• Breaking News

    Thursday, November 30, 2017

    Home Unlabelled BTC On major exchanges going down during flash crashes...

    BTC On major exchanges going down during flash crashes...

    November 30, 2017

    BTC On major exchanges going down during flash crashes...

    On major exchanges going down during flash crashes...

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 11:58 AM PST

    Saw this at a North Queensland Airport this morning - made my day!

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 05:43 PM PST

    Nice one! r/bitcoin mods censor BitPay in their newbie FAQ. Reminder: BitPay is the largest Bitcoin payment processor!!

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 03:44 PM PST

    Friend paid for my lunch, sent him 0.0073 BCH ($10) with $0.02 fee. Hell, Bitcoin is back!

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 10:29 PM PST

    BitPay: I have your VISA card. So let me use it, please ? BTC is currently unusable, you need to enable Bitcoin Cash top-up so I can pay for stuff online again.

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 11:53 PM PST

    By the way, Steam is using Bitpay's interface. So if BitPay enables BCH payments, I will be able to pay for Steam games again with the real Bitcoin(Cash).

    submitted by /u/ShadowOfHarbringer
    [link] [comments]

    The ratio of subscriber count between r/bitcoin and r/btc has shrunk from 1000x to 4.87x in last 4 years. Only a matter of time before we are the larger bitcoin sub. The p2p cash revolution will not be through manufacturing consent by censorship u/theymos.

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 08:19 PM PST

    Keep an eye on r/bitfinex - all is not well over there

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 09:27 PM PST

    How we lost 90% of crypto investments in a few minutes

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 05:52 PM PST

    There never was a "scaling problem." The only problem is "people that don't want Bitcoin to scale."

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 07:30 AM PST

    This is a necessarily long post that seeks to undo a major misunderstanding and help people to understand what happened to Bitcoin and why we have Bitcoin Cash.

    I frequently get asked, "how will Bitcoin Cash solve Bitcoin's fundamental scaling problem?"

    The idea that Bitcoin has some fundamental scaling problem is a misunderstanding as old as Bitcoin itself.

    Check out this email exchange in 2008 between Satoshi and Mike Hearn > James Donald. Mike James has already spotted the "scaling problem" and points it out to Satoshi:

    To detect and reject a double spending event in a timely manner, one must have most past transactions of the coins in the transaction, which, naively implemented, requires each peer to have most past transactions, or most past transactions that occurred recently. If hundreds of millions of people are doing transactions, that is a lot of bandwidth

    There it is. "Naively implemented" Bitcoin would require everyone to keep a record of all transactions - ie "everyone must run a full node."

    Satoshi corrects him:

    Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day.

    Aha! There is no real need for individuals to keep a copy of all transactions. Which makes sense - who wants to keep a copy of everyone else's transactions just to buy a coffee?

    But who can be trusted to keep our transactions? Satoshi answers on the next line:

    Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes.

    There it is folks.

    Miners - y'know, the ones currently getting paid $150K every ten minutes - have both the incentives and the means to maintain the blockchain, without which the goose that lays their digital-gold eggs will die.

    Businesses also need to maintain copies of the blockchain for audit and systems integration purposes among others.

    So what's the scaling "problem?" Once we take end-users mostly out of the equation, it's clear that the technology is easily capable of scaling this design up to extremely high throughput. Understanding this was key to my getting involved in Bitcoin in the first place! With modest hardware current versions of Bitcoin Cash are already capable of "Paypal levels" of scaling, already 20-30X more than Bitcoin Segwit, and by next year I think we'll see another 10X on top of that. That vastly exceeds even our rosiest 2-3 year capacity requirements.

    There isn't a "scaling problem." It just doesn't exist. The "scaling problem" is really an "adoption opportunity" since there's abundant cheap capacity just lying around asking for businesses to build stuff on it.

    No. There's no scaling problem at all. The only problem that exists is "people that don't want Bitcoin to scale."

    There are several classes of these people.

