since AXA started throwing tens of millions of dollars in filthy fantasy fiat at a certain toxic dev named Gregory Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream, suddenly he started saying that we can't have nice things like the gradually increasing blocksizes (and gradually increasing Bitcoin prices - which fortunately tend to increase proportional to the square of the blocksize because of Metcalfe's law :-) which were some of the main reasons most of us invested in Bitcoin in the first place.
My, my, my - how some people have changed!
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them?
"Even a year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB" - nullc
Core/Blockstream supporters like to tiptoe around the facts a lot - hoping we won't pay attention to the fact that they're getting paid by a company like AXA, or hoping we'll get confused if Greg says that AXA isn't a bank but rather an insurance firm.
But the facts are the facts, whether AXA is an insurance giant or a bank:
  • AXA would be exposed as bankrupt in a world dominated by a "counterparty-free" asset class like Bitcoin.
  • AXA pays Greg's salary - and Greg is one of the major forces who has been actively attempting to block Bitcoin's on-chain scaling - and there's no way getting around the fact that artificially small blocksizes do lead to artificially low prices.
AXA kinda reminds me of AIG
If anyone here was paying attention when the cracks first started showing in the world fiat finance system around 2008, you may recall the name of another mega-insurance company, that was also one of the most connected finance companies in the world: AIG.
Falling Giant: A Case Study Of AIG
What was once the unthinkable occurred on September 16, 2008. On that date, the federal government gave the American International Group - better known as AIG (NYSE:AIG) - a bailout of $85 billion. In exchange, the U.S. government received nearly 80% of the firm's equity. For decades, AIG was the world's biggest insurer, a company known around the world for providing protection for individuals, companies and others. But in September, the company would have gone under if it were not for government assistance.
Why the Fed saved AIG and not Lehman
Bernanke did say he believed an AIG failure would be "catastrophic," and that the heavy use of derivatives made the AIG problem potentially more explosive.
An AIG failure, thanks to the firm's size and its vast web of trading partners, "would have triggered an intensification of the general run on international banking institutions," Bernanke said.
Just like AIG, AXA is a "systemically important" finance company - one of the biggest insurance companies in the world.
And (like all major banks and insurance firms), AXA is drowning in worthless debt and bets (derivatives).
Most of AXA's balance sheet would go up in a puff of smoke if they actually did "mark-to-market" (ie, if they actually factored in the probability of the counterparties of their debts and bets actually coming through and paying AXA the full amount it says on the pretty little spreadsheets on everyone's computer screens).
In other words: Like most giant banks and insurers, AXA has mainly debt and bets. They rely on counterparties to pay them - maybe, someday, if the whole system doesn't go tits-up by then.
In other words: Like most giant banks and insurers, AXA does not hold the "private keys" to their so-called wealth :-)
So, like most giant multinational banks and insurers who spend all their time playing with debts and bets, AXA has been teetering on the edge of the abyss since 2008 - held together by chewing gum and paper clips and the miracle of Quantitative Easing - and also by all the clever accounting tricks that instantly become possible when money can go from being a gleam in a banker's eye to a pixel on a screen with just a few keystrokes - that wonderful world of "fantasy fiat" where central bankers ninja-mine billions of dollars in worthless paper and pixels into existence every month - and then for some reason every other month they have to hold a special "emergency central bankers meeting" to deal with the latest financial crisis du jour which "nobody could have seen coming".
AIG back in 2008 - much like AXA today - was another "systemically important" worldwide mega-insurance giant - with most of its net worth merely a pure fantasy on a spreadsheet and in a four-color annual report - glossing over the ugly reality that it's all based on toxic debts and derivatives which will never ever be paid off.
Mega-banks Mega-insurers like AXA are addicted to the never-ending "fantasy fiat" being injected into the casino of musical chairs involving bets upon bets upon bets upon bets upon bets - counterparty against counterparty against counterparty against counterparty - going 'round and 'round on the big beautiful carroussel where everyone is waiting on the next guy to pay up - and meanwhile everyone's cooking their books and sweeping their losses "under the rug", offshore or onto the taxpayers or into special-purpose vehicles - while the central banks keep printing up a trillion more here and a trillion more there in worthless debt-backed paper and pixels - while entire nations slowly sink into the toxic financial sludge of ever-increasing upayable debt and lower productivity and higher inflation, dragging down everyone's economies, enslaving everyone to increasing worktime and decreasing paychecks and unaffordable healthcare and education, corrupting our institutions and our leaders, distorting our investment and "capital allocation" decisions, inflating housing and healthcare and education beyond everyone's reach - and sending people off to die in endless wars to prop up the deadly failing Saudi-American oil-for-arms Petrodollar ninja-mined currency cartel.
In 2008, when the multinational insurance company AIG (along with their fellow gambling buddies at the multinational investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehmans) almost went down the drain due to all their toxic gambling debts, they also almost took the rest of the world with them.
And that's when the "core" dev team working for the miners central banks (the Fed, ECB, BoE, BoJ - who all report to the "central bank of central banks" BIS in Basel) - started cranking up their mining rigs printing presses and keyboards and pixels to the max, unilaterally manipulating the "issuance schedule" of their shitcoins and flooding the world with tens of trillions in their worthless phoney fiat to save their sorry asses after all their toxic debts and bad bets.
AXA is at the very rotten "core" of this system - like AIG, a "systemically important" (ie, "too big to fail") mega-gigantic multinational insurance company - a fantasy fiat finance firm quietly sitting at the rotten core of our current corrupt financial system, basically impacting everything and everybody on this planet.
The "masters of the universe" from AXA are the people who go to Davos every year wining and dining on lobster and champagne - part of that elite circle that prints up endless money which they hand out to their friends while they continue to enslave everyone else - and then of course they always turn around and tell us we can't have nice things like roads and schools and healthcare because "austerity". (But somehow we always can have plenty of wars and prisons and climate change and terrorism because for some weird reason our "leaders" seem to love creating disasters.)
The smart people at AXA are probably all having nightmares - and the smart people at all the other companies in that circle of "too-big-to-fail" "fantasy fiat finance firms" are probably also having nightmares - about the following very possible scenario:
If Bitcoin succeeds, debt-and-derivatives-dependent financial "giants" like AXA will probably be exposed as having been bankrupt this entire time.
All their debts and bets will be exposed as not being worth the paper and pixels they were printed on - and at that point, in a cryptocurrency world, the only real money in the world will be "counterparty-free" assets ie cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin - where all you need to hold is your own private keys - and you're not dependent on the next deadbeat debt-ridden fiat slave down the line coughing up to pay you.
Some of those people at AXA and the rest of that mafia are probably quietly buying - sad that they missed out when Bitcoin was only $10 or $100 - but happy they can still get it for $1000 while Blockstream continues to suppress the price - and who knows, what the hell, they might as well throw some of that juicy "banker's bonus" into Bitcoin now just in case it really does go to $1 million a coin someday - which it could easily do with just 32MB blocks, and no modifications to the code (ie, no SegWit, no BU, no nuthin', just a slowly growing blocksize supporting a price growing roughly proportional to the square of the blocksize - like Bitcoin always actually did before the economically illiterate devs at Blockstream imposed their centrally planned blocksize on our previously decentralized system).
Meanwhile, other people at AXA and other major finance firms might be taking a different tack: happy to see all the disinfo and discord being sown among the Bitcoin community like they've been doing since they were founded in late 2014 - buying out all the devs, dumbing down the community to the point where now even the CTO of Blockstream Greg Mawxell gets the whitepaper totally backwards.
Maybe Core/Blockstream's failure-to-scale is a feature not a bug - for companies like AXA.
After all, AXA - like most of the major banks in the Europe and the US - are now basically totally dependent on debt and derivatives to pretend they're not already bankrupt.
Maybe Blockstream's dead-end road-map (written up by none other than Greg Maxwell), which has been slowly strangling Bitcoin for over two years now - and which could ultimately destroy Bitcoin via the poison pill of Core/Blockstream's SegWit trojan horse - maybe all this never-ending history of obstrution and foot-dragging and lying and failure from Blockstream is actually a feature and not a bug, as far as AXA and their banking buddies are concerned.
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
AXA has even invented some kind of "climate catastrophe" derivative - a bet where if the global warming destroys an entire region of the world, the "winner" gets paid.
Of course, derivatives would be something attractive to an insurance company - since basically most of their business is about making and taking bets.
