BTC Jihan Wu: Coingeek is controlled by Fake Satoshi |
- Jihan Wu: Coingeek is controlled by Fake Satoshi
- Rust-BCH: A new library to build applications on Bitcoin Cash
- Jimbtc is a shill
- In the last few days people have spent more than $250 worth of BCH feeding these chickens online.
- Lyn Ulbricht mother of Ross Ulbricht Interview
- A proposal for adaptive maxblocksize cap that aims to have a healthy headroom and asymmetric adjustment, in line with the BCH philosophy
- Why CHECKDATASIG Does Not Matter
- [Yikes] Winklevii allege Charlie Shrem stole 5,000 bitcoin from them while acting as purchasing agent.
- BITBOX SDK now supports DataSigVerify. Planning to release scripts today showing how to created oracles on Bitcoin Cash.
- Poloniex officially supports the hard fork
- Coingeek Releases More Fake News
- World Economic Forum: “There is, however, only one existing blockchain that is consistent with Nakamoto’s vision: Bitcoin Cash”
- It's a FEATURE that you're automatically ejected from LN when the on-chain fees skyrocket. Seems like the champaign cork shoots people.
- Circle/Poloniex supports Bitcoin Cash hard fork (PRO ABC!)
- ��
- Tether has shed ~40% of its market cap in less than a month
- Beware of a duck: "A feature added for no other reason than to draw management attention and be removed, thus avoiding unnecessary changes in other aspects of the product."
- What Andreas isn't telling you about Lightning censorship resistance - users are entirely dependent upon the good will of developers
- World Economic Forum Publishes Article Claiming That Only Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Is Consistent With Satoshi Nakamoto’s Vision
- "Confessions of a shill" (in response to post "Jimbtc is a shill"). Roger Ver has asked me for an explanation of my actions - so I will offer one to the entire community.
- Bit-Z Will Support the Upcoming BCH Hard Fork
- Making Crypto Mainstream | Bravo Protocol
- Current state of Bitcoin SV. Github has been updated last 20 days ago. Code does not compile on Windows. Neither coingeek, or BMG, or even svpool are mining with Bitcoin SV right now. So how can anything happen but an attack on ABC? There is no working Bitcoin SV to start an SV chain with.
- World economic forums admits, BCH is the only blockchain that fulfills satoshis vision of p2p cash.
- There are always going to be people who are greedy for power and control. We saw this with Blockstream in 2013 and we're seeing it now with CW and pro-SV troll coordinated attacks. BCH must resist Charlatans now and in the future in order to succeed.
| Jihan Wu: Coingeek is controlled by Fake Satoshi Posted: 04 Nov 2018 08:44 PM PST
 | ||
| Rust-BCH: A new library to build applications on Bitcoin Cash Posted: 04 Nov 2018 05:40 PM PST
 | ||
| Posted: 04 Nov 2018 09:53 PM PST I just noticed that jimbtc posted the following thread twice. I couldn't figure out why he deleted it, since the original thread contained the same title and content. Then I looked more carefully at the image it links to. Notice the text at the bottom:
We, the BCH community are under attack. EDIT: He just deleted the picture. I grabbed it and just uploaded it to imgur EDIT 2: I'm shaking. Even I didn't expect the astroturfing was this professional and organised. EDIT 3: Looks like I got got. jimbtc, you are a master troll. His explanation post checks out. The hash jimbtc includes really does checkout to the message:
EDIT 4: u/imaginary_username has observed that this looks like evidence that jimbtc routinely covers his ass when he makes posts that might include his post template, given the risks of sloppiness with the sheer volume of actual shilling he does. Moreover, leveraging a post like this as cover for future shilling from jimbtc and other nChain Dragon's Den associates could potentially win them rhetorical victories, though not logical victories. No timestamp was included that would connect the hash to any specific post. 20 minutes before jimbtc made his post revealing revealing the prank Devar0, a known nChain Dragon's Den member, made this knowing post, suggesting Jim may not be just trolling us by behaving like a shill, and may be coordinating his efforts with the Den:
Draw your own conclusions from this whole saga. [link] [comments]  | ||
| In the last few days people have spent more than $250 worth of BCH feeding these chickens online. Posted: 04 Nov 2018 08:43 AM PST
 | ||
| Lyn Ulbricht mother of Ross Ulbricht Interview Posted: 04 Nov 2018 10:49 PM PST
 | ||
| Posted: 04 Nov 2018 10:20 PM PST
 | ||
| Why CHECKDATASIG Does Not Matter Posted: 04 Nov 2018 11:31 AM PST Why CHECKDATASIG Does Not MatterIn this post, I will prove that the two main arguments against the new CHECKDATASIG (CDS) op-codes are invalid. And I will prove that two common arguments for CDS are invalid as well. The proof requires only one assumption (which I believe will be true if we continue to reactive old op-codes and increase the limits on script and transaction sizes [something that seems to have universal support]):
