"At scale, Bitcoin will be processing millions of transactions per hour on mainnet. This is how Satoshi designed the system. Scale or die. In the year 2140, miner incentives will be geared towards processing as many transactions as possible. Billions of transactions per day."
"At scale, Bitcoin will be processing millions of transactions per hour on mainnet. This is how Satoshi designed the system. Scale or die. In the year 2140, miner incentives will be geared towards processing as many transactions as possible. Billions of transactions per day."
In any chain split, expect me to side with whichever network that continues the design itself per Satoshis explanations. Bitcoin is not only code or hashpower. It does not depend on any one miner or developer, no matter their economic position. It is more than the network. It is a complete s /r/btc
In any chain split, expect me to side with whichever network that continues the design per Satoshis explanations. Bitcoin is not only code or hashpower. It does not depend on any one miner or developer, no matter their economic position. It is more than the network. It is a complete system. /r/btc
12-26 23:12 - 'Miner fees are hundreds of satoshi per byte according to the mempool, which corresponds to the high fees. Are you saying BitPay fakes the entire mempool to make it look like a congestion problem, rather than what it actually is...' by /u/Mrfish31 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 7-17min
''' Miner fees are hundreds of satoshi per byte according to the mempool, which corresponds to the high fees. Are you saying BitPay fakes the entire mempool to make it look like a congestion problem, rather than what it actually is, y'know, a congestion problem? And if you actually want to use your coin because you get paid in it, why are you so against Bitcoin Cash? It's much closer to satoshi's original vision for bitcoin, and he himself said that blocksize would be increased to scale the network. Where did the decentralised P2P dream go? It's alive and well in bitcoin cash. This subreddit is lying to you. Big blocks don't lead to centralisation. Satoshi envisioned that in the end game, only around 100k full nodes would exist, and this would preserve decentralisation. Or, he said, by the time the network gets to that size, the cost of running the increased node would be drastically reduced. You'd be paying fees of less than a cent to transfer and use your money. As it is now, you're taking a $25 pay cut everytime you buy groceries. ''' Context Link Go1dfish undelete link unreddit undelete link Author: Mrfish31
If the 1MB limit was set to counter spam, and miners can set their own block size, why not set a minimum fee of say 10 satoshis per transaction and remove the size limit completely? Possible? /r/Bitcoin
Maybe it's time to discuss bitcoin's history again. Credit to u/singularity87 for the original post over 3 years ago. People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs. bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person. For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network. Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain. Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network. Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past. A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making. Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird. After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels. While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin). As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream. There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good. To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision. Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation. The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
The Bitcoin Conspiracy (an enthusiast's perspective)
I keep coming across comments, especially in this sub, from people claiming that Bitcoin was created by the CIA or some government agency as part of the plan for the NWO and cashless society. I want to share my experience and try to clear up the confusion surrounding this topic. I first got involved with Bitcoin in late 2016 when I heard about it and got some while at a libertarian festival. Back then it was still very popular among the agorist community and was being promoted as THE silver bullet that was going to disrupt the global fiat banking system. Putting preconceptions aside, a new user might ask, "what's so special about Bitcoin? We already have digital currencies." Well, you only need to read the first page of the whitepaper to discover what the original intent of Bitcoin was. It most definitely was not intended to be a tool for central banks to subjugate the world to a centralized global currency. Quite the opposite in fact. Read the full whitepaper here. When I first learned about Bitcoin, it forced me to learn about economics, then the Federal Reserve, then one by one the dominoes fell and down the conspiracy rabbit hole I went. In 2017 (actually it started a few years earlier, but I wasn't paying attention back then) there was a very heated debate in the Bitcoin community regarding scaling. I'll try to break it down simply: In the very early days, when Bitcoin was just a project being worked on by a few very technical people, no one knew about it. All it took was a handful of people running the software on their laptops to mine new coins. Since there was not much computing power on the network, it meant there could easily be a spam attack where a malicious user could join the network and generate many gigabytes of spam transactions that would overload and crash the network. To prevent this, Satoshi implemented a limit of 1MB per block, to protect the network until there was enough computing power to be able to handle larger blocks. This measure worked, and Bitcoin grew exponentially. Satoshi vanished in 2010, after WikiLeaks attracted unwanted attention to the project by accepting Bitcoin donations. He left clear instructions for his successors that the 1MB block size limit was meant to be increased once the network could support high levels of user traffic. At the time, there still was not much use, so it wasn't until around 2014 that blocks started hitting the 1MB cap and all of a sudden users had to compete (by paying higher transaction fees) in order to get their transaction mined into the next block. Up until then, sending a Bitcoin transaction would cost $0.0001 (hundredth of a penny) or less, no matter if you were sending $0.10 or $1,000,000. Now, since block space was limited, fees started to rise, as miners would only include the transactions with the highest fees. Over the next couple years, transaction fees went up dramatically, at times reaching as high as $100 to send a single transaction. The solution was obvious - raise the block size limit. But this led to a heated debate, and this is where the conspiracy became obvious to those who were paying attention. Since Bitcoin was decentralized and open source, anyone could contribute, but certain people controlled the commit access to the github repo, and it became apparent that those individuals had been compromised, as any and all mention of increasing the block size was met with fierce resistance. There was a misinformation campaign to discredit anyone arguing for larger blocks. The argument was that larger blocks would mean users could not run the software on their low-power personal devices and laptops; that by increasing the block size it would lead to mining centralization. Well, if you read the whitepaper linked above, you'll see that Satoshi predicted this. He knew mining would eventually be left to "specialized server farms" while normal users could use what he termed Simplified Payment Verification (SPV) wallets. But this point was consistently shot down in the community, and especially on /bitcoin. There was a MASSIVE censorship campaign in the bitcoin subreddit that continues to this day where anyone who questions the official narrative or even asks a basic technical question is immediately banned. /bitcoin today is nothing but a cesspit of price memes and misinformation. Go to /btc for the uncensored discussions (but beware of trolls). In 2017 the debate was finally settled, sort of. Now known as "Bitcoin Core" (the name of the official Bitcoin software), the developers implemented a change known as SegWit (Segregated Witness) which fundamentally altered the way the software validates transactions. It was implemented as a "soft fork" rather than a "hard fork". I'll explain the difference. In a fork, the network comes to a consensus on new rules that all participants must follow. In a hard fork, the changes are non-backwards compatible, so all users must update their software or else be left behind on a dead network. Hard forks happen all the time in software development, but in the case of SegWit, the developers refused to make any non-backwards compatible changes for fear it might alienate users. Again, another unfounded fear. "We can't ever upgrade the technical capabilities of the network (such as the block size) because some people might not go along with it." All kinds of mental gymnastics were performed to justify their refusal to increase the block size, and there was nothing anyone could do about it except fork as an independent project. The 1MB block limit is now essentially set in stone for BTC. So in August 2017, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) hard forked by increasing the block size limit to 8MB, along with some other changes. Fast forward to December 2017 and Bitcoin was at its all time high of nearly $20,000. But fees were also astronomical and because of the 1MB block size limit, a huge backlog formed, and some people had to wait days or even weeks for their transaction to confirm. If anyone was trying to cash out into fiat and didn't want to pay a $100 transaction fee, by the time their transaction got confirmed the price had already crashed. This event was largely responsible for the bear market of 2018. Everything that happened was predicted by those who knew what was going on. A company called Blockstream had essentially wrestled control of Bitcoin from the original developers and shut them out or gained control over them, and started working on turning Bitcoin into a settlement layer for their product called Lightning Network. LN is a complicated topic that I don't want to get into, but essentially it's a framework that recreates all the same problems inherent in the banking system that Bitcoin was meant to solve. Blockstream's goal is to profit from creating, and then "solving" those problems by charging users fees for all kinds of custodial services. In my personal opinion, it's obvious that the original Bitcoin project has been hijacked and repurposed into a tool for the central banks. The propaganda is being pushed in some conspiracy circles that Bitcoin was created BY the central banks in order to discourage people from researching the true history. What is now commonly called "Bitcoin" is not the original project, but a Trojan horse. The project that most closely follows the original design is Bitcoin Cash, and that is where almost all organic development is happening, and personally I feel that it's picking up steam lately as more people wake up to what's happening in the economy right now. Unfortunately most people are still unaware of how fundamentally broken BTC is now and so as new users run toward cryptocurrency to escape the dollar collapse, most will fall straight into the trap and be stuck with BTC that they won't be able to use without paying exorbitant fees and/or submitting to the very same tracking system they are trying to get away from. This is a very deep rabbit hole but I think I've written enough for now. I hope this info helps people make sense of what's going on with Bitcoin. I know it's confusing enough even without so much deception taking place so hopefully this helps. Read the Bitcoin FAQ over on /btc.
What is Bitcoin SV (BSV)? Bitcoin SV appeared as a result of the Bitcoin Cash hard fork in November 2018. The idea to create a new cryptocurrency came from entrepreneur Craig Wright. He tried to solve the scalability issue and increased the block size to 128MB. Later Craig Wright announced that he is the real Satoshi Nakamoto and Bitcoin SV is the original Bitcoin. SV stands for Satoshi Vision. by StealthEX Bitcoin SV has the plan for a stable protocol and massive on-chain scaling to become the world’s new money and the global public blockchain for enterprise. Today BSV coin is one of the TOP-10 cryptocurrencies by market capitalization.
In 2019 the project has gone through the following milestones: • Upgraded Quasar protocol and as a result the block size was lifted from 128 MB to 2 GB. • Bitcoin SV handled up to 20,000,000 transactions per day. • Worked on the technical development: Paymail, Nakasendo, Keyring, sCrypt, GearSV, Datapay was launched. • More than 300 development projects, apps were launched for the BSV network. • Celebrated the project’s first birthday.
What to expect in the future?