So who knows - maybe AXA is "betting against" Bitcoin - and their little investment in the loser devs at Core/Blockstream is part of their strategy for "winning" that bet.
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
"I'm angry about AXA scraping some counterfeit money out of their fraudulent empire to pay autistic lunatics millions of dollars to stall the biggest sociotechnological phenomenon since the internet and then blame me and people like me for being upset about it." ~ u/dresden_k
Bitcoin can go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks, so it will go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks. All the censorship & shilling on r\bitcoin & fantasy fiat from AXA can't stop that. BitcoinCORE might STALL at 1,000 USD and 1 MB blocks, but BITCOIN will SCALE to 10,000 USD and 4 MB blocks - and beyond
AXA/Blockstream are suppressing Bitcoin price at 1000 bits = 1 USD. If 1 bit = 1 USD, then Bitcoin's market cap would be 15 trillion USD - close to the 82 trillion USD of "money" in the world. With Bitcoin Unlimited, we can get to 1 bit = 1 USD on-chain with 32MB blocksize ("Million-Dollar Bitcoin")
Anyways, people are noticing that it's a little... odd... the way Greg Maxwell seems to go to such lengths, in order to cover up the fact that bigger blocks have always correlated to higher price.
He seems to get very... uncomfortable... when people start pointing out that:
It sure looks like AXA is paying Greg Maxwell to suppress the Bitcoin price.
Greg Maxwell has now publicly confessed that he is engaging in deliberate market manipulation to artificially suppress Bitcoin adoption and price. He could be doing this so that he and his associates can continue to accumulate while the price is still low (1 BTC = $570, ie 1 USD can buy 1750 "bits")
Why did Blockstream CTO u/nullc Greg Maxwell risk being exposed as a fraud, by lying about basic math? He tried to convince people that Bitcoin does not obey Metcalfe's Law (claiming that Bitcoin price & volume are not correlated, when they obviously are). Why is this lie so precious to him?
I don't know how a so-called Bitcoin dev can sleep at night knowing he's getting paid by fucking AXA - a company that would probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin becomes a major world currency.
Greg must have to go through some pretty complicated mental gymastics to justify in his mind what everyone else can see: he is a fucking sellout to one of the biggest fiat finance firms in the world - he's getting paid by (and defending) a company which would probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin ever achieved multi-trillion dollar market cap.
Greg is literally getting paid by the second-most-connected "systemically important" (ie, "too big to fail") finance firm in the world - which will probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin were ever to assume its rightful place as a major currency with total market cap measured in the tens of trillions of dollars, destroying most of the toxic sludge of debt and derivatives keeping a bank financial giant like AXA afloat.
And it may at first sound batshit crazy (until You Do The Math), but Bitcoin actually really could go to one-million-dollars-a-coin in the next 8 years or so - without SegWit or BU or anything else - simply by continuing with Satoshi's original 32MB built-in blocksize limit and continuing to let miners keep blocks as small as possible to satisfy demand while avoiding orphans - a power which they've had this whole friggin' time and which they've been managing very well thank you.
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
Meanwhile Greg continues to work for Blockstream which is getting tens of millions of dollars from a company which would go bankrupt if Bitcoin were to actually scale on-chain to 32MB blocks and 1 million dollars per coin without all of Greg's meddling.
So Greg continues to get paid by AXA, spreading his ignorance about economics and his lies about Bitcoin on these forums.
In the end, who knows what Greg's motivations are, or AXA's motivations are.
But one thing we do know is this:
Satoshi didn't put Greg Maxwell or AXA in charge of deciding the blocksize.
The tricky part to understand about "one CPU, one vote" is that it does not mean there is some "pre-existing set of rules" which the miners somehow "enforce" (despite all the times when you hear some Core idiot using words like "consensus layer" or "enforcing the rules").
The tricky part about really understanding Bitcoin is this:
Hashpower doesn't just enforce the rules - hashpower makes the rules.
And if you think about it, this makes sense.
It's the only way Bitcoin actually could be decentralized.
It's kinda subtle - and it might be hard for someone to understand if they've been a slave to centralized authorities their whole life - but when we say that Bitcoin is "decentralized" then what it means is:
We all make the rules.
Because if hashpower doesn't make the rules - then you'd be right back where you started from, with some idiot like Greg Maxwell "making the rules" - or some corrupt too-big-to-fail bank debt-and-derivative-backed "fantasy fiat financial firm" like AXA making the rules - by buying out a dev team and telling us that that dev team "makes the rules".
But fortunately, Greg's opinions and ignorance and lies don't matter anymore.
Miners are waking up to the fact that they've always controlled the blocksize - and they always will control the blocksize - and there isn't a single goddamn thing Greg Maxwell or Blockstream or AXA can do to stop them from changing it - whether the miners end up using BU or Classic or BitcoinEC or they patch the code themselves.
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.
Clearing up Some Widespread Confusions about BU
Core deliberately provides software with a blocksize policy pre-baked in.
The ONLY thing BU-style software changes is that baking in. It refuses to bundle controversial blocksize policy in with the rest of the code it is offering. It unties the blocksize settings from the dev teams, so that you don't have to shop for both as a packaged unit.
The idea is that you can now have Core software security without having to submit to Core blocksize policy.
Running Core is like buying a Sony TV that only lets you watch Fox, because the other channels are locked away and you have to know how to solder a circuit board to see them. To change the channel, you as a layman would have to switch to a different TV made by some other manufacturer, who you may not think makes as reliable of TVs.
This is because Sony believes people should only ever watch Fox "because there are dangerous channels out there" or "because since everyone needs to watch the same channel, it is our job to decide what that channel is."
So the community is stuck with either watching Fox on their nice, reliable Sony TVs, or switching to all watching ABC on some more questionable TVs made by some new maker (like, in 2015 the XT team was the new maker and BIP101 was ABC).
BU (and now Classic and BitcoinEC) shatters that whole bizarre paradigm. BU is a TV that lets you tune to any channel you want, at your own risk.
The community is free to converge on any channel it wants to, and since everyone in this analogy wants to watch the same channel they will coordinate to find one.
Adjustable blocksize cap (ABC) is dangerous? The blocksize cap has always been user-adjustable. Core just has a really shitty inferface for it.
What does it tell you that Core and its supporters are up in arms about a change that merely makes something more convenient for users and couldn't be prevented from happening anyway? Attacking the adjustable blocksize feature in BU and Classic as "dangerous" is a kind of trap, as it is an implicit admission that Bitcoin was being protected only by a small barrier of inconvenience, and a completely temporary one at that. If this was such a "danger" or such a vector for an "attack," how come we never heard about it before?
Even if we accept the improbable premise that inconvenience is the great bastion holding Bitcoin together and the paternalistic premise that stakeholders need to be fed consensus using a spoon of inconvenience, we still must ask, who shall do the spoonfeeding?
Core accepts these two amazing premises and further declares that Core alone shall be allowed to do the spoonfeeding. Or rather, if you really want to you can be spoonfed by other implementation clients like libbitcoin and btcd as long as they are all feeding you the same stances on controversial consensus settings as Core does.
It is high time the community see central planning and abuse of power for what it is, and reject both:
  • Throw off central planning by removing petty "inconvenience walls" (such as baked-in, dev-recommended blocksize caps) that interfere with stakeholders coordinating choices amongst themselves on controversial matters ...
  • Make such abuse of power impossible by encouraging many competing implementations to grow and blossom
So it's time for Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc to get over his delusions of grandeur - and to admit he's just another dev, with just another opinion.
He also needs to look in the mirror and search his soul and confront the sad reality that he's basically turned into a sellout working for a shitty startup getting paid by the 5th (or 4th or 2nd) "most connected", "systemically important", "too-big-to-fail", debt-and-derivative-dependent multinational bank mega-insurance giant in the world AXA - a major fiat firm firm which is terrified of going bankrupt just like that other mega-insurnace firm AIG already almost did before the Fed rescued them in 2008 - a fiat finance firm which is probably very conflicted about Bitcoin, at the very least.
Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell is getting paid by the most systemically important bank mega-insurance giant in the world, sitting at the rotten "core" of the our civilization's corrupt, dying fiat cartel.
Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell is getting paid by a mega-bank mega-insurance company that will probably go bankrupt if and when Bitcoin ever gets a multi-trillion dollar market cap, which it can easily do with just 32MB blocks and no code changes at all from clueless meddling devs like him.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Another Black Swan Incident Of USDT Disclosed, When Will The Trial Of Justice Come?