Why are the arguments against CDS invalid?Easy. Let's analyse the two arguments I hear most often against CDS: ARG #1. CDS can be used for illegal gambling.This is not a valid reason to oppose CDS because it is a red herring. By Assumption 1, the functionality of CDS can be emulated with a big long raw script. CDS would not then affect what is or is not possible in terms of illegal gambling. ARG #2. CDS is a subsidy that changes the economic incentives of bitcoin.The reasoning here is that being able to accomplish in a single op-code, what instead would require a big long raw script, makes transactions that use the new op-code unfairly cheap. We can shoot this argument down from three directions: (A) Miners can charge any fee they want.It is true that today miners typically charge transaction fees based on the number of bytes required to express the transaction, and it is also true that a transaction with CDS could be expressed with fewer bytes than the same transaction constructed with a big long raw script. But these two facts don't matter because every miner is free to charge any fee he wants for including a transaction in his block. If a miner wants to charge more for transactions with CDS he can (e.g., maybe the miner believes such transactions cost him more CPU cycles and so he wants to be compensated with higher fees). Similarly, if a miner wants to discount the big long raw scripts used to emmulate CDS he could do that too (e.g., maybe a group of miners have built efficient ways to propagate and process these huge scripts and now want to give a discount to encourage their use). The important point is that the existence of CDS does not impeded the free market's ability to set efficient prices for transactions in any way. (B) Larger raw transactions do not imply increased orphaning risk.Some people might argue that my discussion above was flawed because it didn't account for orphaning risk due to the larger transaction size when using a big long raw script compared to a single op-code. But transaction size is not what drives orphaning risk. What drives orphaning risk is the amount of information (entropy) that must be communicated to reconcile the list of transactions in the next block. If the raw-script version of CDS were popular enough to matter, then transactions containing it could be compressed as
where (C) More op-codes does not imply more CPU cycles.Firstly, all op-codes are not equal. OP_1ADD (adding 1 to the input) requires vastly fewer CPU cycles than OP_CHECKSIG (checking an ECDSA signature). Secondly, if CDS were popular enough to matter, then whatever "optimized" version that could be created for the discrete CDS op-codes could be used for the big long version emmulating it in raw script. If this is not obvious, realize that all that matters is that the output of both functions (the discrete op-code and the big long script version) must be identical for all inputs, which means that is does NOT matter how the computations are done internally by the miner. Why are (some of) the arguments for CDS invalid?Let's go through two of the arguments: ARG #3. It makes new useful bitcoin transactions possible (e.g., forfeit transactions).If Assumption 1 holds, then this is false because CDS can be emmulated with a big long raw script. Nothing that isn't possible becomes possible. ARG #4. It is more efficient to do things with a single op-code than a big long script.This is basically Argument #2 in reverse. Argument #2 was that CDS would be too efficient and change the incentives of bitcoin. I then showed how, at least at the fundamental level, there is little difference in efficiency in terms of orphaning risk, bandwidth or CPU cycles. For the same reason that Argument #2 is invalid, Argument #4 is invalid as well. (That said, I think a weaker argument could be made that a good scripting language allows one to do the things he wants to do in the simplest and most intuitive ways and so if CDS is indeed useful then I think it makes sense to implement in compact form, but IMO this is really more of an aesthetics thing than something fundamental.) It's interesting that both sides make the same main points, yet argue in the opposite directions. Argument #1 and #3 can both be simplified to "CDS permits new functionality." This is transformed into an argument against CDS by extending it with "...and something bad becomes possible that wasn't possible before and so we shouldn't do it." Conversely, it is transformed to an argument for CDS by extending it with "...and something good becomes possible that was not possible before and so we should do it." But if Assumption 1 holds, then "CDS permits new functionality" is false and both arguments are invalid. Similarly, Arguments #2 and #4 can both be simplified to "CDS is more efficient than using a big long raw script to do the same thing." This is