According to the official roadmap, the Bitcoin SV team will continue working on: • Stability to give enterprises the confidence to create their apps on top of BSV. • Scalability. The developers intend to provide the capacity for BSV to act as the foundation for the entire financial world. • Security and excellent payment experience. The BSV project will concentrate on both measurement and improvement of transactions safety, fast transaction propagation, and miner-configurable fee policies.
In August 2020 BSV crypto may reach a maximum price of $209.095 (+18.60%), while it’s the average price will be around $166.599 per coin (-5.50%). According to TradingBeasts forecasts, the Bitcoin SV price is going to decrease and by the end of 2020, the average BSV price is expected to be $168.674 (-4.33%).
Wallet investor BSV coin price prediction
Wallet investor.com thinks that Bitcoin SV is an awesome long-term investment and predicts a wide selection of digital coins like Bitcoin SV. The project may reach $269.566 as the maximum price by the end of December 2020 (+52.80%) while the average price will stay around $196.916 per coin (+11.69%).
Crypto-Rating BSV price prediction
Crypto-Rating says that BSV will return to the $200 mark (+13.44%), or maybe even exceed it if BTC climbs above $10,000. If not, it might remain between $200 and $100, unless a new bear market strikes.
DigitalCoinPrice BSV price prediction
According to DigitalCoinPrice Bitcoin SV price will increase in the near future. By the end of the year 2020, the average price will be $284.19 per coin (+61.19%).
Where to buy BSV coin
Bitcoin SV (BSV) is available for exchange on StealthEX with a low fee. Follow these easy steps: ✔ Choose the pair and the amount for your exchange. For example BTC to BSV. ✔ Press the “Start exchange” button. ✔ Provide the recipient address to which the coins will be transferred. ✔ Move your cryptocurrency for the exchange. ✔ Receive your coins. Follow us on Medium, Twitter, Facebook, and Reddit to get StealthEX.io updates and the latest news about the crypto world. For all requests message us via [email protected] The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision. Original article was posted onhttps://stealthex.io/blog/2020/07/16/bitcoin-sv-price-prediction-2020/
Sign up for liquid, run lighting, get online and get your watchtower. Call your friends and make sure they don't use currencies with blocksizes larger than 1mb !
It is absolutely impossible for ANY cryptocurrency ever to have a blocksize larger than 1mb with out leading to complete centerization! When you get the center you control all the things. Satoshi chose 1 mb for a reason! Obviously! All cryptocurrencies should always be 1mb and use lightning and also liquid. This is the only possible way forward, it's science! Every one should run a node to validate every single transaction they make. Every one should only use segwit transactions. Cryptocurrencies should never be built with more capacity than that is needed for settlement, they really only ever need 7 tx per second. The current blocksize actually might be too big!!! We can't just let anyone be free to transact on layer one. We really need to conciously limit who is allowed to make onchain transactions! Don't waste our precious blockchain! Sign up for liquid, run lighting, get online and get your watchtower. Call your friends and make sure they don't use currencies with blocksizes larger than 1mb ! Make sure they only do lightning and liquid, because the base layer is only like 7 per second! I mean it's simply pretty clear if you read the white paper carefully, the system is designed to be a settlement layer, not an electronic cash system. Fact is you CANT HAVE BOTH! Bitcoin: an electronic settlement layer. It's in the title of the paper isn't it? I havnt checked in a while. Point is that Bitcoin is not for making silly transactions, it's for settling groups of transactions. This was clearly the original intention. I don't know why all these currencies are using layer 1 improperly like this but WE NEED TO FIGHT IT. SLOW DOWN THE ONCHAIN ADOPTION AND WAIT FOR THE PROPER LAYER TRANSACTIONS! OBVIOUSLY. Satoshi and the white paper are not in charge. If we discuss these topics I'm sure we can build a system that makes limited amounts of onchain transactions and keep maximum decenterization. It's great that we have this safe space to discuss all possible viewpoints on the issue. Every one's voice is heard here on every topic, even difficult ones. Just look at the history. I never ever here of censorship associated here and thats the way it should be. We should actually discuss lowering the amount of onchain tx we have so the system can get more decenterized. I prefer to use liquid and lightning only, I don't understand why folks insist on using the blockchain for transactions. You should need a license and permission to make onchain transactions, not to mention a hefty fee as these large fees actually pay miners to secure our transactions validated by our full node which is very economical to run due to the low low transaction rate! Some people actually don't understand how important it is to lower the amount of activity on the blockchain! Slow things down! /s
The attempted come back of CoinEx, China's forked-Bitcoin exchange
Written by Shuyao Kong Published bydecrypt.co An interview with Haipo Yang, a crypto OG who’s trying to reposition his Bitcoin Cash-based CoinEx exchange. And more, in this week’s da bing. https://preview.redd.it/h5f3i3lldv051.jpg?width=3200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=09b8696303ae5c6170753cc438929ebe520d4605 Haipo Yang, founder of ViaBTC, one of the largest mining pools in the world, and CoinEx, a crypto exchange known for its focus on Bitcoin Cash-based trading, is a well-known but relatively quiet character in China’s crypto circle. Typically, Yang doesn’t talk that much about his journey launching the mining pool, nor about CoinEx, which launched in December 2017. And he almost never speaks about his fervent support for BCH, a hard fork of Bitcoin, and his now even more enthusiastic belief in BSV. Yet that’s changing of late. Yang has been more active in recent months, participating in interviews about CoinEx and tweeting more frequently on Weibo, China’s Twitter. He’s been making controversial statements predicting the death of BTC, while supporting BCH and BSV on social media. Recently, Yang told me that as a developer rather than a business person, he’s never been comfortable speaking in public. However he’s making an effort now to help publicize his renovation of CoinEx. So, for this week’s da bing, I decided to chat with him and get a peek into the mind of a veteran crypto entrepreneur who’s trying to make a personal, as well as a platform, comeback.
CoinEx’s golden opportunity
The first hard fork of Bitcoin occurred in August, 2017 and created a new cryptocurrency called Bitcoin Cash. The fork was prompted by partisans, including Yang, who wanted bigger block sizes on the blockchain — the basic idea was that bigger blocks would enable more transactions per second and make Bitcoin Cash something people would actually use to buy things, rather than Bitcoin’s more commonly perceived use as a store of value. Yang added a tremendous amount of value to the mining scene in China. As a technical founder with has years of experience in big tech firms such as Tencent, Yang is proud of his #buidl skills. He developed most of the code in the early days of VicBTC, which became one of the biggest mining pools to this day. Not satisfied with owning just a mining pool,Yang conceived of CoinEx, which was born in December of that year, specifically to carry on the mission of the newly forked Bitcoin Cash blockchain. As he got swept up in Bitcoin Cash enthusiasm, he even said that “BCH is bitcoin.” CoinEx’s strategy was BCH-focused from day one; BCH was its base currency, meaning you could use it to buy and sell other currencies, such as Ethereum and Litecoin. Interestingly, Jihan Wu, the co-founder of Bitcoin Exchange — himself a famous BCH supporter — was a big investor in the exchange. That made me wonder why he, Yang, and many other OG crypto miners, were so passionate about BCH. Was it just about bigger block sizes? “Bigger block size means more users and use cases,” Yang explained. The move to bigger block sizes was attractive to miners because they would facilitate more transactions. Miners make money on transaction fees, as well as mining blocks. Likewise, the network would arguably be more useful to people, who were looking for digital cash for every day use. That especially resonated with many early hardcore Bitcoiners. Said Yang: “We really believe that Bitcoin should be a P2P cash vehicle rather than a store of value.” This view probably sounds outdated to people who believe that Bitcoin’s value as cash is long gone, with solutions such as Lightning Network fulfilling that role. Instead, the new narrative for Bitcoin resides in its value, rather than utility. Yet Yang believed that the forked network would create far more opportunity “We could invite influential companies to establish nodes and contribute to the network. This cannot be done with the original Bitcoin architecture,” he said.
But from its inception, CoinEx struggled with adoption and was dwarfed by the bigger exchanges. Part of that had to do with the fact that BCH and “Bitcoin Satoshi’s Vision,” another Bitcoin hard fork, were both controversial. Critics pointed out that these networks are centralized in a few big mining pools, and 51% attacks are not out of the question. So over time, though Yang’s exchange still maintains strong support for BCH and BSV, it began to add support for all the major currencies. Finally, in January of this year, it announced a major upgrade, of… well, just about everything. It started to offer futures trading, leveraged trading, options trading, and over 100 token projects available to traders. It even rolled out its own blockchain, “CoinEx Chain” to support a new DEX, “CoinEx DEX.” https://preview.redd.it/3okoy5mudv051.png?width=1432&format=png&auto=webp&s=7099249da4a95db873d268f2dfc95d8db93a368e The seemingly sudden publicity of CoinEx should not come as a surprise, then. As BCH/BSV was being marginalized, Yang shifted his focus. He’s now trying to ride the wave of building a bigger, more dynamic exchange. “Crypto exchanges are where value is discovered,” Yang told me.
Building an exchange isn’t done overnight, nor is re-building one. CoinEx is still competing with the giants such as Binance. However Yang thinks his exchange will thrive by zigging when his competitors zag. As usual, CoinEx is taking a slightly different route, he told me. Like what? “We will be listing 小币种,” he said, using the expression for “small token projects.” I cannot help but wonder if these “small token projects” are simply shitcoins, the trading of which is certainly not new. Indeed, Yang said that he’s banking on the success of his new, public blockchain. “We are building a CoinEx Chain, a layer one protocol for DEX alone. Using our public blockchain, anyone can issue any token, at any time,” he said. He described the blockchain as “a real decentralized, token-issuance and transaction platform.” This is the core of Yang’s plan and vision. He believes that centralized exchanges will be a bottleneck for crypto adoption because it contradicts crypto’s nature as a completely free and open infrastructure. Essentially anyone should be able to launch a token and trade it with anyone. Only by building DEXes can we achieve full decentralization, he says.