Another Black Swan Incident Of USDT Disclosed, When Will The Trial Of Justice Come?

A USDT incident again! The New York Attorney General’s office has alleged that crypto exchange Bitfinex lost $850 million and subsequently used funds from affiliated stablecoin operator Tether to secretly cover the shortfall.

Such case has not astonished us since this is not the first time that Tether and Bitfinex have got the account problems.
On February 8, 2017, an author named Bitfinex’ed published an article called “The Audio Recordings Bitfinex doesn’t want you to hear”. The multiple recordings included in this article show that Tether and Bitfinex are discussing bank fraud, money laundering, and even admitting that they even considering doing fraud.
An executive at Tether, Phil Potter, even admitted in the leaked recording that the company had set up a company account in Taiwan to play shell games with banks. At that time, he was not only the head of Tether but also the chief strategy officer of Bitfinex.
A few months later, Phil Potter officially resigned as Chief Strategy Officer and said that “With the worldwide expansion of Bitfinex, I, as an American need to re-examine my position in the team.”
In April 2017, due to financial fraud, Tether’s three bank accounts in Taiwan were banned. Coincidentally, in January 2018, Friedman LLP, which was previously in charge of Tether’s auditing business, announced that it had cut business ties with Tether.
On January 24, 2018, an anonymous report read that, as of January 4, 2018, Tether had issued a total of 91 additional USDTs. The report also raised the question: Does Tether transfer USDT to Bitfinex wallet without receiving the US dollar, and uses USDT to buy low-priced bitcoin for making profit or manipulation.
As I said before, there are huge loopholes in Tether’s mechanism, which may give the digital currency field a shock at any time. Popular stable coin Tether has announced 1:1 redemption of USDT to fiat currency, that is “every release of USDT will deposit a margin of 1$ to the bank account, and the USDT will be automatically destroyed when the user converts it to US dollar”. However, Tether has never disclosed the USD account to the public, while the additional released USDT has been flowing into the Bitfinex wallet. Under such an environment where the accounts are covert, there is no audit of authoritative institutions, nor the big four accounting firms are willing to provide an endorsement.

As of now, USDT, issued by Tether, is the king of stable coins. Between 2017 and 2018, USDT quickly seized the stablecoins market by the rise of Ethereum, dominating 90% of stablecoins market. Due to the lack of competitors, although the USDT incidents occurred frequently in the past year, it did not affect the relative stability of USDT.
No supervision, over-issuance, misappropriation of funds, covert audit, etc., are gradually reducing the user’s trust towards USDT, eroding the foundation of the USDT building. It’s difficult to tell which incident will totally destroy it.
So what about the future development of stablecoins?

There are three solutions, alternative digital currency, regulation and audit, and scientific mechanism. 1) The simple solution is to replace. As the incidents of Tether and Bitfinex frequently occur, many small-scale stablecoins can take the opportunity to seize the market, gradually collapsing the dominating position of USDT; 2) Regulation and audit, if USDT seeks to maintain the current stablecoins mechanism, a transparent regulatory mechanism and highly transparent audit work are essential; 3) Making a more scientific and intelligent mechanism to limit the black box operation of the platform, which is the smartest solution. Just like the introduction of index price in the delivery contract, making it impossible for the exchange to “cut leeks” through trading price.
We can see from the incidents that the initial stage of the digital currency can be said to be a land of no ownership. On such land, platforms can design their rules, from which the quality and the bottom line of a platform can be seen. In the face of huge profits, you can choose to be transparent and cautious, and be responsible for investors, or select black-box operations to collect unjust wealth. The choice has nothing to do with the size of the platform but depends on the original design intention of the platform. Fortunately, investors have become more reasonable in continuous emerging incidents. It is only a matter of time before the unreasonable mechanism and the irresponsible business platform being eliminated. The final trial of justice of the digital currency circle will be coming soon!
submitted by 58CoinExchange to u/58CoinExchange [link] [comments]

My attempt at an ELI5 for cryptocurrency to help my friends.