transformed into an argument against CDS by tacking on the speculation that "...which is a subsidy for certain transactions which will throw off the delicate balance of incentives in bitcoin!!1!." It is transformed into an argument for CDS because "... heck, who doesn't want to make bitcoin more efficient!" What do I think?If I were the emperor of bitcoin I would probably include CDS because people are already excited to use it, the work is already done to implement it, and the plan to roll it out appears to have strong community support. The work to emulate CDS with a big long raw script is not done. Moving forward, I think Andrew Stone's (/u/thezerg1) approach outlined here is an excellent way to make incremental improvements to Bitcoin's scripting language. In fact, after writing this essay, I think I've sort of just expressed Andrew's idea in a different form. * you might call it an "op code" teehee [link] [comments]  | ||
| Posted: 04 Nov 2018 09:30 PM PST
 | ||
| Posted: 04 Nov 2018 03:15 PM PST
 | ||
| Poloniex officially supports the hard fork Posted: 04 Nov 2018 03:33 PM PST We will support the upcoming Bitcoin Cash hard fork (for more information, please see the official announcement). On November 15, 2018, we will pause deposits and withdrawals at 14:00 UTC, and take a snapshot of all BCH balances at 15:00 UTC. Once the network stabilizes, we will make an announcement and re-enable deposits and withdrawals. link for the official announcement: https://github.com/bitcoincashorg/bitcoincash.org/blob/master/spec/2018-nov-upgrade.md [link] [comments]  | ||
| Coingeek Releases More Fake News Posted: 04 Nov 2018 01:26 PM PST Surprise, the news outlet coingeek from Calvin ayre released a fake article about bitmain being in debt by 300m usd to taiwanese chip supplier TSMC https://coingeek.com/bitmain-losing-chip-supplier-debts-mounting/ Can you believe Craig wrights team would release a fraudulent story to attempt to sell a lie? I can. I have contacts all throughout BOTH TSMC and bitmain, and when I reached out to my good old friends in both finance departments, they confirmed bitmain doesn't currently have any outstanding debt with TSMC. Its just pathetic how desperate craig and calvin are at this point... What a disaster [link] [comments]  | ||
| Posted: 04 Nov 2018 11:46 AM PST
 | ||
| Posted: 04 Nov 2018 04:16 PM PST | ||
| Circle/Poloniex supports Bitcoin Cash hard fork (PRO ABC!) Posted: 04 Nov 2018 04:29 PM PST
 | ||
| Posted: 04 Nov 2018 02:48 PM PST
 | ||
| Tether has shed ~40% of its market cap in less than a month Posted: 04 Nov 2018 03:39 PM PST From $2.8B on Oct 7 to $1.7B today. This number seems more interesting to me than the wobbly per-coin value. It shows to what lengths the system managers have been required to go to try to preserve that $1 value. [link] [comments]  | ||
| Posted: 04 Nov 2018 11:40 PM PST
Just because something is the topic of a hot debate for weeks doesn't mean it's the real intended change to the protocol... [link] [comments]  | ||
| Posted: 04 Nov 2018 08:14 PM PST
 | ||
| Posted: 05 Nov 2018 12:28 AM PST
 | ||
| Posted: 05 Nov 2018 12:19 AM PST Nice to have gotten your attention Roger. I must say I am disappointed you have played your DSV cards early as I thought you had read Sun Tzu. By all means play those DSV cards but why did you not keep them to yourself for a while? This all seems like a massive Proof of Social Media/Influence battle to me which is not how Bitcoin is supposed to work. However that's off-topic right now.... You wanted an explanation of the shill allegations against me which are quite serious I suppose. As you're a great guy and I respect you - I shall offer you my full confession as yes we can all make mistakes - even me... OK so I made a big mistake in my shilling by badly cropping a screenshot that revealed some text that wasn't supposed to be there. I am now going to reveal all cause I don't want to be seen as bad guy as I was forced into doing this... We've had the argument that hashes only matter and that Proof of Social Media is wrong, so it seems ironic that social media has caught me out. I'm tired, been posting too much and I took 20 minutes to notice, and by that time I posted a new version and deleted the badly cropped post and thought nobody had noticed.... But then I see this post :-
OOPS! I GOT BUSTED! /u/zectro is right. These are the events that occurred. I made a bad crop, posted the post... deleted it 20 minutes later... and then posted it correctly cropped without that secret text that wasn't supposed to be there. He noticed it. Well done for your keen eye Zectro. Yes it is true. On Social Media people will deceive you, people will lie to you, it is dangerous to let social media or even the internet be a barometer of anything. As I always stand behind hashes being more important than Proof of Social Media (I am after all a Bitcoin SV supporter) some might have noticed a hash there in my accidental screenshot.
It looks suspiciously like a SHA1 hash..... hmmmm a hash of the next secret message to post from my shill-masters perhaps? Maybe even something from Craig himself..... Well I'll let you all in on the big secret.... Fire up your terminals.
I shall repeat once more. ONLY HASHES MATTER. When it comes to Bitcoin - Proof of Social Media, text written by humans etc... etc... is no proof of anything at all. ONLY HASHES MATTER. LOL [link] [comments]  | ||
| Bit-Z Will Support the Upcoming BCH Hard Fork Posted: 04 Nov 2018 07:46 PM PST Dear traders, Bit-Z will support Bitcoin Cash hard fork. We will start snapshot at 00:40, November 16, 2018 (UTC/GMT+08:00).Deposits and Withdrawals will be suspended at 23:00, November 15, 2018 (UTC/GMT+08:00). The resume time will be notified via announcement. Please pay attention to our announcements. [link] [comments]  | ||
| Making Crypto Mainstream | Bravo Protocol Posted: 05 Nov 2018 12:00 AM PST
 | ||
| Posted: 04 Nov 2018 01:23 PM PST
 | ||
| World economic forums admits, BCH is the only blockchain that fulfills satoshis vision of p2p cash. Posted: 04 Nov 2018 01:53 PM PST
 | ||
| Posted: 04 Nov 2018 05:53 PM PST Peer to peer electronic cash is a global game-changer. It takes centralized power - power over the money we use - and diffuses that power it by giving it back to individuals. The stakes for the future of Bitcoin (BCH) couldn't be higher.
In many ways, this is the central difficulty of Bitcoin Cash: how to have it work over time without being corrupted by flawed humans trying to take advantage of it to gain power over someone else (for whatever reason).
If Bitcoin Cash's governance structure becomes centralized and therefore compromised, peer to peer electronic cash will essentially be a failed experiment. It might be taken over by patents, Liquid, or a few guys who control mining pool hashrate, but whatever the cause is, that's the end of it.
In order to keep this experiment going, we need multiple wallets, many diverse voices, permissionless development and innovation that doesn't cut out others in the process. This is what Bitcoin Core failed at - Blockstream took control and halted all innovation. They created a problem where there wasn't one - the blocksize - and they "solved" it in a way that they could maximize their own future profit (Liquid). Centralization always fails and Blockstream has become a living joke of a company that primarily sells hats for IOUs. New users that look into BTC eventually see that it has had zero new innovation since pre-2013.
We can't let this happen to BCH, but this is exactly what CW/SV is threatening. CW wants to be the only BCH wallet and he wants to introduce a central point of failure in the system, himself.
Bitcoin doesn't need any single person claiming any authority over any specific part and anyone that tells you otherwise is misleading in order to gain power. The Satoshi that wrote the whitepaper would have known better than to try and become a central figurehead of a decentralized system. That is why CW is not the original Satoshi. CW did nothing as Blockstream took over BTC's development. No signed messages, no early coin sells to make a point, nothing to prove anything other than a loud mouth and frequent temper tantrums on twitter.
That's where we're at right now. A person claiming to be Satoshi while also threatening people's savings if they use any wallet but his. Very unbecoming of Satoshi if you ask me. Nobody would follow a person like that to do anything. Nobody would trust a person like that with peer to peer electronic cash. [link] [comments]  |
![[Yikes] Winklevii allege Charlie Shrem stole 5,000 bitcoin from them while acting as purchasing agent.](https://b.thumbs.redditmedia.com/4dA_kvy5LAVLLoUqjj7lgm0mFJUi-BW_c5PXZye1gbI.jpg "[Yikes] Winklevii allege Charlie Shrem stole 5,000 bitcoin from them while acting as purchasing agent.")
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/w0ar8bggzfw11.png){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/8hcvk2ev7ew11.jpg){kind=link}
![[link]](https://i.redd.it/jxtu4wd7ydw11.png){kind=link}
| You are subscribed to email updates from Bitcoin - The Internet of Money. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment