How Many People Actually Use Bitcoin in 2020? | by Jason

Ravencoin implements a blockchain which is optimized specifically for transferring assets.

Ravencoin includes a faster block reward time than bitcoin, and a change in the total number of coins. Ravencoin is free and open source and will be issued and mined transparently with no pre-mine, developer allocation or any other similar set aside. Ravencoin is intended to prioritize user control, privacy and censorship resistance and be jurisdiction agnostic, while allowing simple optional additional features for users based on need.
[link]

Bitcoin’s price needs to grow 100x to be worth a million dollars. Metcalfe’s law states that a network’s value is the square of the number of users. So if the total number of bitcoin users only gets 10x bigger, each BTC will be worth a million dollars

submitted by autonova3 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoins price needs to grow 100x to be worth a million dollars. Metcalfes law states that a networks value is the square of the number of users. So if the total number of bitcoin users only gets 10x bigger, each BTC will be worth a million dollars /r/Bitcoin

Bitcoins price needs to grow 100x to be worth a million dollars. Metcalfes law states that a networks value is the square of the number of users. So if the total number of bitcoin users only gets 10x bigger, each BTC will be worth a million dollars /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoins price needs to grow 10,000x to be worth a 100 million dollars. Metcalfes law states that a networks value is the square of the number of users. So if the total number of bitcoin users only gets 1,000x bigger, each BTC will be worth a 100 million dollars /r/Bitcoin

Bitcoins price needs to grow 10,000x to be worth a 100 million dollars. Metcalfes law states that a networks value is the square of the number of users. So if the total number of bitcoin users only gets 1,000x bigger, each BTC will be worth a 100 million dollars /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Since coinbase publishes how many users and how many wallets they have, can't we take this ratio and apply it to other wallets to guess the total number of bitcoin users? Yes I ask because I'm too lazy for it... /r/Bitcoin

Since coinbase publishes how many users and how many wallets they have, can't we take this ratio and apply it to other wallets to guess the total number of bitcoin users? Yes I ask because I'm too lazy for it... /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Total number of bitcoin users?

Is there any accurate guess of the total number of bitcoin users in the world? How about at a given point in time? I'm curious just how early of an adopter I am.
submitted by 1Bitcoinco to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Since coinbase publishes how many users and how many wallets they have, can't we take this ratio and apply it to other wallets to guess the total number of bitcoin users? Yes I ask because I'm too lazy for it...

submitted by VLADIMIROVIC_L to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

If you assume that the total number of bitcoin users is proportional to the blockchain.info users, then Bitcoin has doubled its user base in the last two months.

https://blockchain.info/charts/my-wallet-n-users?timespan=&daysAverageString=1&scale=0&address=
submitted by btchombre to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

There are currently 1121 Lightning nodes. Because LN requires each user to run a node that is always online, it's safe to say the node count represents the total number of users. Can LN scale Bitcoin to billions of users?

There are currently 1121 Lightning nodes. Because LN requires each user to run a node that is always online, it's safe to say the node count represents the total number of users. Can LN scale Bitcoin to billions of users? submitted by Windowly to btc [link] [comments]

The total number of Blockchain wallet users worldwide, from the first quarter of 2015 to second quarter of 2018, has been growing since the creation of the Bitcoin virtual currency in 2009, reaching over 25 million users.

The total number of Blockchain wallet users worldwide, from the first quarter of 2015 to second quarter of 2018, has been growing since the creation of the Bitcoin virtual currency in 2009, reaching over 25 million users. submitted by Talpresale to PresaleVentures [link] [comments]

PeckShield: Bitcoin is unlikely to increase the total amount of issuance

At the recent Satoshi's Roundtable, Matt Luongo proposed to consider increasing the total amount of Bitcoin issued and stopping the halving of mining site rewards every four years to ensure sufficient economic incentives for miners to secure the Bitcoin chain. Security. Jeff Liu, head of the PeckShield Silicon Valley R&D Center, said that the total circulation of Bitcoin's 21 million caps is a fundamental feature of Bitcoin, and it is unlikely that the community will reach a consensus to change this feature. Luongo's concern is that with the development of the lightning network, a large number of transactions will be transferred to the lightning network, the transaction volume of the bitcoin chain will decrease, and the reduction of block rewards will cause the miners' revenue to decrease and leave, the number of nodes on the bitcoin chain and Reduced power, increasing the likelihood of a 51% attack. Jeff believes that the development of Lightning Network will increase the total number of Bitcoin users, and will not reduce the transaction volume in the Bitcoin chain. There are other ways to ensure the income of the miners, such as increasing the length of the Bitcoin block to expand the trading capacity. At the same time, the halving of block rewards every four years does not necessarily reduce the miners' income. On the contrary, halving the block rewards reduces the currency inflation rate of Bitcoin, which is likely to cause the price of coins to rise, thereby increasing the income of miners. In fact, the halving of past rewards has caused bitcoin prices to rise, and the next half of next May's rewards may have a similar effect. Of course, there are many objections to increasing the length of the Bitcoin block, but it is much smaller than the increase in the total circulation of Bitcoin.
submitted by HoneycombFinance to u/HoneycombFinance [link] [comments]

There are currently 1121 Lightning nodes. Because LN requires each user to run a node that is always online, it's safe to say the node count represents the total number of users. Can LN scale Bitcoin to billions of users?

There are currently 1121 Lightning nodes. Because LN requires each user to run a node that is always online, it's safe to say the node count represents the total number of users. Can LN scale Bitcoin to billions of users? submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Selling Bitcoin Segwit will not be possible

Most people won't be able to sell their Bitcoin Segwit coins. There's a simple reason for this.
A bitcoin transaction contains outputs and inputs. The inputs contribute a disproportionately large part of a transaction. Every input consists of roughly 180 bytes. Every output consists of roughly 34 bytes. This has a number of interesting consequences. Consider a scenario where I want to send ten people bitcoins. It's advantageous for me to make one large transaction, from one source address, to many different output addresses. This allows me to use far less space in a block than I would if I had to make ten transactions to ten different people.
When it comes to these people who receive Bitcoins, they are stuck with a more difficult situation. When they want to send the bitcoins back to me again, the space this takes up on the bitcoin network is much bigger than the space the original transaction took up. In the original transaction, the outputs and inputs together made up 180 + 340 bytes, then there's an additional 10 bytes part of any transaction, so that leaves us with 530 bytes.
Now imagine those same ten people trying to send bitcoins back to the exchange from which they bought the bitcoins. They'll each make a transaction of 180 + 34 + 10 = 224 bytes. Assuming all ten of them want to sell, it will take 2240 bytes for them to send bitcoins back to the exchange, which is roughly four times as much space on the blockchain as it takes to send bitcoins from the exchange to the users. Exchanges which used to send bitcoins as part of individual transactions to individual customers in the past have migrated to this bundled transaction method.
Keep in mind that we ran out of transaction space during a bull market, when large numbers of new people entered the market who wanted to buy small amounts of bitcoin and stored them on their own wallets. During the coming stage, the bear market, those large numbers of people will want to sell their small amounts of bitcoin through the exchange. This would have the effect of dramatically increasing demand on the network, even if the total number of bitcoin users remained the same, simply because sending bitcoins back to exchanges takes up more space.
So, if you consider this fact, there are at least three interacting positive feedback loops that together increase blockspace demand:
  1. A decrease in value of Bitcoin causes hashpower to move to Bitcoin Cash, which decreases blocks found on Bitcoin Segwit and thus transaction capacity. As of speaking, Bitcoin Segwit's transaction capacity seems to be 20% lower than normal, due to hashpower moving to Bitcoin Cash.
  2. Increased volatility increases transactions on the network, which means increased demand for blockspace.
  3. Decreasing prices due to panic lead to a relative decrease in the space-efficiency of transactions, as transactions go back from personal wallets to exchanges, rather than the other way around as we tend to see in bull markets.
My prediction is that most people won't be able to sell their bitcoins. If you're paying more in fees than you would get from selling your bitcoins, why bother selling? Keep in mind that increasing fees don't solve the problem, as it merely means someone else is bumped out of the network. We have already gotten rid of most non-essential transactions, so costs can now be expected to merely keep increasing.
It's the difference between people in a supermarket with hungry dogs and people in a supermarket with hungry children. If your children are hungry, you'll keep trying to outbid the others until you're left without money. That's what will happen to Bitcoin Segwit fees too. People with coins on a hardware wallet have a choice between sitting out this crash, or offering whatever they have to offer in fees to get at least some of their money back. Hold on tight, this will be a wild ride.
submitted by moresourdough to btc [link] [comments]

Help me crunch some numbers: Future price of Bitcoin in various scenarios (LONG)

I posted these thoughts & questions to /cryptocurrency and didn't get much feedback, especially not on my numbers. Assuming my basic premises are correct at all, there are still some wide open questions below, such as:
Q: If we're trying to calculate a future world where millions of people use Bitcoin as a secondary currency, how much should we assume each user keeps in Bitcoin? $100 USD? $1,000 USD?
Q: Assuming Bitcoin reaches a worldwide saturation point, would the price stop soaring? meaning investors keep moving new money into it?
Q: Has the analysis I'm trying to do below already been done, and better? URL please?
That said, this is my best attempt to guess where the price of Bitcoin could (very optimistically) land if it becomes the number one go-to cryptocurrency accepted, or at least established, throughout the world.
I welcome any feedback to any part of this. Even if it's just to say "Bitcoin will never overcome the technical hurdles to become a worldwide working currency" (which was one of the two replies I received in my previous thread).
Thanks in advance.

Bitcoin as a currency:
Like some others here, I believe there is some chance (hard to quantify) that Bitcoin will become ubiquitous, that it will propagate to at least as many people as, say, PayPal.
This is the future where Lightning and other improvements have made Bitcoin viable as a day to day currency. My friends are comfortable carrying it around in their "wallets."
Now, to come up with some numbers, I'll start by imagining that this future total number of Bitcoin users is 200 million (the same as the current number of PayPal users). I then ask myself "How much cash should I imagine each person has in Bitcoin?"
I have the idea that the average amount might be $100.
That's purely anecdotal. I could imagine a typical American might carry around $40 to $100 in cash, and would do similar with Bitcoin. I imagine that the average person has at least twice as much Bitcoin as what they "carry around." I imagine that people in less wealthy countries would carry around less.
A dozen assumptions later, I say: Okay, let's say 200 million people each want to carry around $100 worth of Bitcoin. That would require $20 billion in Bitcoin.
Since there are 21 million Bitcoin total, that means each Bitcoin would be worth about $1,000.
That hardly justifies holding it at its current price, and it doesn't justify the belief some people have that Bitcoin might reach $500,000. So I'll start adjusting my numbers.
What if there were more people who wanted to use Bitcoin? The population of the earth is 7.5 billion people. What if 1 out of 10 wanted $100 worth of Bitcoin?
One tenth of 7.5 billion is 750 million -- similar to the total number of people with credit cards, so this seems interesting.
For them to have $100 each requires $75 billion. And $75 billion in Bitcoin would mean that each Bitcoin is worth about $3,500.
As you can see, I need some help with my assumptions. For all I know, there's an axiom that for every dollar held by individuals, there are two dollars held by the businesses (stores, restaurants, etc.) where these individuals spend their money.
I have no idea if there's anything behind this 2-to-1 ratio I invented, but if it were true, then whatever number I come up with for individuals triples. The previous $3,500 becomes closer to $10,000 per Bitcoin.
Revising a different assumption, maybe that "$100 in BTC per person" is too low. Maybe the average person spending Bitcoin will keep $500 in Bitcoin, or $1000!
I can combine these assumptions various ways, and produce values per Bitcoin more like $50,000 or $100,000. But generating a $100,000 Bitcoin this way requires 10% of the world to have an average of $1,000 in Bitcoin!
Note: My assumptions involve a future where people primarily keep their money in fiat, but use Bitcoin the way they would PayPal or credit cards. I can't picture Bitcoin totally superseding other currencies, unless a country is in real trouble.
In terms of spending, I see several other numbers I could be crunching, such as:
In 2011, Americans spent $10.7 trillion shopping.
or
In 2011, Americans spent $96 billion on beer.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31222/numbers-how-americans-spend-their-money
What if I grab some number in between $96 billion and $10.7 trillion? Let's say that, of the $10.7 trillion spent on shopping, $1 trillion was spent in Bitcoin?
Here's where my skills fail me. It doesn't take $1 trillion in Bitcoin floating around for $1 trillion to be spent in a year. So I need to divide by churn or turnover or something. And then multiply by something to reflect not just Americans, but the world.
So, what about...

Bitcoin as a Store of Value:
That brings me to statistics like these:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-money-exists-in-the-entire-world-in-one-chart-2015-12-18
The amount of money in the world is $7.6 trillion. Or maybe it's $36.8 trillion. Or $90.4 trillion. Depending on what you're counting.
Going through each of those three numbers... What if 5% of that amount made its way into Bitcoin, and Bitcoin alone? So I'll take 5% of each number and divide that by 21 million to produce Bitcoin values of $18,000, or $88,000, or $215,000 per coin.
But is 5%, of all the money in the world, even worth considering?
One last comparison...
I'll skip the world's $7.7 trillion in gold, and get to the stock markets, which total $73 trillion.
I don't know if it's worth talking about the stock markets, as in: People might pull money out of stocks and keep it invested it in Bitcoin, even after Bitcoin is ubiquitous.
The idea is that eventually Bitcoin will reach some kind of stasis, and the price will stop soaring, right? At least, that's the future, final state I'm trying to picture -- a future where people are simply using Bitcoin, right?
If Bitcoin stops climbing, can I really assume that people will pull some percentage of their money out of stock and invest in Bitcoin as an equity? (I guess you could say the same about Coca Cola. After all, it's everywhere, but its price keeps going up.)
So, here's where the numbers get crazy. If I decide that a full 10% of the money currently in stock markets made its way to Bitcoin instead, then that alone would justify a Bitcoin price of $350,000!
And I can always combine that $350k with one of the other numbers above -- say, $88,000 or $215,000 -- to see where someone could predict a possible $500,000 Bitcoin. But to do so requires several stars to align. Bitcoin has to win out as both the store of value and the quick, transactional currency. And then it alone has to pretty much dominate the world.
And finally, going any lower on that page, things like Global Real Estate and Derivatives just make my head explode.
So... Does anyone have any feedback on my math and the huge disparity between my lowest and highest numbers?
TLDR: What's the best way to get some really good "back of the napkin" type estimates of where Bitcoin (or any given crypto) could go?
Has someone smarter than me already done a thorough write-up like this, but with really good assumptions and calculations?
submitted by ProfessorDave3D to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

November was yet another record month for @Unocoin in terms of number of new users and total #bitcoin trade volume. #IndiaBitcoin

November was yet another record month for @Unocoin in terms of number of new users and total #bitcoin trade volume. #IndiaBitcoin submitted by Unocoin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Running numbers, trying to predict value of Bitcoin after worldwide acceptance (LONG)

I'm going to speak up, remove all doubt that I am a fool, and do a brain dump. This will be my best attempt to guess where the price of Bitcoin could (very optimistically) land if it becomes the number one go-to cryptocurrency accepted, or at least established, throughout the world.
I'm hoping someone can check both my math and my underlying thinking on this. I've piled on so many assumptions that my final numbers are probably ridiculous, but I'm hoping that the underlying thinking is close enough to inspire someone to offer corrections.
Okay...

Bitcoin as a currency:
Like some others here, I believe there is some chance (hard to quantify) that Bitcoin will become ubiquitous, that it will propagate to at least as many people as, say, PayPal.
This is the future where Lightning and other improvements have made Bitcoin viable as a day to day currency. My friends are comfortable carrying it around in their "wallets."
Now, to come up with some numbers, I'll start by imagining that this future total number of Bitcoin users is 200 million (the same as the current number of PayPal users). I then ask myself "How much cash should I imagine each person has in Bitcoin?"
I have the idea that the average amount might be $100.
That's purely anecdotal. I could imagine a typical American might carry around $40 to $100 in cash, and would do similar with Bitcoin. I imagine that the average person has at least twice as much Bitcoin as what they "carry around." I imagine that people in less wealthy countries would carry around less.
A dozen assumptions later, I say: Okay, let's say 200 million people each want to carry around $100 worth of Bitcoin. That would require $20 billion in Bitcoin.
Since there are 21 million Bitcoin total, that means each Bitcoin would be worth about $1,000.
That hardly justifies holding it at its current price, and it doesn't justify the belief some people have that Bitcoin might reach $500,000. So I'll start adjusting my numbers.
What if there were more people who wanted to use Bitcoin? The population of the earth is 7.5 billion people. What if 1 out of 10 wanted $100 worth of Bitcoin?
One tenth of 7.5 billion is 750 million -- similar to the total number of people with credit cards, so this seems interesting.
For them to have $100 each requires $75 billion. And $75 billion in Bitcoin would mean that each Bitcoin is worth about $3,500.
As you can see, I need some help with my assumptions. For all I know, there's an axiom that for every dollar held by individuals, there are two dollars held by the businesses (stores, restaurants, etc.) where these individuals spend their money.
I have no idea if there's anything behind this 2-to-1 ratio I invented, but if it were true, then whatever number I come up with for individuals triples. The previous $3,500 becomes closer to $10,000 per Bitcoin.
Revising a different assumption, maybe that "$100 in BTC per person" is too low. Maybe the average person spending Bitcoin will keep $500 in Bitcoin, or $1000!
I can combine these assumptions various ways, and produce values per Bitcoin more like $50,000 or $100,000. But generating a $100,000 Bitcoin this way requires 10% of the world to have an average of $1,000 in Bitcoin!
Note: My assumptions involve a future where people primarily keep their money in fiat, but use Bitcoin the way they would PayPal or credit cards. I can't picture Bitcoin totally superseding other currencies, unless a country is in real trouble.
In terms of spending, I see several other numbers I could be crunching, such as:
In 2011, Americans spent $10.7 trillion shopping.
or
In 2011, Americans spent $96 billion on beer.
http://mentalfloss.com/article/31222/numbers-how-americans-spend-their-money
What if I grab some number in between $96 billion and $10.7 trillion? Let's say that, of the $10.7 trillion spent on shopping, $1 trillion was spent in Bitcoin?
Here's where my skills fail me. It doesn't take $1 trillion in Bitcoin floating around for $1 trillion to be spent in a year. So I need to divide by churn or turnover or something. And then multiply by something to reflect not just Americans, but the world.
So, what about...

Bitcoin as a Store of Value:
That brings me to statistics like these:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-money-exists-in-the-entire-world-in-one-chart-2015-12-18
The amount of money in the world is $7.6 trillion. Or maybe it's $36.8 trillion. Or $90.4 trillion. Depending on what you're counting.
Going through each of those three numbers... What if 5% of that amount made its way into Bitcoin, and Bitcoin alone? So I'll take 5% of each number and divide that by 21 million to produce Bitcoin values of $18,000, or $88,000, or $215,000 per coin.
But is 5%, of all the money in the world, even worth considering?
One last comparison...
I'll skip the world's $7.7 trillion in gold, and get to the stock markets, which total $73 trillion.
I don't know if it's worth talking about the stock markets, as in: People might pull money out of stocks and keep it invested it in Bitcoin, even after Bitcoin is ubiquitous.
The idea is that eventually Bitcoin will reach some kind of stasis, and the price will stop soaring, right? At least, that's the future, final state I'm trying to picture -- a future where people are simply using Bitcoin, right?
If Bitcoin stops climbing, can I really assume that people will pull some percentage of their money out of stock and invest in Bitcoin as an equity? (I guess you could say the same about Coca Cola. After all, it's everywhere, but its price keeps going up.)
So, here's where the numbers get crazy. If I decide that a full 10% of the money currently in stock markets made its way to Bitcoin instead, then that alone would justify a Bitcoin price of $350,000!
And I can always combine that $350k with one of the other numbers above -- say, $88,000 or $215,000 -- to see where someone could predict a possible $500,000 Bitcoin. But to do so requires several stars to align. Bitcoin has to win out as both the store of value and the quick, transactional currency. And then it alone has to pretty much dominate the world.
And finally, going any lower on that page, things like Global Real Estate and Derivatives just make my head explode.
So... Does anyone have any feedback on my math and the huge disparity between my lowest and highest numbers?
TLDR: What's the best way to get some really good "back of the napkin" type estimates of where Bitcoin (or any given crypto) could go?
Has someone smarter than me already done a thorough write-up like this, but with really good assumptions and calculations?
submitted by ProfessorDave3D to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

November was yet another record month for @Unocoin in terms of number of new users and total #bitcoin trade volume. #IndiaBitcoin

November was yet another record month for @Unocoin in terms of number of new users and total #bitcoin trade volume. #IndiaBitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

08-07 09:57 - '* How do we know that 119K BTC lost was equal to 36% of total deposits? / * Can they tell us the total number of BTC,LTC,ETH and USD that users had deposited? / * Does bitfinex have proof of reserves? / * Are they going t...' by /u/ihaveaqwestyon removed from /r/Bitcoin within 7-12min

'''
Zane won't be transparent about this, DESPITE MULTIPLE REQUEST.
Bitfinex coins should be traced and treated as stolen property. Exchanges or BitGo ought to freeze them if they can. ( The founders/management may be criminals )
I think coin desk are trying to hide something too, they don’t want this being posted in their comments.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: ihaveaqwestyon
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Blockchain Wallet > 100,000 users (=> 1/2 million Bitcoin users?)

Blockchain MyWallet: Number of Users
According to their own charts blockchain.info recently reached 100,000 users. It would be interesting to know how many are "active" (e.g. at least one transaction per month, or a balance >0.1 BTC).
Using some more of blockchain.info statistics can be used to guesstimate the total number of Bitcoin users. According to the charts about 45,000 - 50,000 transactions are processed per day (7day average); of which about 9,000 transaction per day (7day average) stem from MyWallet from blockchain.
Assuming that the average blockchain user is similar to the average Bitcoin user that means that about 20% of all users have an Blockchain MyWallet account. In other words the total number of users is roughly 1/2 million (of course this is not accurate, e.g., there is overlap, e.g., one user could have more than one account)
submitted by Springmute to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Draw #56] The comments have been collected, and the winner will soon be selected!

I’m posting this early so I won’t have to later.

TL;DR - This post is for the sole purpose of choosing a winner. If you commented in this [Drawing Thread], you are entered in the drawing and don't need to do anything else. By 16:00 UTC, the winner will be selected. The Bitcoin (BTC) blockchain will be used to pick this winner. This can be verified at any device running Python 3.5, and you do not need to own Bitcoin in order to participate.
Additionally, all information to replicate the Drawing at home is available on Dropbox and GitHub, scroll down for more information.
Importantly, this post WILL NOT BE EDITED in order to keep the integrity of the Drawing. To verify this, there will not be an asterisk during the time passed since its creation. The winner will be announced in a stickied comment.
DISCLAIMER: Some of the information may be unrevised, but procedures are the same as prior draws. Thank you.
Off Topic:
The [Discussion] Thread at /millionairemakersmeta is open. All comments are welcome there for any inquiries.
[Discussion for Spring and Summer 2020]: https://reddit.com/millionairemakersmeta/comments/g3a53t/_/
Explanation!
The Bitcoin (BTC) blockchain will be used to choose a winner. Once the time listed has passed, there will be an active check to determine the blockchain's winning hash. Like before, this subreddit will wait for the 3rd Block after the time (being 16:00 UTC) to select the winner.
If a block is discovered by 15:59 UTC, it will not be counted towards the counter of three blocks. If it's discovered by 16:00:00 UTC, then it will decrease the counter. This can be checked by seeing the timestamp given to it by blockchain explorers.
You are able to see how this subreddit will verify the winner by checking the GitHub repository, which also includes a back-up plan in case of an emergency.
Standard Protocol:
This post will not be edited! This is to prevent tampering of the hash or files by any of the moderators. To prove this, look for the lack of an asterisk near the time since creation.
To verify if a hash for a file is that of Draw #56, upload the file of choice to a SHA-256 generator, and match it with its respective hash output. The result you receive should be the same as what is listed here.
If you are interested in doing this for yourself, download Python 3.5 or better and follow the path to the folder labeled: MM56
Status Reports:
I will be commenting on the progress of the drawing via the comments, so other users can keep track of the progress. These comments will be pinned at the top of the post and be distinguished. Most likely, after 1:00 PM ET, the pinned comment will be announcing the winner.
If you can run Python yourself and follow the instructions, you will be able to find the winner. Make sure the hash released from the blockchain and the total number of participants match with what is described below. In addition, thank you for your patience.
Information Used For Draw #56:
GitHub Repository: https://github.com/lilfruini/CommentGathering-MillionaireMakers/tree/masteMM56 SHA-256 of Comment IDs: e57ae28b92664cd67bc89c1a707184b460d353347ef7f4b96bc544a3eae3f561 SHA-256 of Authors: dad8b4ce5524db48bd19a719577f6db218329c05c1d08b733d7ee45d39b30523 SHA-256 of DQed Age: 98217fc99f543ed3ac8395c1fba6d054c63af5aadc18b8f894cb8a72f99bf2a7 SHA-256 of Multiple Posters: ff2255ce3934be2c098207232ab91eb460fed516898eef6123b0e17adf537ac0 SHA-256 of Truncated IDs: 7623ea9d10884d7bc50f6d0bc0734b0234d80faefc61439219f6af8fe96f7db2 Block Selection: The Third Bitcoin Block After 19 July 2020 - 16:00:00 UTC Total Participants: 7,738 
submitted by MakerOfMillionaires to millionairemakers [link] [comments]

Your entries have been made, it’s time to pick a winner! [Draw #55]

We’re going to pick someone, and that someone will like it!

TL;DR - This post is for the sole purpose of choosing a winner. If you commented in this [Drawing Thread], you are entered in the drawing and don't need to do anything else. By 16:00 UTC, the winner will be selected. The Bitcoin (BTC) blockchain will be used to pick this winner. This can be verified at any device running Python 3.5, and you do not need to own Bitcoin in order to participate.
Additionally, all information to replicate the Drawing at home is available on Dropbox and GitHub, scroll down for more information.
Importantly, this post WILL NOT BE EDITED in order to keep the integrity of the Drawing. To verify this, there will not be an asterisk during the time passed since its creation. The winner will be announced in a stickied comment.
DISCLAIMER: Some of the information may be unrevised, but procedures are the same as prior draws. Thank you.
Off Topic:
The [Discussion] Thread at /millionairemakersmeta is open. All comments are welcome there for any inquiries.
[Discussion for Spring and Summer 2020]: https://reddit.com/millionairemakersmeta/comments/g3a53t/_/
Explanation!
The Bitcoin (BTC) blockchain will be used to choose a winner. Once the time listed has passed, there will be an active check to determine the blockchain's winning hash. Like before, this subreddit will wait for the 3rd Block after the time (being 16:00 UTC) to select the winner.
If a block is discovered by 15:59 UTC, it will not be counted towards the counter of three blocks. If it's discovered by 16:00:00 UTC, then it will decrease the counter. This can be checked by seeing the timestamp given to it by blockchain explorers.
You are able to see how this subreddit will verify the winner by checking the GitHub repository, which also includes a back-up plan in case of an emergency.
Standard Protocol:
This post will not be edited! This is to prevent tampering of the hash or files by any of the moderators. To prove this, look for the lack of an asterisk near the time since creation.
To verify if a hash for a file is that of Draw #55, upload the file of choice to a SHA-256 generator, and match it with its respective hash output. The result you receive should be the same as what is listed here.
If you are interested in doing this for yourself, download Python 3.5 or better and follow the path to the folder labeled: MM55
Status Reports:
I will be commenting on the progress of the drawing via the comments, so other users can keep track of the progress. These comments will be pinned at the top of the post and be distinguished. Most likely, after 1:00 PM ET, the pinned comment will be announcing the winner.
If you can run Python yourself and follow the instructions, you will be able to find the winner. Make sure the hash released from the blockchain and the total number of participants match with what is described below. In addition, thank you for your patience.
Information Used For Draw #55:
GitHub Repository: https://github.com/lilfruini/CommentGathering-MillionaireMakers/tree/masteMM55 SHA-256 of Comment IDs: d4f1038b8d16a65bd1ec626f8f6770ba9d154141e7ab7933c78ebe70d1f65c12 SHA-256 of Authors: af9bbd1afd93d2fc5e3a94cc5d332cbacab54b9f82b718a5978e7900b039c865 SHA-256 of DQed Age: 99d50004fddd01c05b8686354b29bb782ede5737289fc301a341df048dff038c SHA-256 of Multiple Posters: 683e47f3026ebd45bbefdb2f2c17519b186f1d017b00acf4e2f6aaedce9b3e1f SHA-256 of Truncated IDs: 38761cc450a8ebddd089bbb50789313b1b2f5ca98fc04bfed6032358ef0a9388 Block Selection: The Third Bitcoin Block After 21 June 2020 - 16:00:00 UTC Total Participants: 5,381 
submitted by MakerOfMillionaires to millionairemakers [link] [comments]

Technical: The Path to Taproot Activation

Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it!
(If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?)
(Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times)
Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
So yes, let's activate taproot!

The SegWit Wars

The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions.
So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!

BIP9 Miner-Activated Soft Fork

Basically, BIP9 has a bunch of parameters:
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two.
A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this.
So, first some simple questions and their answers:

The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars

SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain).
So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%.
Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.

BIP9 Feature Hostage

If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage.
You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever.
With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you.
This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.

Covert ASICBoost

ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere
Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected.
Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway.
Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost!
But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage).
Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit.
Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!

UASF: BIP148 and BIP8

When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit.
Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit.
This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core.
Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout).
BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled.
This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9.
Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.

BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath

BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community.
One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym.
The text of the NYA was basically:
  1. Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
    • When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
  2. If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91.
Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit.
Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X).
This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists.
Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.

Taproot Activation Proposals

There are two primary proposals I can see for Taproot activation:
  1. BIP8.
  2. Modern Softfork Activation.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout)
So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!

Modern Softfork Activation

This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
  1. First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
  2. If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
  3. Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation.
The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.

PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades

Software is very birttle.
Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
  1. You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
  2. Excited, you install the new version.
  3. You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
  4. You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
  5. You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
  6. You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system.
And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk.
Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations.
So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
  1. One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
  2. The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist.
Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems.
When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well).
This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

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

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

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

China Controls 50% of Bitcoin Mining While US Hits 14% — New Survey Bitcoin ATMs Have Grown By More Than 700 Percent Hackers used credentials of employees to access internal systems: Twitter on Bitcoin scam Twitter Hack Impact on Crypto Marketing Top 20 countries - Total Internet Users - 1990 2020 - ranking - bar chart race

(Number of unique (from or to) addresses per day) 734,798: 100 Largest Transactions: last 24h: 173,096 BTC ($1,594,405,826 USD) 21.97% Total: First Block (Bitcoin creation date) 2009-01-09: Blockchain Size (Bitcoin database size) 335.93 GB: Reddit subscribers: 1,515,435: Tweets per day #Bitcoin: 24,865: Github release: v0.20.0 (2020-06-03 Figure 5 — Total number of addresses/entities with a non–zero balance. According to our analyses, as of January 2020 the number of entities holding Bitcoin is ~23.1 million. This is 18.5% less than the current number of non–zero addresses (~28.4 million). Moreover, it is notable that the number of entities increases monotonously. Total number of active Bitcoin users and HODlers has increased. The number of active Bitcoin users continues to grow. Chainalysis has revealed that the active Bitcoin users make up around a third of the total number of Bitcoin owners. The study has shown that 2.3 million people use Bitcoin to make payments while 4.8 million users hold Bitcoin With Bitcoin's price at $, you'd need bitcoins to be a Bitcoin millionaire in dollars. Since there are BTC in circulation, there are a maximum of people holding bitcoins. In all likelihood, the number is much lower than that and probably around 30,000-60,000 people with more than $1 million worth of bitcoins. Hence, the total number of bitcoin users must be less than 42 million. 34 Percent Active Users. The number of people who use bitcoin actively has also increased. A report from the leading blockchain analysis company, Chainalysis, has revealed that active bitcoin users make up around a third of the total number of bitcoin owners.

[index] [28120] [11506] [12193] [5483] [178] [18424] [8484] [4649] [10795] [13463]

China Controls 50% of Bitcoin Mining While US Hits 14% — New Survey

The number of bitcoins has been limited from the beginning so that there can never be more than 21 million bitcoins. As a result, many believe the value of bitcoins will rise when more and more ... Almost half of crypto twitter doesn’t think Bitcoin can hit $55k in 2021. I guess they’ve never looked at the history of Bitcoin. We also take a look at some IOST drama that is unfolding ... The July 15, 2020 Twitter Hack hijacked a number of high profile users' pages, from politicians to tech wizards, social influencers to financiers, and brands to celebrities. It was done to scam ... The number of Bitcoin ATMs have grown substantially since 2016, roughly doubling every year. From 2016 to present, there are 3,800 new Bitcoin ATMs, 2100 of which were established within the last ... __count__/__total__ ... a record number of Bitcoin were removed from custodial exchanges, with Coinbase leading the charge. ... Crypto trading platform bitFlyer is developing a digital wallet for ...

Flag Counter