    1. is a group who believes that larger blocks will cause fatal mining centralization. The problem with this belief is that the cost to store and transmit blockchain data is a tiny fraction of the cost to mine. Most of the costs to mining are electricity consumption, plant, property, mining equipment, and personnel. Storage for a year's worth of totally-full 32MB "paypal level" blocks is roughly $100 in today's prices and coming down all the time. But the cost to actually reliably mine a Bitcoin block is (edit: tens-to-) hundreds of thousands of dollars per day. Storage and data transmission don't even enter into the equation. Others point to the orphaning problem inherent in relaying large blocks but this is essentially erased by xthin blocks and miners being on an ultrafast network. In short the idea that bigger blocks will cause mining centralization is total speculation and could in fact be dead wrong.

    2. another group believes that larger blocks will centralize "nonmining full nodes." First off, as long as mining is reasonably decentralized, it is unclear that there is any network requirement for there to be "non mining full nodes" - people would only run these when they had some need for all the world's transaction data. Past that, it is true that the costs to transmit and store the blockchain go up as blocks get larger, all other things held equal. However, the costs remain minimal to a business - $100 to store a year's worth of always-full 32MB blocks is simply not a barrier to entry for any business. And as Satoshi pointed out, individuals really have no need to keep a copy of all the world's transactions just to use the system. Without going into great detail it's my opinion that many people who worry about "full node centralization" are simply victims of censorship and community manipulation. Here's a great article on how "full nodes" that don't mine are a tiny piece of the decentralization puzzle.

    3. a third group of people who don't want Bitcoin to scale are essentially here to harm Bitcoin or move its value elsewhere. If Bitcoin can't work as intended as P2P cash, then that's terrific news for legacy banking. It's also great news for Ethereum, Monero, Dash, and everyone else who has a coin that does work as P2P cash - all forms of "off chain scaling" (the demand moves off the Bitcoin chain). Lightning Network is also a form of "off chain scaling" that ultimately could harm onchain security by moving transaction value off of the blockchain. In short, anything that aims to "scale" by moving value off the blockchain onto another chain or layer benefits from ensuring that onchain Bitcoin cannot scale.

    A word needs to be added about so-called "offchain" or "L2" scaling.

    "Offchain scaling" is like "scaling" an underground metro by never adding new lines, trains, or cars so that when demand increases, people walk or ride in surface taxis instead (edit: then going into the cab business!). The only way to scale the subway is to put more people on more subway trains.

    So to repeat, it is clear to many people that there exists no "scaling problem." The only problem that exists are people who don't want to add more capacity.

    submitted by /u/jessquit
    [link] [comments]

    There are no bigger fraudsters than the core team, they have made all of us early adopters into liars.

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 04:57 PM PST

    John McAfee on Twitter: "When I predicted Bitcoin at $500,000 by the end of 2020, it used a model that predicted $5,000 at the end of 2017. BTC has accelerated much faster than my model assumptions. I now predict Bircoin at $1 million by the end of 2020. I will still eat my dick if wrong."

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 08:41 AM PST

    ZebPay India adding Bitcoin Cash

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 03:02 PM PST

    BTC dropping due to lack of quality 11k memes. Closest support line is at 9k Vegeta memes.

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 01:23 PM PST

    AirVPN most likely hinting at taking BTC and BCH directly (without payment processor) soon (Q1/2018): User asks about directly paying in crypto. Their reply: "during the first quarter of 2018 you will see interesting news in our system to receive BTC and BCH payments"

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 04:29 PM PST

    BTC cannot handle the current load. Huge reality check in 3,2,1..

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 04:31 PM PST

    BTC cannot handle the current load without fees rising a lot, most people forget that.

    Unconfirmed transactions are 100k for the first time without BCH EDA* to give all the hashpower back to clear the mempool, btc is on its own this time.

    In only 2 days BTC added 75 000 unconfirmed transactions to the mempool and I see no reason for this trend to stop soon.

    Now we will see if people like high fees and stuck transactions for real !

    PS: You can see the chart of unconfirmed transactions in the mempool here : https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count?timespan=30days

    and here for the live count : https://blockchain.info/unconfirmed-transactions;

    *EDA = Emergency Difficulty Adjustment

    submitted by /u/zhell_
    [link] [comments]

    I absolutely hate being at the mercy of Bitcoin Core..

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 11:26 PM PST

    I pledged to never again be at the mercy of BTC. But I got money for my birthday and I wanted Bitcoin Cash. Coinbase has been shafting me for weeks now, no responses to my support tickets, they can't help me over the phone, and my credit card says "good to go" when I call my bank.

    I have to use a Bitcoin ATM in my town. I waited until Bitcoin Cash was at a little dip and put my money in. I paid $700 over the BTC price for the ATM fee. This amounted to $22 lost right off the bat.

    Now my BTC coins are stuck in apparent limbo. My TX is in the mempool stuck. The fees must have shot up because now it is well below the average right now.

    I still haven't gotten to the part where I shape shift the BTC into Bitcoin Cash. Calculating it so far I'm already down $65.

    Bitcoin Cash ATMs can't get here soon enough, I need another solution to this BTC man in the middle bullshit.

    I emailed the ATM provider about implementing Bitcoin Cash, haven't gotten an email back yet but I hope they can consider it. I'm ok paying higher for the anonymity of ATMs but add that to the TX fees, stuck transactions, and shapeshift's mining fees..... God Damn

    Sorry for the rant but I have to get this off my chest. You guys are the only ones I can talk to about this crap.

    EDIT: I'm a hodler for BCH so I know these minor loses don't make a difference in the long hall but being out 21% of my purchase right off the bat gives me a sinking feeling.

    submitted by /u/jubsascrub
    [link] [comments]

    1BCH Giveaway When R/BTC Reaches 100k Subscribers.

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 11:59 PM PST

    I would like to celebrate r/btc reaching 100,000 subscribed readers by giving away 1BCH.

    So here's the deal: Whoever guesses the BCH exchange rate (or closest USD value, down to the penny) at the exact moment we reach the big 100k, will take home 1 whole BCH.

    I'll be using coinmarketcap.com for price reference.

    You can submit 1 guess per username (must be at least 2 weeks old with positive karma) up until December 02, 8pm GMT.

    Edit:

    If two people post the same price, whoever posted first gets it.

    Edited posts are disqualified. If you want to change your price before the deadline, just delete it and resubmit.

    Prices in USD only.

    submitted by /u/grant-meaccess
    [link] [comments]

    Crypto-hodlers be like:

    Posted: 30 Nov 2017 01:23 AM PST

    Legacy Bitcoin: A bank-to-bank electronic settlement system

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 08:11 PM PST

    Coinbase ordered to hand over details on BTC transactions to the US government

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 02:11 PM PST

    Bitcoin Cash may be right

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 05:53 PM PST

    Firstly, I strongly suspect Bitcoin is not valuable as a settlement system. Why would it be meaningfully more valuable than any private blockchain some banks have already created for this purpose? Or just a simple, shared, managed database?

    From a purely technical standpoint, it's not even that cool anymore. If I want to speculate purely on cool tech, IOTA is a way more interesting candidate to me.

    As for scalability....

    Generally speaking, linear scalability is bad in software. Bitcoin, the software, scales linearly. This is because its algorithmic solution to the question of "were these funds spent already?" is to make everyone aware of every transaction that has ever existed.

    Great software scalability is exponential and often only requires a device to perform log2(n) calculations to answer some relevant question (where n represents the size of the data set). In other words, as the data gets larger, the software becomes faster.

    It's not easy to imagine a set of rules for structuring public transaction data so that you only need to touch some logarithm of the total in existence to verify the absence of double spend and also be confident of its integrity.

    Moore's law is inherently exponential though, and essentially states the computational power will double around every two years because the transistors become ever smaller and more densely packed.

    This is great, because it's been relatively accurate for more than 40 years now and implies that computers going forward should be able to handle ever more huge amounts of computation.

    By my understanding, the crux was that it had been assumed moore's law would not continue much longer due to the effects of quantum tunneling. And it was basically thought that when transistor gates become small enough, electrons flowing through them will behave in a bizarre, and unexplainable* way where they will tend to phase through their surrounding structure--a phenomenon well studied in quantum physics. And the size of the gate in which this happens may be a property of the material used (it happens at 5 nanometers if made of silicon).

    However, often times a big mistake a person makes is just being too sure of something. And it seems particularly ironic to me that people would be sure that moose's law is ending based on this, because quantum physics is famous for its "uncertainty" principle.