This is a long one so fair warning and no there is no tl;dr. I've only been at this for about 6 months and worked up this paper the other day for my friends who are interested but know very little about this. Hopefully whoever reads this can make in corrections as I am far from an expert.
Cryptocurrency, Bitcoin, Ether are all blockchains. Blockchains are basically a spreadsheet (LEDGER) that is duplicated multiple times across a network and updated regularly simultaneously. There is no centralized version of this ledger. It is hosted simultaneously by thousands/millions of computers. These ledgers will update on their own, Bitcoin as an example automatically checks itself every 10 minutes. Each of these 10-minute increment of transactions (in bitcoins case transactions would be sending or receiving bitcoins from one person to another for goods or services) are called BLOCKS. For these blocks to be confirmed, accepted, and updated to the ledger nodes are required.
Nodes (Mining/Forging)
A node is a computer running the blockchain software on the network. The blockchain software will automatically download the entire ledger of all transactions since its inception. At regular intervals, the software will take the transactions of a block (data on the ledger) and convert them into a mathematical puzzle to be solved by randomly chosen nodes (MINING). Mining requires powerful processors (typically GPUs) and substantial quantities of energy to receive mined tokens profitably. When a specific number of nodes solve the puzzle with the same answer they are basically confirming that the data on the block is accurate as multiple independent nodes found the same answer. When confirmed, the block gets added to the previous blocks making a chain of blocks aka a blockchain. As an incentive to run your computer as a node you are rewarded with TOKENS. If a single person or group of people wanted to manipulate the ledger, the amount of machinery and electricity used to achieve the majority of miners thus allowing you to manipulate the ledger is so exponentially expensive that it serves no reasonable purpose. This is an example of a Proof of Work Blockchain System (computer solves puzzle and rewarded with tokens)
Tokens are part of the core of the blockchain. They are an incentive to validate transactions and create blocks. They gain intrinsic value based on the blockchain they are associated with. Some blockchains grant token holder’s different abilities. With Bitcoin, tokens are needed to pay for transaction fees. Others allow voting rights on how certain blockchain functions are managed. There is a limited amount of Bitcoin that will ever be released to nodes (21 million expected to be all be released by 2033) which also keep inflation from being a problem. Blockchains can create their platform with whatever number of tokens they would like and release them or create means to mine them as they see fit. Essentially, as with any other fiat money (currency that a government has declared to be legal tender NOT backed by a physical commodity), as adoption and trust increases the value of the token will increase. If most people accept Bitcoin for services and stores accept Bitcoin for goods than it is as good as the next currency.
Whether you mine for tokens, are paid in tokens for goods or services or purchase tokens from a person or currency exchange you need a place to store them securely and a way to send and receive them. Cryptocurrency Wallets don’t store currency, they hold your public and private keys that interface with the blockchain so you can access your balance, send money and manage your funds. The public key allows others to send money to the public key only. A wallet that is "offline" (see Hardware or Paper below) cannot access funds or send money unless it is accessed with another form of wallet, either desktop, online, or mobile.
1) Desktop Wallet - Installed on your computer and are only accessible from that SINGLE computer. Very secure but if someone hacks your computer you are exposed. 2) Online Wallet - Run remotely (cloud based) and are far more convenient to access but make them more vulnerable as they are controlled by a third party and are also vulnerable to hacking attacks. Exchange wallets are online wallets but you are not in control of the private key. View it as a wallet that is lended to you so you can trade. The wallet is technically not yours. 3) Mobile - Ran on an app and are useful as they can be used anywhere including retail stores 4) Hardware - Private keys are stored on a tangible device like a USB drive. They can make transactions online but they are stored offline. Compatible with web interfaces and support many but not all currencies. To use, plug into a computer, enter a pin, send currency and confirm. Safest form of storage. 5) Paper - Basically a physical printout of your private and public keys. It is not stored online anywhere and the only way transactions can happen is if you transfer money with the help of an Online wallet.
Example of a Public Key = 1A684DbsHQKPVCWgaUsYdF4uQGwTiA9BFT Example of a Private Key = E9873D79C6D87DC0FB6A5778633389F4453213303DA61F20BD67FC233AA33262
Most wallets provide a Recovery Mnemonic Passcode that is a series of words (typically 12 to 24 words) in a specific order. If you lose your login information for your wallet you can supply the mnemonic passcode and retrieve your lost login information. If you lose your login information and your mnemonic passcode your wallet will be inaccessible and your tokens are lost to you. The above basically describes a first generation Blockchain Cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin. It is used basically as currency with no centralized entity regulating the release of additional currency and keeping the ledger of where the money is going secure and extremely safe from manipulation.
Second Generation Blockchain
The second generation blockchains sprung out of this environment with something more valuable. Utilizing the blockchain system to allow applications to be ran on top of a decentralized secure system. Instead of just recording transactions, contracts could be transmitted the same way. More complex transactions (SMART CONTRACTS) allow for things such as: - Funds to be spent only when a required percentage of people agree - Manage agreements between users (such as insurance) - Provide utility to other contracts - Store information about an application such as domain registration information or membership records This basically can allow applications to be ran on top of the blockchain system. This can cut out the middleman for many real-world applications (mortgages, banking, communications, security confirmations etc.)
Proof of Work/Proof of Stake
As I mentioned earlier, Proof of Work (PoW) requires nodes to solve a mathematical puzzle which is rewarded with tokens. Proof of Stake (PoS) is different, the tokens with proof of stake systems are pre-mined meaning they are all created when the blockchain system is created. Blocks are not verified by the typical method. The block validator uses the blockchain software to stake their tokens and are chosen based on specific factors depending on how many tokens the person holds and for how long. Depending on how many tokens they hold will restrict the quantity of blocks they can validate. If they own more they can validate more often but all validators will be chosen randomly keeping the rewards fairly distributed (unlike PoW which typically reward the first completed.) The blockchain still requires a mathematical puzzle to be solved but it is much easier than PoW requiring far less time and energy. If the blockchain has premined all of their tokens then new tokens cannot be mined for rewards in PoS. The reward for staking your tokens to be a validator is a portion of the transaction fee that is charged as part of normal transactions on the blockchain. That is why PoS miners are called forgers. If manipulation is attempted than their stake can be taken from their wallet adding more motivation to prevent data manipulation.
Some cryptocurrencies may need to update or upgrade the coding of their blockchain software. When this happens usually a fork occurs. This basically means the cryptocurrency splits into two separate cryptocurrencies. Because the nature of blockchain technology, they are decentralized and autonomous so the older version cannot be deleted or removed. If people choose to continue using the old version they can. For mining/forging purposes the nodes will need to choose which they will mine/forge and download the blockchain software on their computer to proceed. When the fork occurs, anyone holding tokens in the original currency will be given the same number of tokens in the forked currency. (When Bitcoin forked to Bitcoin Cash, anyone holding x amount of Bitcoin would receive a new wallet for Bitcoin Cash also containing x amount of Bitcoin Cash.) This is called a Hard Fork and all previous transactions are made invalid. There are also Soft Forks, in this case it is backwards compatible and all previous transactions are valid. This can result in two currencies but in most cases, it doesn’t as it is usually accepted by most miners/forgers because it is backwards compatible.
Online currency exchanges allow you to buy, sell or exchange fiat money (USD, EUR, etc) with digital currencies or in most cases digital currencies for other digital currencies. There are a large variety of different exchanges that are operated in multiple countries but there are around a dozen that the majority of cryptocurrency trading volume are present on. Not all cryptocurrencies will be listed on all exchanges, some have specific prerequisites to be listed on their exchange and there may be fees associated as well. Once your account is set up you will have a list of all available cryptocurrencies to trade. Each currency will have an associated online wallet with the public key address allowing you to send that specific currency to that wallet. (Many exchanges are having delayed or canceled identity verification, currency transfers and lack sufficient customer support due to the influx of new traders) Examples of top exchanges: 1) Coinbase (trades fiat) 2) GDAX (trades fiat) 3) Gemini (trades fiat) 4) Changelly (trades fiat) 5) Bittrex 6) Binance 7) HitBTC 8) EtherDelta 9) Bitfinex 10) Kraken 11) Bithumb 12) Bitstamp 13) Poloniex 14) OKEx
Sending/Receiving Tokens
All wallets have the ability to send digital currency to other wallets. The function is relatively easy, make sure the currency you are sending is going to the appropriate wallet for that currency. Ethereum tokens cannot be sent to a Bitcoin wallet for example. (The tokens aren’t actually moving location; the list of transactions/ownership is what is stored in the wallet). Triple check the wallet private key you are sending the tokens to. If you type the wrong address the tokens will be lost in nearly all incidents. Some mobile wallets allow you to scan a QR code that will automatically enter the public key rather than copying/pasting or typing out the public key.
As of January 1, 2018 it appears that taxing on digital currency has changed. Every trade between any digital currencies (Bitcoin to Ether, Ether to Litecoin etc) will be a taxable transaction. If you hold the currency for longer than one year than you will pay capital gain tax when it is traded or sold (15%-20%) and if you sell or trade in less than a year you will have to add the profit to your taxable income to adjust your tax bracket.
Altcoins are basically any coin that is not Bitcoin. Most cryptocurrencies do not have a native blockchain (their own independent dedicated blockchain). Bitcoin, Ether, Ripple, Waves, NXT, Cardano all have their own native blockchain. Many other cryptocurrencies run on other cryptocurrency’s blockchains. Litecoin runs on Bitcoins blockchain, hundreds run on the Ethereum blockchain. These currencies act as smart contracts running on the adopted blockchain.
DApps (Decentralized Applications)
For a blockchain application to be considered a DApp it must be 1) Open source, code available to all 2) Decentralized, uses blockchain cryptographic tech 3) Incentive, must have tokens to fuel itself 4) Algorithm/Protocol, generates tokens and has a built-in consensus mechanism (mining/forging.)
There are 3 types of DApps, each basically piggybacks off the platform of the previous Type 1 – Have their own blockchain (like bitcoin) Type 2 – Use the blockchain of Type 1 DApps Type 3 – Use the protocol of Type 2 DApps
ICO (Initial Coin Offering)
Much like an IPO (Initial Public Offering) that offers stock in a private company to the public, an ICO raises money for new Cryptocurrency ventures. Typically, a minimum investment is required in the form of a cryptocurrency such as Bitcoin or Ether and the investor is given tokens of the cryptocurrency at a reduced cost. Due to the fact that ICO’s are so new, government agencies have not begun regulating these ventures making them extremely risky as anyone with a competent coder can create and market a cryptocurrency that can be used to swindle investors who aren’t cautious. The US government no longer allows its citizens to participate in ICO’s and if you are using a computer with an IP address located in the United States, ICO’s websites will not allow you to invest.
1) Whitepapers – Each cryptocurrency will have their own dedicated websites and most will have a whitepaper that has a description of what their cryptocurrency is designed to do. 2) Roadmaps – Also on each cryptocurrency’s website, they tend to have a roadmap or timeline as to when they are planning to complete certain milestones be it added features to the blockchain or wallet or any other important events. 3) – List of every available cryptocurrency, the exchanges they trade on, market cap, trade volume, available tokens, newly created tokens etc. 4) (cryptocurrency subreddit) – Subreddits focused on cryptocurrency as well as specific subreddits focused on individual cryptocurrencies. Be cautious as many people on these sites are uninformed and/or are trying to manipulate the market by fooling others to buy or sell based on fraudulent information. 5) – Forums specific to individual cryptocurrencies. There is a lot of self-marketing (bounties) on this site. Take what they say with a grain of salt 6) TwitteFacebook (Social Media) – Many times news from team members or the cryptocurrency’s social media page will break news before it is listed on any of the above-mentioned outlets. Find out who is working for the cryptocurrency you are interested in and start following the team’s social media. Don’t forget to look at their linkedin accounts if available, previous employment and behavioral history to confirm they are competent. 7) Github - Code from projects can be uploaded here and reviewed for issues and revisions.
Common Terms/Slang
Shilling – covert advertising, personally endorsing a token so as to manipulate the price to either recoup a loss or increase gains on a token the individual owns. FUD – Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt; another method to manipulate the price of a token the person owns by making others second guess their investment decision on a specific token. FOMO – Fear Of Missing Out; buying a token (usually after the price has already increased) hoping they haven’t missed the majority of a price increase. Shitcoin – A cryptocurrency that has become worthless overtime or a scam operation. To the Moon – Massive increase in a token’s price.
I'm sure there are probably revisions to be done on this as I am still getting my head around all of the concepts. Any help to this would be appreciated.
submitted by Truantlife to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

ASIC-resistance discussion

I would like to propose that the current model of ASIC resistance (social contract to fork on ASIC suspicion) may not be scalable as VTC gains purchasing power. However, there may be models which are.
First concern
Suppose I want to develop an ASIC and, using this post as a guideline, it costs around 1M USD to do so. I would want to make substantially more than 1M USD in profit to offset the risk of a PoW change ruining my plan. In other words, I need to mine significantly more than 1M/(50*p(t)) VTC, where p(t) is the price of 1 VTC. I also need to mine them without being detected. The network hashrate can maybe be roughly approximated by h(t) ~= p(t) * gpu_efficiency(t), where gpu_efficiency(t) is a slowly-increasing, roughly exponential function reflecting the decreasing cost of mining as hardware improves both in power efficiency and in processing power per USD. If I am to get away with ASIC mining, I need to not show up unexpectedly in the graph of h(t)/p(t), so that it still looks like natural GPU progress. Let's say I gradually activate them in batches until I control 10% hashpower. Additionally, I program my ASIC controller to throttle my own hashrate corresponding to fluctuations in network hashrate. For example, if all the GPUs switch to mining the ethereum fork of the day, I don't really need to know why the hashrate dropped, but my ASICs could act as though they did exactly the same.
At this point, the only evidence of my operation is that GPU mining is around 10% less profitable than might be expected (even assuming no GPU miners leave because of it), all other things being equal. I am sure there are many other ways to explain this - ideological, confused, or lazy miners mining at a loss, more highly efficient industrial GPU mining setups where electricity is cheap, etc.
According to the current price of approximately 5 USD, after spending 1M USD, I need to mine 4k blocks and then make up the cost of risk, electricity, and manufacturing. At 10% HP, this means 40k block times, or 69.4 days, plus whatever else. I claim that if the purchasing power of the block reward increases faster than advances in GPU technology, every factor in this calculation becomes easier. In particular, the following observations can be made:
Therefore, I suspect that covert ASIC development becomes more and more profitable over time, until one day, it happens.
Second concern
As mentioned above, in the case of covert ASIC development and GPUs switching chains, a large enough ASIC miner is incentivized to hide some of its hashpower some of the time. Unlike overt ASIC coins, this also means there is still extra hidden hashpower which could be used for attacking the network in periods of low difficulty.
Third concern
ASIC usage is currently discouraged by the developers' social contract to change PoW whenever ASIC usage is suspected. However, this is an attack surface. If the only factor blocking the ASIC operation from running smoothly is paying off a few volunteer developers, then that possibility must be considered. I don't mean to question the dev team's character at all, and I have no reason to believe they are compromised. Instead, I am trying to point out that trusting a small number of individuals to act against their own financial interest is fundamentally contrary to the idea of cryptocurrency.
If the ASIC usage is blatant, refusing to change PoW might kill the coin, or cause someone else to successfully fork the coin and gain economic majority, so it is not a total disaster. However, this is highly complicated by the fact that covert ASIC mining is possible. Is "suspecting" ASICs with inconclusive evidence enough of a reason to convince the economic majority to fork, even if the devs do not support the fork? As in Bitcoin's and Ethereum's example, it would seem there is a sentiment against contentious forks in much of the cryptocurrency community. I am not here to discuss whether this is right or wrong, but it exists, and it would make this particular situation difficult.
Fourth concern
Since there is, to my knowledge, no public specification on what exactly PoW would change to in the event of a fork, another incentive exists to try to discover or influence the choice of PoW function while preparing an ASIC for the PoW change. In this way, a covert ASIC developer could obtain a monopoly by compromising the dev team and having the coin fork to a predetermined "new" PoW function every so often (but not before ROI) to deter competitors.
I hope these will be considered as serious security concerns, or alternatively the errors of my logic will be pointed out. However, these concerns aren't necessarily impossible to address. I don't know an inherent reason why PoW cannot be made sufficiently general that a GPU is already fairly close to optimized at solving it.
Perhaps a PoW function which changes unpredictably after every N blocks, based on a seed generated from hashing the block header M blocks ago, would be a significant improvement in deterring ASIC development. VTC already has fast difficulty adjustment, so maybe even significant variation in the PoW function's computational difficulty could be tolerated. In this example, which is not fully thought out, M is chosen large enough to minimize the risk of a chain split producing one chain with a significantly easier PoW function than the other, but small enough to make ASIC development impractical.
Regularly scheduled but unpredictable PoW changes would make covert ASIC development less rewarding. Additionally, provably random parameters based on hashing block headers would decrease the amount of trust in the developers required.
Is this an awful idea? Are my concerns legitimate? Why or why not?
submitted by yamaha20 to vertcoin [link] [comments]

r/bitcoin recap - July 2017

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the seventh monthly Bitcoin news recap. Last month's post got very little love, and I don't expect much more success with everyone focussing on August 1st, but here it is nonetheless. In my eyes definitely one of the most eventful months in Bitcoin's history, absolutely unreal how much happened:
To name a few.
For those unfamiliar with the monthly recap, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
You can see recaps of the previous months on
If you're on mobile and can't see the links below, check the web version.
A recap of Bitcoin in July 2017
No biggie right? And you thought SegWit was the only thing going on!
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Here is how PayPal rips me off one, three times!!!

Rip-Off 1:
PayPal has different payment rates for Europe, USA and the rest of the world. If you are located in Europe they charge you 1% more then for US merchants!
Rip-Off 2:
I am selling for over 100'000 Euro yearly, but PayPal still charges me their highest their merchant rate (3.9% + 0.30 Cents). I would qualify for a lower rate but they say that my business is a high-risk business so they wont give me better rates. (I am currently running on 0.5% chargebacks)
Rip-Off 3:
Since I am based in Switzerland I HAVE TO COVERT USD to Swiss Francs...and guess what!!! PayPal conversion rates are 2.66% higher then the actual market prices.
In total: I pay 7.15% to PayPal!!!! (2.66% Conversion Rate + 4.49% merchant fee, based on a 60USD product)
Yearly, PayPal collects 7150 USD from my business! (based on 100'000 USD total)
By today, 10% of all my sales are in Bitcoin!!! Once I reach 80% I will cancel my PayPal account!!!
I am tired and sick beeing a PayPal bitch!!!
PS: I am NOT converting any Bitcoins to USD!!!
Rip-Off Bonus: Since I am selling digital products I have NO CHANGE to fight against chargebacks.
submitted by BitcoinMichi to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Cryptocurrency Weekly Recap

submitted by QuantalyticsResearch to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

People are worried by Bitmain please remember Tether?

If tether and billions of FAKE USD was fraudulently used to pump the bitcoin price ( like the willy bot in mtgox ), wouldn't most of the bitcoin be bought by fake USD and thus owned by dishonest people?
In fact this is a great way for governments to covertly harm crypto adoption.
Create multiple fake accounts in legit exchanges, then fund them with government backed secretly printed digital fiat. So long has this printed money is going to crypto in the short term it will create a massive inflation of crypto prices relative to USD ( without devaluing the USD). They can also buy and sell between them selves once they own enough bitcoin.. Then the government will own alot of btc bought using fake money. Just as regular people are starting to cash out and new people are entering the market the government can deliberately crash the market. Also there is nothing stopping the government creating fake accounts on foreign exchanges.
Making people lose faith in crypto is the best way to kill it, they wont try and ban traffic or stop people running nodes so small blocks and mining decentralization will do nothing to prevent an ECONOMIC attack.
The only way that can be avoided is focusing of adoption and hyper bitcoinization, then we dont need exchanges....
PS, i dont think the US government try such a thing now, such an attack could be carried out by a dodgy exchange with the help of dishonest private companies.
submitted by Spartan3123 to btc [link] [comments]

BIP proposal: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function | Gregory Maxwell | Apr 05 2017

Gregory Maxwell on Apr 05 2017:
A month ago I was explaining the attack on Bitcoin's SHA2 hashcash which
is exploited by ASICBOOST and the various steps which could be used to
block it in the network if it became a problem.
While most discussion of ASICBOOST has focused on the overt method
of implementing it, there also exists a covert method for using it.
As I explained one of the approaches to inhibit covert ASICBOOST I
realized that my words were pretty much also describing the SegWit
commitment structure.
The authors of the SegWit proposal made a specific effort to not be
incompatible with any mining system and, in particular, changed the
design at one point to accommodate mining chips with forced payout
Had there been awareness of exploitation of this attack an effort
would have been made to avoid incompatibility-- simply to separate
concerns. But the best methods of implementing the covert attack
are significantly incompatible with virtually any method of
extending Bitcoin's transaction capabilities; with the notable
exception of extension blocks (which have their own problems).
An incompatibility would go a long way to explain some of the
more inexplicable behavior from some parties in the mining
ecosystem so I began looking for supporting evidence.
Reverse engineering of a particular mining chip has demonstrated
conclusively that ASICBOOST has been implemented
in hardware.
On that basis, I offer the following BIP draft for discussion.
This proposal does not prevent the attack in general, but only
inhibits covert forms of it which are incompatible with
improvements to the Bitcoin protocol.
I hope that even those of us who would strongly prefer that
ASICBOOST be blocked completely can come together to support
a protective measure that separates concerns by inhibiting
the covert use of it that potentially blocks protocol improvements.
The specific activation height is something I currently don't have
a strong opinion, so I've left it unspecified for the moment.
Layer: Consensus
Title: Inhibiting a covert attack on the Bitcoin POW function
Author: Greg Maxwell
Status: Draft
Type: Standards Track
Created: 2016-04-05
License: PD
This proposal inhibits the covert exploitation of a known
vulnerability in Bitcoin Proof of Work function.
The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.
Due to a design oversight the Bitcoin proof of work function has a potential
attack which can allow an attacking miner to save up-to 30% of their energy
costs (though closer to 20% is more likely due to implementation overheads).
Timo Hanke and Sergio Demian Lerner claim to hold a patent on this attack,
which they have so far not licensed for free and open use by the public.
They have been marketing their patent licenses under the trade-name
ASICBOOST. The document takes no position on the validity or enforceability
of the patent.
There are two major ways of exploiting the underlying vulnerability: One
obvious way which is highly detectable and is not in use on the network
today and a covert way which has significant interaction and potential
interference with the Bitcoin protocol. The covert mechanism is not
easily detected except through its interference with the protocol.
In particular, the protocol interactions of the covert method can block the
implementation of virtuous improvements such as segregated witness.
Exploitation of this vulnerability could result in payoff of as much as
$100 million USD per year at the time this was written (Assuming at
50% hash-power miner was gaining a 30% power advantage and that mining
was otherwise at profit equilibrium). This could have a phenomenal
centralizing effect by pushing mining out of profitability for all
other participants, and the income from secretly using this
optimization could be abused to significantly distort the Bitcoin
ecosystem in order to preserve the advantage.
Reverse engineering of a mining ASIC from a major manufacture has
revealed that it contains an undocumented, undisclosed ability
to make use of this attack. (The parties claiming to hold a
patent on this technique were completely unaware of this use.)
On the above basis the potential for covert exploitation of this
vulnerability and the resulting inequality in the mining process
and interference with useful improvements presents a clear and
present danger to the Bitcoin system which requires a response.
The general idea of this attack is that SHA2-256 is a merkle damgard hash
function which consumes 64 bytes of data at a time.
The Bitcoin mining process repeatedly hashes an 80-byte 'block header' while
incriminating a 32-bit nonce which is at the end of this header data. This
means that the processing of the header involves two runs of the compression
function run-- one that consumes the first 64 bytes of the header and a
second which processes the remaining 16 bytes and padding.
The initial 'message expansion' operations in each step of the SHA2-256
function operate exclusively on that step's 64-bytes of input with no
influence from prior data that entered the hash.
Because of this if a miner is able to prepare a block header with
multiple distinct first 64-byte chunks but identical 16-byte
second chunks they can reuse the computation of the initial
expansion for multiple trials. This reduces power consumption.
There are two broad ways of making use of this attack. The obvious
way is to try candidates with different version numbers. Beyond
upsetting the soft-fork detection logic in Bitcoin nodes this has
little negative effect but it is highly conspicuous and easily
The other method is based on the fact that the merkle root
committing to the transactions is contained in the first 64-bytes
except for the last 4 bytes of it. If the miner finds multiple
candidate root values which have the same final 32-bit then they
can use the attack.
To find multiple roots with the same trailing 32-bits the miner can
use efficient collision finding mechanism which will find a match
with as little as 216 candidate roots expected, 224 operations to
find a 4-way hit, though low memory approaches require more
An obvious way to generate different candidates is to grind the
coinbase extra-nonce but for non-empty blocks each attempt will
require 13 or so additional sha2 runs which is very inefficient.
This inefficiency can be avoided by computing a sqrt number of
candidates of the left side of the hash tree (e.g. using extra
nonce grinding) then an additional sqrt number of candidates of
the right side of the tree using transaction permutation or
substitution of a small number of transactions. All combinations
of the left and right side are then combined with only a single
hashing operation virtually eliminating all tree related
With this final optimization finding a 4-way collision with a
moderate amount of memory requires ~224 hashing operations
instead of the >228 operations that would be require for
extra-nonce grinding which would substantially erode the
benefit of the attack.
It is this final optimization which this proposal blocks.
==New consensus rule==
Beginning block X and until block Y the coinbase transaction of
each block MUST either contain a BIP-141 segwit commitment or a
correct WTXID commitment with ID 0xaa21a9ef.
(See BIP-141 "Commitment structure" for details)
Existing segwit using miners are automatically compatible with
this proposal. Non-segwit miners can become compatible by simply
including an additional output matching a default commitment
value returned as part of getblocktemplate.
Miners SHOULD NOT automatically discontinue the commitment
at the expiration height.
The commitment in the left side of the tree to all transactions
in the right side completely prevents the final sqrt speedup.
A stronger inhibition of the covert attack in the form of
requiring the least significant bits of the block timestamp
to be equal to a hash of the first 64-bytes of the header. This
would increase the collision space from 32 to 40 or more bits.
The root value could be required to meet a specific hash prefix
requirement in order to increase the computational work required
to try candidate roots. These change would be more disruptive and
there is no reason to believe that it is currently necessary.
The proposed rule automatically sunsets. If it is no longer needed
due to the introduction of stronger rules or the acceptance of the
version-grinding form then there would be no reason to continue
with this requirement. If it is still useful at the expiration
time the rule can simply be extended with a new softfork that
sets longer date ranges.
This sun-setting avoids the accumulation of technical debt due
to retaining enforcement of this rule when it is no longer needed
without requiring a hard fork to remove it.
== Overt attack ==
The non-covert form can be trivially blocked by requiring that
the header version match the coinbase transaction version.
This proposal does not include this block because this method
may become generally available without restriction in the future,
does not generally interfere with improvements in the protocol,
and because it is so easily detected that it could be blocked if
it becomes an issue in the future.
==Ba...[message truncated here by reddit bot]...
submitted by dev_list_bot to bitcoin_devlist [link] [comments]

Satoshi to USD, Bitcoin BTC to USD Bitcoin Price- Satoshi to USD convert Bangla tutorial Bitcoin to USD - calculator converstion Bitcoin Money: How to Convert Bitcoins to Dollars - Part 1 bitcoin Price Bitcoin Price Usd Official Video - YouTube

Instant free online tool for BTC to USD conversion or vice versa. The BTC [Bitcoin] to USD [United States Dollar] conversion table and conversion steps are also listed. Also, explore tools to convert BTC or USD to other currency units or learn more about currency conversions. Crypto exchange rate calculator helps you convert prices online between two currencies in real-time. The current Bitcoin to US Dollar exchange rate is 9,905.40.The price is calculated based on rates on 197 exchanges and is updated live every few seconds. To see the latest exchange rate and see Bitcoin historical prices, head over to the Bitcoin page. This Bitcoin and United States Dollar convertor is up to date with exchange rates from July 25, 2020. Enter the amount to be converted in the box to the left of Bitcoin. Use "Swap currencies" to make United States Dollar the default currency. Click on United States Dollars or Bitcoins to convert between that currency and all other currencies. 30492248343000 BTC to USD (BTC vs. USD), How much is 30492248343000 Bitcoin in USD, Online exchange rate calculator between BTC (Bitcoin) & USD (USA Dollar). CoinXConverter - Online Currency & Cryptocurrency Converter.

[index] [15736] [1773] [24597] [8366] [17413] [12293] [17280] [13975] [11570] [13112]

Satoshi to USD, Bitcoin BTC to USD

Bitcoin was invented in 2008 by an unknown person or group of people using the name Satoshi Nakamoto and started in 2009 when its source code was released as open-source software.:ch. 1 Bitcoins ... Make 10 usd Every 50 Seconds Trading Binary Options 100% WINS - Profitable 2018 Trading strategies - Duration: 5:58. Proudly Tech Money General Tips And Tricks 56,075 views 5:58 -bitcoin price usd -best bitcoin price in united states 2020 -best bitcoin price prediction 2020 So you would like to know more about bitcoin price, I did too and here is the video that I created ... bitcoin gold to usd converter: Bitcoin to USD is the way to got when it comes to bitcoin exchange rates. This tool will help you see how much money did you make this past hour, updates every minute. Check our bitcoin to USD ...

Flag Counter