The Religious nature of Bitcoin, and forked Bitcoin
It’s his belief that Bitcoin should adhere to Satoshi’s original vision that led Yang to send yet another controversial tweet last week, which I will translate: “The early days of Bitcoin expansion are similar to religion. The religious fervor brings prosperity to the industry.” By extension, Yang believes that the next generation of Bitcoin should provoke a similar “religious” fervor. That’s why he has slowly become more of a BSV advocate than a fan of Bitcoin Cash. Yang believes that “BSV has more religious connotations, despite its negative image.” (As most crypto people know, the controversial Craig Wright, who claims to be Satoshi Nakamoto, led the hard fork which created BSV. Consequently it is often met with skepticism and derision.) “The early days of Bitcoin expansion are similar to religion,” said Yang. “The religious fervor brings prosperity to the industry.” Crypto is famous for its tribalism. Many people choose one camp over another not for practical reasons but because of simple faith. Talking to Yang and reading his tweet brings a historic texture to the Bitcoin narrative. But crypto cannot survive on religion alone. One has to build. Hash might have been worshipped in the old days but now the crypto religion is all about the size of the congregation. Original article Click here to register on CoinEx!
Cryptocurrency exchanges process over $20 billion in trade volume per day. Most of the transactions are going through centralized exchanges, where the users need to fully trust them for managing their assests and transactions. However, the risk of trusting these centralized exchanges has also been seen. For example, QuadrigaCX, which was the largest cryptocurrency exchange in Canada, lost $19 million of their customers' assets . Decentralized Exchanges (DEXes) have been introduced to address this problem -- they allow traders to purchase and sell cryptocurrencies in a peer-to-peer manner, so no involvement of any trusted party is required. Atomic Swap is one of the promising technology for implementing a DEX. While it enables pure peer to peer trading, it also introduces problems such as unfairness and long confirmation latency. While existing work  has provided a solution towards a fair atomic swap protocol, the issue of long confirmation latency is inherent. Another promising direction is leveraging liquidity pools. With liquidity pools, pairs of assets are reserved for trading. For any pair of assets supported by the liquidity pool, traders can exchange their assets without any third party. As traders can only perform the transactions if there are reserved assets, one core problem is how to attract liquidity providers to provide liquidity by reserving assets. It is not difficult to see that incentive [3,4], which has been a key component of all permissionless blockchains, can be equipped to incentivize liqudity providers. However, flawed incentive designs will lead to attacks and other concerns [5-13]. There are two main types of incentive designs, namely "trans-fee mining" and "liquidity mining". They are different from the Proof-of-X mining in blockchains for reaching consensus (a detailed analysis can be found in the survey ). Rather, they are used to incentivise users to join the ecosystem. "Trans-fee mining" was proposed by FCoin in 2018 . With FCoin, each time a transaction is created, 100% of its transaction fee will be returned in FCoin token to the payer as a reward. This is one incentive design to encourage traders to join the system. However, as FCoin may have no value to the trader, FCoin also introduces extra reward to all coin holders -- 80% of the transaction fee in its native currency (such as ETH) will be distributed to all coin holders. So, traders are incentivized to join the system, becoming a holder of FCoin token, and obtaining a share of the transaction fee of every transaction in the FCoin ecosystem. While this had successful attracted traders, it is not sustainable. Rather than charging a trader to perform transactions, FCoin rewards traders. Profit-driven traders will create transactions at full speed to earn FCoin token and the share as a token holder. Indeed, the trading volume of FCoin was the top one among all exchange services, and the daily reward can be as high as 6000 BTC . However, once all coins are minted, then the system would lose liveness as there is not enough supply to be distributed. "Liquidity mining" aims at giving reward to the liquidity providers rather than the traders. There are different ways to implement liquidity mining. Compound  is a famous example of protocols deploying liquidity mining. With Compound, users become a liquidity provider by supply assets to a pool and obtain interests for its contribution (similar to depositing money into a bank). Liquidity providers first reserve some assets in the pool and obtain "cToken" of Compound which entitles the owner to an increasing quantity of the underlying asset. Users can use their "cToken" to borrow different assets available on the Compound and pay some interests to Compund. The borrowers may have some quick gains through the financial games . Both borrowers and liquidity providers can withdraw their asset by trading them back with "cToken". Oners of "cToken" can also manage the business direction and decisions of Compound through weighted voting. The potential concern here is that rich users might be able to take over the control of the system. Uniswap  is another popular DEX deploying liquidity mining. Uniswap incentivizes liquidity providers by giving them a share of the earned transaction fees. In particular, Uniswap changes each transaction a 0.3% fee, where 0.25% will be distributed to the liquidity providers, and 0.05% will go to the Uniswap account. One issue is how to incentivize traders. With Uniswap, traders are incentivized by the potential profit it can gain through the price difference between Uniswap and other exchanges. Uniswap price oracle is based on a constant function market makers [20,21], where the product of the number of reserved tokens is a constant. For example, if Uniswap has a pair of X token A and Y token B, then when a user using X' token A to buy Y' token B, the product of the reserved number of tokens should remain the same, i.e., XY = (X+X')(Y-Y'). The price of Uniswap (V1) is also defined in this way. This allows traders to speculate in the exchange market as the asset price on Uniswap is changed dynamically and is different from other exchanges. This, on the other hand, may have a security risk as the price can be easily manipulated. Uniswap (V2) fixed this problem by taking an accumulated price over a period of time . However, as speculation/manipulation becomes harder, the trading volume may decrease. MiniSwap  introduces a hybrid model (a mixture of "trans-fee mining" and "liquidity mining") to address the above issues. MiniSwap provides three types of rewards. For each trade with transaction fee f ETH in MiniSwap, a number of MiniSwap tokens (called MINI) worth 2f ETH will be minted. A (parameterized) portion of the tokens are given to the trader, and the rest are distribued to the liqudity providers. The transaction fee (f ETH) is used to exchange MINI in the liquidity pool. 50% of the obtained MINI will be distributed to all MINI holders, and the other 50% will be destroyed. In this way, both traders and liquidity providers are incentivized to join the ecosystem. Recall that with FCoin, there is a problem when all coins are minted. MiniSwap has an upper bound (of 500,000 tokens) on the number of tokens can be created every day, and this limit reduces every month until a point where the limit (18,000 tokens) remains unchanged. This guarantees the sustainability of the system as the mining process can last for 100 years. The parameterized ratio of tokens as the reward to the trader and liquidity provider can also strengthen sustainability. It enables the system to dynamically balance the incentive of different parties in the system to make it more sustainable. Overall, the MiniSwap hybrid model has taken the benefit of both "trans-fee mining" model and "liquidity mining" model, while eliminated the potential concerns. Formally defining and analyzing these models, e.g. through the game-theoretic approach , would be an interesting direction. Reference  The Guardian, Cryptocurrency investors locked out of $190m after exchange founder dies, 2019.  Runchao Han, Haoyu Lin, Jiangshan Yu. On the optionality and fairness of Atomic Swaps, ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies, 2019.  Satoshi Nakamoto. 2008. Bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system  Jiangshan Yu, David Kozhaya, Jeremie Decouchant, and Paulo Verissimo. Repucoin: your reputation is your power. IEEE Transactions on Computers, 2019.  Joseph Bonneau. Why Buy When You Can Rent? - Bribery Attacks on Bitcoin-Style Consensus. Financial Cryptography and Data Security - International Workshops on BITCOIN, VOTING, and WAHC, 2016.  Yujin Kwon, Hyoungshick Kim, Jinwoo Shin, and Yongdae Kim. Bitcoin vs. Bitcoin Cash: Coexistence or Downfall of Bitcoin Cash, IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy (SP), 2019.  Kevin Liao and Jonathan Katz. Incentivizing blockchain forks via whale transactions. International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2017.  Ayelet Sapirshtein, Yonatan Sompolinsky, and Aviv Zohar. Optimal Selfish Mining Strategies in Bitcoin. Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2016.  Ittay Eyal and Emin Gün Sirer. Majority Is Not Enough: Bitcoin Mining Is Vulnerable. Financial Cryptography and Data Security, 2014.  Ittay Eyal. The Miner’s Dilemma. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2015.  Miles Carlsten, Harry A. Kalodner, S. Matthew Weinberg, and Arvind Narayanan. On the Instability of Bitcoin Without the Block Reward. ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2016.  Kartik Nayak, Srijan Kumar, Andrew Miller, and Elaine Shi. Stubborn mining: generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2016.  Runchao Han, Zhimei Sui, Jiangshan Yu, Joseph K. Liu, Shiping Chen. Sucker punch makes you richer: Rethinking Proof-of-Work security model, IACR Cryptol. ePrint Arch, 2019.  Christopher Natoli, Jiangshan Yu, Vincent Gramoli, Paulo Jorge Esteves Veríssimo. Deconstructing Blockchains: A Comprehensive Survey on Consensus, Membership and Structure. CoRR abs/1908.08316, 2019.  FCoin, https://www.fcoin.pro  The Block Crypto. Cryptocurrency exchange Fcoin expects to default on as much as $125M of users' bitcoin, 2020.  Compound, https://compound.finance.  Philip Daian, Steven Goldfeder, Tyler Kell, Yunqi Li, Xueyuan Zhao, Iddo Bentov, Lorenz Breidenbach, Ari Juels. Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning, Transaction Reordering, and Consensus Instability in Decentralized Exchanges. IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2020.  Uniswap. https://uniswap.org  Bowen Liu, Pawel Szalachowski. A First Look into DeFi Oracles. CoRR abs/2005.04377, 2020.  Guillermo Angeris, Tarun Chitra. Improved Price Oracles: Constant Function Market Makers, CoRR abs/ 2003.10001, 2020.  Uniswap V2.0 whitepaper. https://uniswap.org/whitepaper.pdf  MiniSwap. https://www.miniswap.org  Ziyao Liu, Nguyen Cong Luong, Wenbo Wang, Dusit Niyato, Ping Wang, Ying-Chang Liang, Dong In Kim. A Survey on Blockchain: A Game Theoretical Perspective. IEEE Access, 2019.
AT2, a fairly new unknown tech to create a decentralized asset transfer system without blockchain. This week there was an article @ www.computing.co.uk. See below. link: https://www.computing.co.uk/feature/4017118/at2-answer-cryptocurrency-energy-performance AT2 paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1812.10844.pdf Could AT2 be the answer to cryptocurrency's energy and performance problems? Blockchains are slow, wasteful and ill-suited for digital currencies, say researchers who believe they've found a better way Blockchains solve a hard problem: how to ensure consensus across a distributed, decentralised network, where messages arrive out of order if at all, where individual nodes may fail, and where a certain proportion may be actively malicious. The original blockchain, bitcoin, was designed to support a novel digital currency, and the issue its consensus algorithm solved was preventing double-spend. It also successfully introduced game theory for security: adversaries would have to spend more money on an attack than they could expect to gain financially. All this and the original protocol was just a few hundred lines of code. But this achievement came at a high cost in terms of energy use and performance. With bitcoin, a new leader is required to verify each block of transactions, that leader being the first device to complete a computationally heavy challenge (Proof of Work, PoW). As a result, the blockchain's throughput is painfully slow at around seven transactions per second (Visa claims it can do 56,000) and the whole process is massively wasteful of energy. These drawbacks have been surmounted, to some degree, in newer blockchain designs using overlay networks, sharding and different types of "proofs of" and by non-blockchain directed acyclic graphs (DAGs), but each requires tradeoffs in terms of centralisation, complexity or security. A group of researchers led by computer scientist Professor Rachid Guerraoui of Swiss University Ecole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne (EPFL) decided to look afresh at the problem. Is this gargantuan security apparatus, in which every node in a network of thousands or millions must come to a consensus about the ordering of events, really necessary everytime someone makes a purchase? Could a leaderless mechanism be applied to the problem instead? If so, could it be guaranteed to be reliably consistent, even when a certain number of nodes are malicious or faulty (Byzantine)? The headline answer, published in an initial paper last year, is that network-wide consensus is overkill for simple asset transfers. If cryptocurrencies could be rebooted, all the fossil fuels burned by miners of bitcoin and its clones could be left in the ground and Visa-level transaction speeds could be achieved without any loss of security or reliance on centralised control. As compact as Satoshi's original bitcoin protocol itself, the few hundred lines of code that make up their Asynchronous Trusted Transfers (AT2) algorithm could solve some of the tricky problems that have plagued decentralised token-based networks from the off. AT2 can be used to validate transactions within two different decentralised networking scenarios: (1) permissioned or small unpermissioned networks, and (2) global scale unpermissioned networks. In the first case, the algorithm uses quorum for validating actions, whereby a certain proportion of the network's nodes must agree an action is correct before it can take place. The second scenario, networks made up of very large number of machines (nodes), uses probabilistic sampling. Instead of asking all nodes it checks a number of randomly selected nodes for their viewpoint. This is much more efficient and scalable than the deterministic quorum but carries a tiny (ca. 10-15) possibility of failure. Doing away with network-wide consensus means AT2 sidesteps the bane of decentralised networks, the FLP Impossibility - the theory that in a fully asynchronous system, a deterministic consensus algorithm cannot be safe, live and fault-tolerant. Computing caught up with Matteo Monti, who worked on the statistical aspects of AT2, and by email with Guerraoui to find out more. We also spoke to David Irvine of networking firm MaidSafe, which has adopted AT2 to simplify its consensus process. Incentivising improvements We asked Monti (pictured) to summarise the innovation that AT2 brings to the table. "What we noticed is that there's a specific subclass of problems that can be solved on a decentralised, distributed network without requiring consensus," he said. "The main use for consensus at the moment, cryptocurrency transactions, is part of that class. We can solve this using a weaker abstraction and in doing so you gain the ability to work in a completely asynchronous environment." Bitcoin doesn't even solve consensus well. It solves eventual consensus which an even weaker abstraction, he added, whereas AT2 can guarantee strong eventual consistency. Another issue it tackles is PoW's incentivization model which means that improvements in technology do not translate into a better performing network. "With bitcoin, the bottleneck is always electricity. If everyone doubles their computational speed it's not going to change the efficiency of the network. Everyone's competing not to compute but to waste energy." In place of PoW, AT2 uses ‘Proof of Bandwidth', i.e. evidence of recent interaction, to verify that a node is real. Since it doesn't rely on consensus, the performance of AT2 should allow messaging speeds across the network that approach the theoretical maximum, and improvements in hardware will translate into better overall performance. Security measures Blockchains like bitcoin are extremely resilient against Sybil attacks; bitcoin is still running after all, in the face of unwavering opposition from powerful nation states and bankers. Sybil attacks are a major vulnerability in permissionless decentralised networks where anyone can join anonymously, but there are others too. Monti said the most challenging aspect of designing the AT2 algorithm was distilling all the potential types of dangerous Byzantine behaviour into a manageable set so they could be treated using probability theory. As a result of studying many possible failure scenarios, including Sybil, the algorithm is able to quickly react to deviations from the norm. Other security features flow from the fact that each network node needs to know only a limited amount about its counterparts for the system to function. For example, the randomness used in sampling operations is generated locally on the calling device rather than on the network, making this vector hard to utilise by an attacker looking to influence events. Signals are passed across the network via a messaging system called Byzantine Reliable Broadcasting (BRB) a gossip-based method by which nodes can quickly and reliably come to an agreement about a message even if some are Byzantine. As a result of these features, AT2 does not rely on economic game theory for security, said Monti. "I'd go as far as saying that the moment you need to implement an economic disadvantage to attacking the system, it means that you failed to make it impossible to attack the system. We don't care about your interests in attacking the system. What we want to achieve is a proof that no matter what you do, the system will not be compromised." ‘Crypto-Twitter' AT2 starts with the simple idea that rather than requiring the whole network to maintain a time-ordered record of my transactions (as with a blockchain or DAG), the only person who needs to keep that tally is me. If I decide to spend some money, I merely announce that fact to the network over BRB and this request will be held in a memory snapshot escrow. Depending on the network type, a representative sample or a quorum of other nodes then check my balance and inspect my ordered transaction history to ensure that the funds haven't already been spent (each transaction has a unique sequential ID) and provided all is correct the transaction is guaranteed to go through, even if up to a third of those validators are malicious. If I try to cheat, the transaction will be blocked. Monti likens a wallet on an AT2 network to a social media timeline. "What we've proved, essentially, is that you can have a cryptocurrency on Twitter," he explained. "A payment works in two steps. First, there's a withdrawal from my account via a tweet, then the second step is a deposit, or a retweet. I tweet a message saying I want to pay Bob. Bob then retweets this message on his own timeline, and in the act of retweeting he's depositing money in his account. "So everyone has their own independent timeline and while the messages - my tweets - are strictly ordered, that's only in my own timeline; I don't care about ordering relative to other timelines. If I try to pay someone else, it will be obvious by the sequence of tweets in my account, and my account only, whether I can perform that payment. "In contrast, consensus effectively squeezes all of the messages into a unique timeline on which everybody agrees. But this is overkill, you don't need it. We can prove that it still works even if the ordering is partial and not total, and this enables us to switch from consensus to reliable broadcast." But of course, nothing comes for free. AT2 can verify exchanges of tokenised assets, but aside from arrangements between a small number of opted-in parties, it does not have the ability to support smart contracts of the type that are viable on ethereum and other blockchains, because this does require network-wide consensus. Guerraoui said his team is working on "refinements and extensions" to support such functionality in the future. Early adopters AT2 is still pretty ‘cutting edge'. Three papers have been accepted for peer review the latest published in February, but it provides the sort of efficiencies and simplifications that could bring real progress. Guerraoui said AT2 has "received interest from many groups including companies ‘selling' blockchain approaches, as well as companies and organisations using such approaches". One organisation that has already picked up on the potential of AT2 is Scotland's MaidSafe, creator of the SAFE Network. MaidSafe is already using AT2 to replace its Parsec consensus algorithm, which testing showed was indeed overkill for many network operations. CEO David Irvine said he and his colleagues came across AT2 while working on another way of propagating changes to data without consensus, conflict-free data replicated types (CRDTs), promptly forked the code and started to apply it. SAFE, currently in Alpha, is a sharded network, meaning it's subdivided into small semi-autonomous sections. On a network level, the way it works is that trusted 'elder' nodes vote on a requested action then pass instructions to other sections to carry it out. AT2 allows the initial task of accumulating the votes for an action, which had been done by the elders using a consensus algorithm, to be moved off the network and onto the requesting client which is much more lightweight and efficient. Once a quorum of votes has been gathered, the client simply resubmits the request and the elders will ensure it's carried out. The system is much simpler and should be more secure too. "It's 200 lines of logic compared to 15,000 for a start," Irvine said. AT2 is not just used to validate token transfers. By the same mechanism, it can also be used to authorise requests to store or change data. Together with CRDTs, which guarantee that such changes cannot fail, this makes for a very tight and efficient ship, said Irvine. "AT2 is for us a missing link. The difficulty of several nodes agreeing is simplified by the initiator taking on the effort of accumulating quorum votes. It seems so simple but in fact, it's an amazing innovation. It certainly falls into the category of 'why didn't I think of that?'."
BitOffer Institute: After halving, Bitcoin likely hitting above 100k
https://preview.redd.it/f9f8sdabmm851.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=c035a14edf1bffeceee3db7dba24e28bb6cdc653 The currency founding block was born on January 3, 2009. Satoshi Nakamoto designs that the miners can obtain 50 BTC rewards with the packaging of one block. The number of bitcoins created about every 10 minutes which has halved every four years from 2012. Since the maximum supply of bitcoins is 21 million, halving means it will take longer for all bitcoins to circulation. But it also means there will be limited bitcoins over time. Historically, halving bitcoin has proven to be an important catalyst for a new bull market in the currency. On November 28, 2012, bitcoin been halved for the first time, alongside with block awards reduced from 50 BTCS per 10 minutes to 25. The total issued amount of BTC is 21 million, with the improvement of people’s cognition and consensus on Bitcoin, the scarcity of Bitcoin shows obvious after halved. While other factors in the market remain stable, the relationship between supply and demand will determine the price of goods. In 2012, before the halving, the price of Bitcoin was around $12. After November 28, the price rose to the peak of $1,175. On December 4, 2013, the price doubled by 100 times and set an all-time high for Bitcoin at that time. This has helped the earlier bitcoin owners to achieve wealth freedom and increased the public awareness of the value of bitcoin. On July 9, 2016, the 420,000th bitcoin block was completed, and the block reward was halved for the second time, which reduced from 25 BTC in 10 minutes to 12.5. This halving increased the scarcity of Bitcoin and alongside with the bull market of Bitcoin again. At the second halving, the price of bitcoin was around $660, after the halving, the price firstly experienced more than three months of backtracking, then suffered over seven months of sideways trading, eventually skyrocketed. By December 16, 2017, the price of Bitcoin reached $19,991 at its peak, a new record with an increase of nearly 30 times. After twice time of bull markets in which bitcoin was halved, many institutions stepped into the market, countless investors saw the infinite possibilities of its future. Image how long would it take a traditional industry to multiply its capital 30 times? But in the currency circle, it only takes one year, which is why institutions and retail investors are unanimously bullish on Bitcoin, and many even use it as a tool to avoid risks. This year marks the third time that bitcoin has halved. On May 12, the number of bitcoin block awards was reduced from 12.5 to 6.25. According to the results of the previous halving, where does the price will go? https://preview.redd.it/9hgnln2emm851.png?width=900&format=png&auto=webp&s=ce37be510e643d9aa2daa690ec4a2b569b771508 Through the halving, numerous investors have seen the huge business opportunity behind Bitcoin. In earlier 2020, many large organization institutions started to lay out BTC. According to a recent report released by Glassnode, the number of whales that holding more than 1,000 bitcoins has increased sharply since 2016. This data reflects a strong bullish signal after Bitcoin halved for the third time. After the first time of halving, the price of Bitcoin increased more than 100 times, and after the first time of halving, the price of Bitcoin increased more than 30 times. History doesn’t repeat itself — but it often rhymes. According to Lucian, the chief analyst at BitOffer Exchange, said that the bitcoin will have a bull market within a few months after the halving, with the increase of at least 10 times, that is, it is expected to break the $100,000 price. Therefore, it is the best time to buy Bitcoin. However, rather than buying Bitcoin, it is better to trade Bitcoin ETF at BitOffer, which starts with a minimum yield of 3 times. Besides, it also includes the intelligent dynamic warehousing mechanism and the calculation of fund compound interest, with a maximum yield of 17 times. If the price of bitcoin goes up more than 10 times, the ETF will go up as much as 170 times. Without a doubt, the Bitcoin ETF is the best investment choice.
I am still very much beginner and have been researching more and more about Bitcoin -- thanks to a lot of people here who have helped to answer a lot of my questions earlier! I came across a very insightful book called "Blockchain: Bubble or Revolution" and found it to one of a few resources that offer a very balanced view of the technology. As a bitcoin investor, I heard a lot about the hypes and also heard a lot from the haters but most seem to simply dismiss it as speculative, claim that it's Ponzi scheme or like the tech but not sure whether what form of Crypto will win yet. However, the book was able to inform me about the real problems that Bitcoin is facing. What are your thoughts on these issues? How seriously these problems are being addressed in the Bitcoin community and are you concerned about them?
Low capacity at about 3 transactions per second. (I am aware of Segwit and Lightning network but do not quite understand about the timeline and how effective are these solutions)
Centralization in the hands of a few (mostly Chinese miners) who refuse to make a change that would make Bitcoin more popular that would eat into their mining profits. The problem here is that the Chinese government likes to exercise control over its top tech companies. This means that the Chinese government could easily censor or interfere with the Bitcoin network, limit mining, or otherwise harm the Bitcoin ecosystem, something it’s threatened to do repeatedly. A powerful central government and a handful of big companies could control the future of Bitcoin. This is not the world that Satoshi envisioned.
The community's inability to agree on anything -- including the popular amendment to grow block size or the number of transactions in the block (seem like an obvious solution but they can't agree on this??). This would let Bitcoin handle more payment per second and lower the fee but it seems like those who benefit from this want the fee to be higher?
The "civil war" in the Bitcoin community over the block size increases amendment which leads to widespread censorship of opposing views on the Bitcoin official subreddit, forums, and websites. (now I am not sure if this thread will be deleted??)
The fact the majority of Bitcoin clients (full node) run on just one company's software -- Bitcoin Core Client Software. The Verge reports that Bitcoin Core’s code is so complicated, and the dangers of getting something wrong so high, that only a handful of programmers can actually understand the full system and implement changes.
Deep fundamental reasons behind all conflicts with Tezos Foundation
Let's first take a look at two core ideas behind Tezos protocol:
In Bitcoin protocol, there are those who create blocks (miners) and users. Those are two fundamentally different groups. As a result of that they do have fundamentally different interests. When those interests are aligned, it's all work very well. However, sometimes those interests might get misaligned. Miners might want one set of changes in the protocol while users might want another set of changes. Tezos procotol solves this problem via proof of stake's baking mechanism by allowing users of XTZ to become block creators (like miners in Bitcoin protocol). Users/holders of XTZ and block creators are now fundamentally the same group and therefore there is no interest misalignment. Moreover, as a consequence of choosing proof of stake over proof of work, almost anyone can become a baker at low cost. Of course, there is a minimum requirement but it can be easily reduced through voting if price XTZ goes too high;
Although per (1) problem of misalignment between users and miners solved, Tezos protocol make one step further. Namely, there is self-amending mechanisms in protocol. Through of the set of voting rounds, attached bounties (via dillution), there is a deterministic path to resolve disputes in upgrading Tezos protocol. Nobody knows the future, nobody knows how protocol should look like after 5-10-20 years. That's why it's very important to have self-amending procedure. Without deterministic path to protocol upgrade, you will have fork-wars like in Bitcoin. As a result of these fork-wars, you now have Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin SV. Also, with built-in bounties via dillution, Tezos protocol guarantees funding for its further development;
There is third core idea behind Tezos protocol. Namely, formal verification friendly, low-level and explicit smart contract language - Michelson. While it's very important feature, it's not relevant for this discussion. Now imagine you are going back in time when Tezos protocol isn't implemented yet, only draft whitepaper. How would you bring it to life if you were original author? If there were no crypto-currencies, then all you have to do is to take time and implement minimum viable product (MVP) on your own. May be you might do it with co-founder but it's not really necessary for releasing the first version of protocol in absence of any competition. However, the field was already crowded and time works against you. It would be necessary for project's survival to be as fast as possible in such dynamic field. You need to raise funds to hire dozen of strong programmers to implement Tezos protocol and on top of that to fund development of ecosystem in Tezos network. Namely, wallets, higher-level languages on top of low-level Michelson, education materials for future smart contract writers, new projects similar to 0x, Maker, Compound, Cryptokitties etc. Now, I would like you to make a pause and think what is Tezos protocol. It tries to align incentives of parties using game-theoretic constructs! And now, I would like you to make second pause and think what crypto-currencies are all about in broader sense. Crypto-currencies are about eliminating centralization and unnecessary middle-mans. One of the biggest middle-mans is governments and their legal system. People who are in the space for long time should know how much crypto-currencies influenced by Austrian School of Economics (read Hayek's book "Denationalization Of Money" (1976) and early Satoshi Nakamoto's posts). With that in mind (spirit behind Tezos and crypto-currencies in general), how would you fund development of Tezos protocol and later its initial ecosystem? The correct answer is to setup decentralized autonomus organization (DAO). Initial DAO on Ethereum protocol since you don't have any Tezos protocol implementations (remember, we are still back in time!). This DAO will be used to develop Tezos protocol itself and leverage power of smart contracts to correctly align incentives for development of Tezos protocol. Namely, backers of this DAO would get ERC20 token representing voting and governance power. For example, let's say founders raised 250M USD worth in ETH and all of these money will be locked in smart contract. Only backers can unlock funds from smart contract by tranches as Tezos protocol developers making progress. It would be similar to traditional world - seed round, round A, round B etc. When Tezos mainnet goes live, backers would receive proportional amount of XTZ as their ERC20 voting tokens on Ethereum. Since that initial DAO would still have tons of ETH locked by the time Tezos mainnet released, those proceeds will be used to fund wallet developers, high-language developers, and so on (via voting by backers of course). In this scenario, I would envision that the first big project after Tezos mainnet launched would be to build trustless, decentralized bridge between Tezos blockchain and Ethereum blockchain. Simply, because it would be good to migrate intial DAO and its ETH funds into Tezos blockchain. There are only two downsides with this approach:
You can't raise funds in Bitcoin but who cares if it's 100M or even 50M (still huge amount of money);
Many people in crypto-space will make fun of you because you just setup DAO on Ethereum while developing Ethereum competitor;
Neither of these two downsides is important. Ultimate upside is that backers has direct control over how funds are spent because they would be the only ones who can unlock funds by voting for proposals. On meta-level, you would have beautiful symmetry. Namely, you develop Tezos protocol and its ecosystem, using the similar ideas and spirit as Tezos protocol itself! But we all know that it was never happened! We all know drama with Gevers who tried to capture power at Tezos Foundation. We all know that there is no RPC command in Tezos github to vote out Tezos Foundation members ;) We all know that we are not in control of Tezos Foundation. Tezos Foundation is a swiss non-profit organization with its own board and we are not part of it. Tezos Foundation is govern under Swiss law and most of you are not even Swiss citizens. Here is the question why Breitmans suddently decided to throw away all fundamental principles behind crypto-currencies and just went all-in with traditional world? Why we all got stuck with our own mini-Washington, namely Tezos Foundation? There is one reason why Breitmans decided to throw away all their principles and stick with this strange scheme involving Swiss foundations. The reason is ... socialism. You might think I'm joking but stay with me. There were roaring 1920s and following 1929 stock market crash (by the way that was actually caused by government creating credit bubble). Republican (but still a socialist) Herbert Hoover created depression from 1929 crash. Franklin Roosevelt made this depression truly great! He imposed price-controls and outright gold confiscation (check "Executive Order 6102"). One of his most terrible pieces of paternalistic socialist legislation was "Securities Act of 1933". And this is the reason why Breitmans tried so hard escape iron hand of Roosevelt's zombie. The same month as Tezos fundraiser, SEC issued statement about the most famous Ethereum DAO: https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2017-131 https://www.sec.gov/litigation/investreport/34-81207.pdf Basically, they tried to say that DAO violated their 1933 Securities Act (aka Roosevelt zombie). I'm not claiming that Breitmans anticipated this exact SEC statement about Ethereum DAO. All I'm saying that they are smart enough to understand that SEC might come after them as well. It doesn't matter if SEC had right to do so. It doesn't matter that XTZ is not security at all. Only people outside of hardcore old school crypto-community would believe in such non-sense as rights. The truth is that any government is essentially an army which controls a territory and they (not you!) decide what they think is right or wrong. Breitmans knew that SEC might chase them with bloody machete, so they decided to play traditional game which many played when Switzerland still had numbered accounts. Namely, using Switzerland as old-style traditional escape from Roosevelt zombies. Unfortunately, for them they got in hands of people who knew too well how actually Swiss foundations work. We all remember how Gevers tried to exploit Swiss law about foundations to seize control over foundation's assets. Now we have new drama. But fundamentally, it's all because Breitmans choose Swiss law over Ethereum smart-contracts. Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming Breitmans. I really think that their fear of Roosevelt zombie with bloody machete led them to setup weird foundation in Switzerland. In normal circumstances, I don't see any rational reason not to setup DAO as I described above. Zooming out, on the bigger scale, you might see that these two worlds (i.e. traditional government law and crypto) are not compatible at all. You just can't have both of two worlds. For the same reason, I don't believe in STOs. It's a nice toy, a temporary thing to bootstrap your Defi ecosystem in Tezos but nothing more than that. Every STO, at some point, rely on some centralized entity which is controlled by law of some jurisdiction. Once government (aka army which control territories and make visibility of its own legitimacy via elections and passing laws) decides that your STO is not compliant, all these STO tokens will be worthless overnight. More on this in my another long post: https://www.reddit.com/MakerDAO/comments/de0sys/kyc_is_absolutely_not_acceptable_for_makerdao/ Regardless of what's happen with Tezos Foundation, I strongly believe that Tezos protocol will thrive. Mainnet went life and the jinn that can't be put back in the bottle! Update: Many here criticized my position regarding STOs. That's partly my fault with being too lax with terminology (once I wrote big post, I didn't have much energy to clarify on STOs in the end). By STO, I mean any tokens backed by regulated assets (again, I know it's lax definition). I assumed almost everyone here is for open, borderless finance. As a result of that, I assumed that you want to make these tokens available for everyone and that's why one day government will put pressure on such STO issuers to freeze tokens. However, it's turned out that some people excited for STOs being fully regulated from the start and therefore these tokens wouldn't be available for everyone. Basically, some people see main benefits of STOs as being pro-actively censorship friendly. In other words, they want to move all compliance on blockchain. Whereas, I see very existence of government regulations as root of all problems. Having said that, I'm not against STOs but I'm not very excited about them either. You have to make great mental leap to understand that fully-regulated STOs fundamentally solving wrong problem. You have to build fully censorship resistant technology, not fully censorship friendly. No matter how big market for STOs, it's still several orders of magnitude smaller than potential world of fully-inclusive finance without any borders whatsoever. Tezos is very well equipped for this ambitious task especially with new privacy features coming. Remember, Satoshi Nakamoto didn't ask permission from governments before releasing Bitcoin.
﷽ The Federal Reserve and the United States government are pumping extreme amounts of money into the economy, already totaling over $484 billion. They are doing so because it already had a goal to inflate the United States Dollar (USD) so that the market can continue to all-time highs. It has always had this goal. They do not care how much inflation goes up by now as we are going into a depression with the potential to totally crash the US economy forever. They believe the only way to save the market from going to zero or negative values is to inflate it so much that it cannot possibly crash that low. Even if the market does not dip that low, inflation serves the interest of powerful people. The impending crash of the stock market has ramifications for Bitcoin, as, though there is no direct ongoing-correlation between the two, major movements in traditional markets will necessarily affect Bitcoin. According to the Blockchain Center’s Cryptocurrency Correlation Tool, Bitcoin is not correlated with the stock market. However, when major market movements occur, they send ripples throughout the financial ecosystem which necessary affect even ordinarily uncorrelated assets. Therefore, Bitcoin will reach X price on X date after crashing to a price of X by X date.
Stock Market Crash
The Federal Reserve has caused some serious consternation with their release of ridiculous amounts of money in an attempt to buoy the economy. At face value, it does not seem to have any rationale or logic behind it other than keeping the economy afloat long enough for individuals to profit financially and politically. However, there is an underlying basis to what is going on which is important to understand in order to profit financially. All markets are functionally price probing systems. They constantly undergo a price-discovery process. In a fiat system, money is an illusory and a fundamentally synthetic instrument with no intrinsic value – similar to Bitcoin. The primary difference between Bitcoin is the underlying technology which provides a slew of benefits that fiat does not. Fiat, however, has an advantage in being able to have the support of powerful nation-states which can use their might to insure the currency’s prosperity. Traditional stock markets are composed of indices (pl. of index). Indices are non-trading market instruments which are essentially summaries of business values which comprise them. They are continuously recalculated throughout a trading day, and sometimes reflected through tradable instruments such as Exchange Traded Funds or Futures. Indices are weighted by market capitalizations of various businesses. Price theory essentially states that when a market fails to take out a new low in a given range, it will have an objective to take out the high. When a market fails to take out a new high, it has an objective to make a new low. This is why price-time charts go up and down, as it does this on a second-by-second, minute-by-minute, day-by-day, and even century-by-century basis. Therefore, market indices will always return to some type of bull market as, once a true low is formed, the market will have a price objective to take out a new high outside of its’ given range – which is an all-time high. Instruments can only functionally fall to zero, whereas they can grow infinitely. So, why inflate the economy so much? Deflation is disastrous for central banks and markets as it raises the possibility of producing an overall price objective of zero or negative values. Therefore, under a fractional reserve system with a fiat currency managed by a central bank – the goal of the central bank is to depreciate the currency. The dollar is manipulated constantly with the intention of depreciating its’ value. Central banks have a goal of continued inflated fiat values. They tend to ordinarily contain it at less than ten percent (10%) per annum in order for the psyche of the general populace to slowly adjust price increases. As such, the markets are divorced from any other logic. Economic policy is the maintenance of human egos, not catering to fundamental analysis. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) growth is well-known not to be a measure of actual growth or output. It is a measure of increase in dollars processed. Banks seek to produce raising numbers which make society feel like it is growing economically, making people optimistic. To do so, the currency is inflated, though inflation itself does not actually increase growth. When society is optimistic, it spends and engages in business – resulting in actual growth. It also encourages people to take on credit and debts, creating more fictional fiat. Inflation is necessary for markets to continue to reach new heights, generating positive emotional responses from the populace, encouraging spending, encouraging debt intake, further inflating the currency, and increasing the sale of government bonds. The fiat system only survives by generating more imaginary money on a regular basis. Bitcoin investors may profit from this by realizing that stock investors as a whole always stand to profit from the market so long as it is managed by a central bank and does not collapse entirely. If those elements are filled, it has an unending price objective to raise to new heights. It also allows us to realize that this response indicates that the higher-ups believe that the economy could crash in entirety, and it may be wise for investors to have multiple well-thought-out exit strategies.
Economic Analysis of Bitcoin
The reason why the Fed is so aggressively inflating the economy is due to fears that it will collapse forever or never rebound. As such, coupled with a global depression, a huge demand will appear for a reserve currency which is fundamentally different than the previous system. Bitcoin, though a currency or asset, is also a market. It also undergoes a constant price-probing process. Unlike traditional markets, Bitcoin has the exact opposite goal. Bitcoin seeks to appreciate in value and not depreciate. This has a quite different affect in that Bitcoin could potentially become worthless and have a price objective of zero. Bitcoin was created in 2008 by a now famous mysterious figure known as Satoshi Nakamoto and its’ open source code was released in 2009. It was the first decentralized cryptocurrency to utilize a novel protocol known as the blockchain. Up to one megabyte of data may be sent with each transaction. It is decentralized, anonymous, transparent, easy to set-up, and provides myriad other benefits. Bitcoin is not backed up by anything other than its’ own technology. Bitcoin is can never be expected to collapse as a framework, even were it to become worthless. The stock market has the potential to collapse in entirety, whereas, as long as the internet exists, Bitcoin will be a functional system with a self-authenticating framework. That capacity to persist regardless of the actual price of Bitcoin and the deflationary nature of Bitcoin means that it has something which fiat does not – inherent value. Bitcoin is based on a distributed database known as the “blockchain.” Blockchains are essentially decentralized virtual ledger books, replete with pages known as “blocks.” Each page in a ledger is composed of paragraph entries, which are the actual transactions in the block. Blockchains store information in the form of numerical transactions, which are just numbers. We can consider these numbers digital assets, such as Bitcoin. The data in a blockchain is immutable and recorded only by consensus-based algorithms. Bitcoin is cryptographic and all transactions are direct, without intermediary, peer-to-peer. Bitcoin does not require trust in a central bank. It requires trust on the technology behind it, which is open-source and may be evaluated by anyone at any time. Furthermore, it is impossible to manipulate as doing so would require all of the nodes in the network to be hacked at once – unlike the stock market which is manipulated by the government and “Market Makers”. Bitcoin is also private in that, though the ledge is openly distributed, it is encrypted. Bitcoin’s blockchain has one of the greatest redundancy and information disaster recovery systems ever developed. Bitcoin has a distributed governance model in that it is controlled by its’ users. There is no need to trust a payment processor or bank, or even to pay fees to such entities. There are also no third-party fees for transaction processing. As the ledge is immutable and transparent it is never possible to change it – the data on the blockchain is permanent. The system is not easily susceptible to attacks as it is widely distributed. Furthermore, as users of Bitcoin have their private keys assigned to their transactions, they are virtually impossible to fake. No lengthy verification, reconciliation, nor clearing process exists with Bitcoin. Bitcoin is based on a proof-of-work algorithm. Every transaction on the network has an associated mathetical “puzzle”. Computers known as miners compete to solve the complex cryptographic hash algorithm that comprises that puzzle. The solution is proof that the miner engaged in sufficient work. The puzzle is known as a nonce, a number used only once. There is only one major nonce at a time and it issues 12.5 Bitcoin. Once it is solved, the fact that the nonce has been solved is made public. A block is mined on average of once every ten minutes. However, the blockchain checks every 2,016,000 minutes (approximately four years) if 201,600 blocks were mined. If it was faster, it increases difficulty by half, thereby deflating Bitcoin. If it was slower, it decreases, thereby inflating Bitcoin. It will continue to do this until zero Bitcoin are issued, projected at the year 2140. On the twelfth of May, 2020, the blockchain will halve the amount of Bitcoin issued when each nonce is guessed. When Bitcoin was first created, fifty were issued per block as a reward to miners. 6.25 BTC will be issued from that point on once each nonce is solved. Unlike fiat, Bitcoin is a deflationary currency. As BTC becomes scarcer, demand for it will increase, also raising the price. In this, BTC is similar to gold. It is predictable in its’ output, unlike the USD, as it is based on a programmed supply. We can predict BTC’s deflation and inflation almost exactly, if not exactly. Only 21 million BTC will ever be produced, unless the entire network concedes to change the protocol – which is highly unlikely. Some of the drawbacks to BTC include congestion. At peak congestion, it may take an entire day to process a Bitcoin transaction as only three to five transactions may be processed per second. Receiving priority on a payment may cost up to the equivalent of twenty dollars ($20). Bitcoin mining consumes enough energy in one day to power a single-family home for an entire week.
Trading or Investing?
The fundamental divide in trading revolves around the question of market structure. Many feel that the market operates totally randomly and its’ behavior cannot be predicted. For the purposes of this article, we will assume that the market has a structure, but that that structure is not perfect. That market structure naturally generates chart patterns as the market records prices in time. In order to determine when the stock market will crash, causing a major decline in BTC price, we will analyze an instrument, an exchange traded fund, which represents an index, as opposed to a particular stock. The price patterns of the various stocks in an index are effectively smoothed out. In doing so, a more technical picture arises. Perhaps the most popular of these is the SPDR S&P Standard and Poor 500 Exchange Traded Fund ($SPY). In trading, little to no concern is given about value of underlying asset. We are concerned primarily about liquidity and trading ranges, which are the amount of value fluctuating on a short-term basis, as measured by volatility-implied trading ranges. Fundamental analysis plays a role, however markets often do not react to real-world factors in a logical fashion. Therefore, fundamental analysis is more appropriate for long-term investing. The fundamental derivatives of a chart are time (x-axis) and price (y-axis). The primary technical indicator is price, as everything else is lagging in the past. Price represents current asking price and incorrectly implementing positions based on price is one of the biggest trading errors. Markets and currencies ordinarily have noise, their tendency to back-and-fill, which must be filtered out for true pattern recognition. That noise does have a utility, however, in allowing traders second chances to enter favorable positions at slightly less favorable entry points. When you have any market with enough liquidity for historical data to record a pattern, then a structure can be divined. The market probes prices as part of an ongoing price-discovery process. Market technicians must sometimes look outside of the technical realm and use visual inspection to ascertain the relevance of certain patterns, using a qualitative eye that recognizes the underlying quantitative nature Markets and instruments rise slower than they correct, however they rise much more than they fall. In the same vein, instruments can only fall to having no worth, whereas they could theoretically grow infinitely and have continued to grow over time. Money in a fiat system is illusory. It is a fundamentally synthetic instrument which has no intrinsic value. Hence, the recent seemingly illogical fluctuations in the market. According to trade theory, the unending purpose of a market or instrument is to create and break price ranges according to the laws of supply and demand. We must determine when to trade based on each market inflection point as defined in price and in time as opposed to abandoning the trend (as the contrarian trading in this sub often does). Time and Price symmetry must be used to be in accordance with the trend. When coupled with a favorable risk to reward ratio, the ability to stay in the market for most of the defined time period, and adherence to risk management rules; the trader has a solid methodology for achieving considerable gains. We will engage in a longer term market-oriented analysis to avoid any time-focused pressure. The Bitcoin market is open twenty-four-hours a day, so trading may be done when the individual is ready, without any pressing need to be constantly alert. Let alone, we can safely project months in advance with relatively high accuracy. Bitcoin is an asset which an individual can both trade and invest, however this article will be focused on trading due to the wide volatility in BTC prices over the short-term.
Technical Indicator Analysis of Bitcoin
Technical indicators are often considered self-fulfilling prophecies due to mass-market psychology gravitating towards certain common numbers yielded from them. They are also often discounted when it comes to BTC. That means a trader must be especially aware of these numbers as they can prognosticate market movements. Often, they are meaningless in the larger picture of things.
Volume – derived from the market itself, it is mostly irrelevant. The major problem with volume for stocks is that the US market open causes tremendous volume surges eradicating any intrinsic volume analysis. This does not occur with BTC, as it is open twenty-four-seven. At major highs and lows, the market is typically anemic. Most traders are not active at terminal discretes (peaks and troughs) because of levels of fear. Volume allows us confidence in time and price symmetry market inflection points, if we observe low volume at a foretold range of values. We can rationalize that an absolute discrete is usually only discovered and anticipated by very few traders. As the general market realizes it, a herd mentality will push the market in the direction favorable to defending it. Volume is also useful for swing trading, as chances for swing’s validity increases if an increase in volume is seen on and after the swing’s activation. Volume is steadily decreasing. Lows and highs are reached when volume is lower.
Therefore, due to the relatively high volume on the 12th of March, we can safely determine that a low for BTC was not reached.
VIX – Volatility Index, this technical indicator indicates level of fear by the amount of options-based “insurance” in portfolios. A low VIX environment, less than 20 for the S&P index, indicates a stable market with a possible uptrend. A high VIX, over 20, indicates a possible downtrend. VIX is essentially useless for BTC as BTC-based options do not exist. It allows us to predict the market low for $SPY, which will have an indirect impact on BTC in the short term, likely leading to the yearly low. However, it is equally important to see how VIX is changing over time, if it is decreasing or increasing, as that indicates increasing or decreasing fear. Low volatility allows high leverage without risk or rest. Occasionally, markets do rise with high VIX.
As VIX is unusually high, in the forties, we can be confident that a downtrend for the S&P 500 is imminent.
RSI (Relative Strength Index): The most important technical indicator, useful for determining highs and lows when time symmetry is not availing itself. Sometimes analysis of RSI can conflict in different time frames, easiest way to use it is when it is at extremes – either under 30 or over 70. Extremes can be used for filtering highs or lows based on time-and-price window calculations. Highly instructive as to major corrective clues and indicative of continued directional movement. Must determine if longer-term RSI values find support at same values as before. It is currently at 73.56.
Secondly, RSI may be used as a high or low filter, to observe the level that short-term RSI reaches in counter-trend corrections. Repetitions based on market movements based on RSI determine how long a trade should be held onto. Once a short term RSI reaches an extreme and stay there, the other RSI’s should gradually reach the same extremes. Once all RSI’s are at extreme highs, a trend confirmation should occur and RSI’s should drop to their midpoint.
Trend Definition Analysis of Bitcoin
Trend definition is highly powerful, cannot be understated. Knowledge of trend logic is enough to be a profitable trader, yet defining a trend is an arduous process. Multiple trends coexist across multiple time frames and across multiple market sectors. Like time structure, it makes the underlying price of the instrument irrelevant. Trend definitions cannot determine the validity of newly formed discretes. Trend becomes apparent when trades based in counter-trend inflection points continue to fail. Downtrends are defined as an instrument making lower lows and lower highs that are recurrent, additive, qualified swing setups. Downtrends for all instruments are similar, except forex. They are fast and complete much quicker than uptrends. An average downtrend is 18 months, something which we will return to. An uptrend inception occurs when an instrument reaches a point where it fails to make a new low, then that low will be tested. After that, the instrument will either have a deep range retracement or it may take out the low slightly, resulting in a double-bottom. A swing must eventually form. A simple way to roughly determine trend is to attempt to draw a line from three tops going upwards (uptrend) or a line from three bottoms going downwards (downtrend). It is not possible to correctly draw a downtrend line on the BTC chart, but it is possible to correctly draw an uptrend – indicating that the overall trend is downwards. The only mitigating factor is the impending stock market crash.
Time Symmetry Analysis of Bitcoin
Time is the movement from the past through the present into the future. It is a measurement in quantified intervals. In many ways, our perception of it is a human construct. It is more powerful than price as time may be utilized for a trade regardless of the market inflection point’s price. Were it possible to perfectly understand time, price would be totally irrelevant due to the predictive certainty time affords. Time structure is easier to learn than price, but much more difficult to apply with any accuracy. It is the hardest aspect of trading to learn, but also the most rewarding. Humans do not have the ability to recognize every time window, however the ability to define market inflection points in terms of time is the single most powerful trading edge. Regardless, price should not be abandoned for time alone. Time structure analysis It is inherently flawed, as such the markets have a fail-safe, which is Price Structure. Even though Time is much more powerful, Price Structure should never be completely ignored. Time is the qualifier for Price and vice versa. Time can fail by tricking traders into counter-trend trading. Time is a predestined trade quantifier, a filter to slow trades down, as it allows a trader to specifically focus on specific time windows and rest at others. It allows for quantitative measurements to reach deterministic values and is the primary qualifier for trends. Time structure should be utilized before price structure, and it is the primary trade criterion which requires support from price. We can see price structure on a chart, as areas of mathematical support or resistance, but we cannot see time structure. Time may be used to tell us an exact point in the future where the market will inflect, after Price Theory has been fulfilled. In the present, price objectives based on price theory added to possible future times for market inflection points give us the exact time of market inflection points and price. Time Structure is repetitions of time or inherent cycles of time, occurring in a methodical way to provide time windows which may be utilized for inflection points. They are not easily recognized and not easily defined by a price chart as measuring and observing time is very exact. Time structure is not a science, yet it does require precise measurements. Nothing is certain or definite. The critical question must be if a particular approach to time structure is currently lucrative or not. We will measure it in intervals of 180 bars. Our goal is to determine time windows, when the market will react and when we should pay the most attention. By using time repetitions, the fact that market inflection points occurred at some point in the past and should, therefore, reoccur at some point in the future, we should obtain confidence as to when SPY will reach a market inflection point. Time repetitions are essentially the market’s memory. However, simply measuring the time between two points then trying to extrapolate into the future does not work. Measuring time is not the same as defining time repetitions. We will evaluate past sessions for market inflection points, whether discretes, qualified swings, or intra-range. Then records the times that the market has made highs or lows in a comparable time period to the future one seeks to trade in. What follows is a time Histogram – A grouping of times which appear close together, then segregated based on that closeness. Time is aligned into combined histogram of repetitions and cycles, however cycles are irrelevant on a daily basis. If trading on an hourly basis, do not use hours.
Daily Lows Mode for those Months: 1, 1, 2, 4, 12, 17, 18, 24, 25, 28, 29, 30
Hourly Lows Mode for those Months (Military time): 0100, 0200, 0200, 0400, 0700, 0700, 0800, 1200, 1200, 1700, 2000, 2200
Minute Lows Mode for those Months: 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 00, 09, 09, 59, 59, 59, 59
Day of the Week Lows (last twenty-six weeks):
Weighted Times are repetitions which appears multiple times within the same list, observed and accentuated once divided into relevant sections of the histogram. They are important in the presently defined trading time period and are similar to a mathematical mode with respect to a series. Phased times are essentially periodical patterns in histograms, though they do not guarantee inflection points Evaluating the yearly lows, we see that BTC tends to have its lows primarily at the beginning of every year, with a possibility of it being at the end of the year. Following the same methodology, we get the middle of the month as the likeliest day. However, evaluating the monthly lows for the past year, the beginning and end of the month are more likely for lows. Therefore, we have two primary dates from our histogram. 1/1/21, 1/15/21, and 1/29/21 2:00am, 8:00am, 12:00pm, or 10:00pm In fact, the high for this year was February the 14th, only thirty days off from our histogram calculations. The 8.6-Year Armstrong-Princeton Global Economic Confidence model states that 2.15 year intervals occur between corrections, relevant highs and lows. 2.15 years from the all-time peak discrete is February 9, 2020 – a reasonably accurate depiction of the low for this year (which was on 3/12/20). (Taking only the Armstrong model into account, the next high should be Saturday, April 23, 2022). Therefore, the Armstrong model indicates that we have actually bottomed out for the year! Bear markets cannot exist in perpetuity whereas bull markets can. Bear markets will eventually have price objectives of zero, whereas bull markets can increase to infinity. It can occur for individual market instruments, but not markets as a whole. Since bull markets are defined by low volatility, they also last longer. Once a bull market is indicated, the trader can remain in a long position until a new high is reached, then switch to shorts. The average bear market is eighteen months long, giving us a date of August 19th, 2021 for the end of this bear market – roughly speaking. They cannot be shorter than fifteen months for a central-bank controlled market, which does not apply to Bitcoin. (Otherwise, it would continue until Sunday, September 12, 2021.) However, we should expect Bitcoin to experience its’ exponential growth after the stock market re-enters a bull market. Terry Laundy’s T-Theory implemented by measuring the time of an indicator from peak to trough, then using that to define a future time window. It is similar to an head-and-shoulders pattern in that it is the process of forming the right side from a synthetic technical indicator. If the indicator is making continued lows, then time is recalculated for defining the right side of the T. The date of the market inflection point may be a price or indicator inflection date, so it is not always exactly useful. It is better to make us aware of possible market inflection points, clustered with other data. It gives us an RSI low of May, 9th 2020. The Bradley Cycle is coupled with volatility allows start dates for campaigns or put options as insurance in portfolios for stocks. However, it is also useful for predicting market moves instead of terminal dates for discretes. Using dates which correspond to discretes, we can see how those dates correspond with changes in VIX. Therefore, our timeline looks like:
2/14/20 – yearly high ($10372 USD)
3/12/20 – yearly low thus far ($3858 USD)
5/9/20 – T-Theory true yearly low (BTC between 4863 and 3569)
With this halving we move from the billions to the millions of satoshi reward era
This halving is special in that miners, for the first time, receive less than a billion satoshi when they find a block. 625 million satoshi per block, instead of 1,25 billion. There is no such thing as a bitcoin in the blockchain, only satoshis. It started with 5 billion satoshi per block. It will take another 10 halvings (40 years) before we'll move from the million to the thousand reward era (610351 satoshi).
BitShark.io, Bitcoin Faucet similar to Freebitco.in
I haven't seen Bitshark mentioned here so I thought I would make a post. BitShark is a fairly new mining faucet where users receive a reward in satoshi. It's a standard once per hour faucet. Every hour, you click on the miner until the rock breaks and bitcoin comes out. The number of BTC that you get is randomly in the range of 5 Satoshi to 0.1 BTC for each claim accoring to their website. For me, I get about 30 satoshi per time on average. The minimum withdrawal is 0.00030000 BTC. They also have other features to multiply your earnings, Dice Game and Crash Game. Personally, I haven't withdrawn yet and I will update the post once I reach the minimum amount. I had seen payment proofs from other users and I decided to start using it. My ref link & no ref link for those willing to give it a try.
What's the chance of Bitcoin becoming a real currency.
There are a lot of bitcoin lovers and people who are certain bitcoin will replace all fiat. But these 3 points make me doubt it and wondered what you all have to say about this: 1. Bitcoin can be transferred to old accounts/accounts without access anymore (result: loss in BTC). 2. The smallest we can go if all fiat is transferred to btc (all 21mil btc): 900000000000000000(total money supply)/(100000000(1 satoshi)*21000000(all btc) = 428 dollars per satoshi (not so useful). 3. If all miners stop at the last halving (because it's not profitable anymore) a 51% attack is literally doable by "anyone"?
Thus, 1 Satoshi = 0.00000001 Bitcoin. Satoshis and the Miner Subsidy Schedule. The total number of satoshis in existence is approximately 2.1 x 10 15 (21 million BSV), and they are distributed at a mathematically predictable rate using the miner subsidy formula. The miner subsidy, which began at 50 newly minted bitcoins per block, is scheduled to divide in 2 every 210,000 blocks, approximately How to Convert Satoshi to Bitcoin: Satoshi is the smallest fraction of a Bitcoin that can currently be sent: 0.00000001 BTC, that is, a hundredth of a millionth BTC. In the future, however, the protocol may be updated to allow further subdivisions. What is Bitcoin?Bitcoin is currently a type of digital currency in which encryption techniques are used to regulate the generation of units of Each bitcoin (BTC) is divisible to the 8th decimal place, so each BTC can be split into 100,000,000 units. Each unit of bitcoin, or 0.00000001 bitcoin, is called a satoshi. A Satoshi is the smallest unit of Bitcoin. Buy Satoshis At These Exchanges: The amount can vary anywhere from 100 Satoshis (0.000001BTC) up to 10,000 Satoshis and more (0.0001BTC). Usually after you receive your coins you need to wait a certain amount of time until you can ask for another batch. The original Bitcoin faucet was operated by Gavin Andresen, The Bitcoin Foundation’s chief scientist. It started out around 15 satoshis annual production. If you were to mine Bitcoin using this graphics card then you would be mining around a very low amount of just around 15 satoshis per year. Which does not even equate to $0.01 in US Dollar terms? This is without evening mentioning the $225 electricity cost it would take to turn the miner in the year.
Bitcoin Faucet: Extrabtc - 4 satoshis every 0 minutes (Faucetpay)
We make industrial bitcoin mining accessible for everyone. Freemining.co is everything you need for bitcoin cloud mining today. Get 2500 Satoshis daily in two minutes. Claim BTC is a completely FREE bitcoin faucet paying out up to60,000 Satoshi per day. Each time you visit the faucet you will receive a random amount of Satoshi selected from the 3,000 satoshis ... En este video les muestro como minar BITCOINS de forma gratuita con la web: Freemining https://freemining.co/391417 Pd: Para retirar es a partir de 200 000 Satoshis o 0.002BTC. En la web de ... How Bitcoin mining actually works - What is the "cryptographic puzzle"? - Duration: 14:13. Keifer Kif 78,508 views. 14:13. I can safely retire now. - Duration: 11:45. Dollar value: 22 satoshi per visit ... Bitcoin: 20000 Satoshi (No fee) Coinbase: 1000 Satoshi (No fee) ... New Free Bitcoin Mining Sites Without Investment 2020 ...