    As of last year, we have 1 nanometer transistors made of carbon fiber nanotubes: http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2016/10/06/smallest-transistor-1-nm-gate/

    And today it may be expensive to make them, but that's how all technology starts. If anything, mining may incentivize bringing down the costs of manufacturing and using carbon fiber nanotutbes.

    And that would be great, because carbon fiber nanotubes seem like they could be really important for other things, too, such as for energy storage (helps with global warming among many other things), energy efficient water filtration (will improve and even save the lives of many people around the world, reduce disease and epidemics, free up medical resources, etc.), air filtration, fibers and fabrics, field emissions, biomedical uses, etc. https://www.cheaptubes.com/carbon-nanotubes-applications/

    When I first used a computer, it had dial up internet and was incredibly slow. Today I have 1gbit/s internet at my house, and it's the normal service. Thanks to improvements and reduced costs of space flight and satellites, soon we can expect high speed internet worldwide: http://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-internet-satellite-constellation-2016-11

    So, overall, scaling up the block size doesn't sound crazy to me.

    I don't think centralization is any less an issue with small blocks. If most people can't afford the fees to use it, they have to use centralized systems anyway. It's like the banking system 2.0.

    Yet... when asked about scalability, many Core-supporting software engineers will tell you something like "it doesn't scale. that's just computer science." Well, sure, but doesn't computation scale? So if there's at least some opportunity to scale in that direction, why deliberately choose the approach that has no opportunity to scale? There's an opportunity cost to this, and it seems high.

    As for the lightning network, since i see it brought up a lot, I don't know the system myself, but even some of the core supporters I know say they aren't fans of it. They sort'of just accept that bitcoin doesn't scale and that's ok. Others think an alt coin will solve the problem and take over eventually. It seems like someone has already put a lot of thought into why LN is not a good solution (have not read): https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800 - I will say that LN sounds like a really complicated system to me, which usually isn't a sign of good software. Not to mention it seems like it's been teased forever now and we still don't have it as far as I know.

    What am I missing?

    P.S. I'm not picking teams here. I'm not a big or small blocker. If I had to pick teams, I'd probably pick IOTA and some alt coins at this point.

    TLDR: Bitcoin Cash may scale well enough (and is perhaps a better solution than Core proposes based on technical merits alone)

    submitted by /u/somebody3830
    [link] [comments]

    How to get banned on r/bitcoin by being extremely reasonable

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 06:38 PM PST

    For the past several months, I've prided myself in my ability to have at least semi-constructive conversation on r/bitcoin, always compromising on telling the "whole truth" to keep from getting banned, while still challenging assumptions and encouraging others to independently verify others' dubious claims.

    I encourage y'all to take a look a look a my most recent comments there and tear me to shreds if you think I was just asking for it... but I really don't think that that's the case.

    This thread had to do with blocksize and segwit.

    This one starting with my asking for clarification on thieflar's claim that "BCH is antithetical to Satoshi's vision". He wrote a very long explanation (with several egregious representations of Satoshi's quotes) which I dissected. Both his long comment and my dissection thereof are now gone.

    (I didn't get a notification from the censorship notifier, probably because my post was already silently greylisted once and then re-approved before being removed again?)

    I did save the web page though, which you can get here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/18K9bOzUArKO5E2wdOnPcdZDBr3mKYI4K/view?usp=sharing

    (I don't know how to get it to show up as a web page on google drive though, so you'll have to download the html file and open it in your browser.)

    Still, in spite of my best efforts, I'm now banned, with no original banning comment from the mods. The response to my asking for the grounds on which I was banned ending up being "Bcash promotion and misinformation." Not unexpected, but still a punch in the gut. Really sucks since now I will have no way to help steer the conversation towards anything remotely productive in one of the most active bitcoin forums.

    The whole situation is just a bummer man.

    submitted by /u/AD1AD
    [link] [comments]

    Well, that's new..

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 07:11 PM PST

    How do you guys feel about this?

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 03:25 PM PST

    Bitcoin Cashers... If we are not being attacked, then we are not doing things right! | CoinGeek

    Posted: 29 Nov 2017 05:04 PM PST
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment