• Breaking News

    Monday, December 10, 2018

    Home Unlabelled BTC Three years ago Edward Snowden wrote this on Reddit.

    BTC Three years ago Edward Snowden wrote this on Reddit.

    December 10, 2018

    BTC Three years ago Edward Snowden wrote this on Reddit.

    Three years ago Edward Snowden wrote this on Reddit.

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 05:08 PM PST

    Question: What's the best way to make NSA spying an issue in the 2016 Presidential Election? It seems like while it was a big deal in 2013, ISIS and other events have put it on the back burner for now in the media and general public. What are your ideas for how to bring it back to the forefront?

    Edward Snowden his answer:

    This is a good question, and there are some good traditional answers here. Organizing is important. Activism is important.

    At the same time, we should remember that governments don't often reform themselves. One of the arguments in a book I read recently (Bruce Schneier, "Data and Goliath"), is that perfect enforcement of the law sounds like a good thing, but that may not always be the case. The end of crime sounds pretty compelling, right, so how can that be?

    Well, when we look back on history, the progress of Western civilization and human rights is actually founded on the violation of law. America was of course born out of a violent revolution that was an outrageous treason against the crown and established order of the day. History shows that the righting of historical wrongs is often born from acts of unrepentant criminality. Slavery. The protection of persecuted Jews.

    But even on less extremist topics, we can find similar examples. How about the prohibition of alcohol? Gay marriage? Marijuana?

    Where would we be today if the government, enjoying powers of perfect surveillance and enforcement, had -- entirely within the law -- rounded up, imprisoned, and shamed all of these lawbreakers?

    Ultimately, if people lose their willingness to recognize that there are times in our history when legality becomes distinct from morality, we aren't just ceding control of our rights to government, but our agency in determing thour futures.

    How does this relate to politics? Well, I suspect that governments today are more concerned with the loss of their ability to control and regulate the behavior of their citizens than they are with their citizens' discontent.

    How do we make that work for us? We can devise means, through the application and sophistication of science, to remind governments that if they will not be responsible stewards of our rights, we the people will implement systems that provide for a means of not just enforcing our rights, but removing from governments the ability to interfere with those rights.

    You can see the beginnings of this dynamic today in the statements of government officials complaining about the adoption of encryption by major technology providers. The idea here isn't to fling ourselves into anarchy and do away with government, but to remind the government that there must always be a balance of power between the governing and the governed, and that as the progress of science increasingly empowers communities and individuals, there will be more and more areas of our lives where -- if government insists on behaving poorly and with a callous disregard for the citizen -- we can find ways to reduce or remove their powers on a new -- and permanent -- basis.

    Our rights are not granted by governments. They are inherent to our nature. But it's entirely the opposite for governments: their privileges are precisely equal to only those which we suffer them to enjoy.

    We haven't had to think about that much in the last few decades because quality of life has been increasing across almost all measures in a significant way, and that has led to a comfortable complacency. But here and there throughout history, we'll occasionally come across these periods where governments think more about what they "can" do rather than what they "should" do, and what is lawful will become increasingly distinct from what is moral.

    In such times, we'd do well to remember that at the end of the day, the law doesn't defend us; we defend the law. And when it becomes contrary to our morals, we have both the right and the responsibility to rebalance it toward just ends.

    So, let me repeat my own message: We got to turn Bitcoin Cash in to a movement. A global, non violent revolution with the primary purpose of taking power away from governments and give it back to people. Especially in the west, where the public is increasingly becoming more powerless and less in control of their own future.

    The idea is so incredibly simple and so is the slogan: "We just stop using their money"

    6 words. WE JUST STOP USING THEIR MONEY.

    We got our own money now. Money of the people by the people for the people because of the people.

    Satoshi created a breakthrough. Encryption was always a passive tool. To protect ourselves. Bitcoin is an active tool, to attack and undermine some of their power UNTILL what we do forces government to change and adapt and BEND to the will of the people.

    Again, why is there nobody in France right now, saying EXACTLY THIS.

    All that violence on the streets in Paris is not doing anybody any good. It can be so simple.

    STOP USING THEIR MONEY! We convince 10 million people in the west to stop using their money and passionately invite everybody to join us, that's it. That momentum will change the power dynamics between governments and their people in a very short time.

    Gandhi said: A non-violent revolution is not a program of seizure of power. It is a program of transformation of relationships, ending in a peaceful transfer of power.

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

    Now this is interesting - 2010 BTC on the move

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 08:28 PM PST

    Bitcoin on Twitter: "The "store of value" narrative promoted by BTC maximalists like @saifedean looks a lot more ridiculous now that BTC is down nearly 80% YTD. It was irresponsible to ever promote Bitcoin as a "store of value." Bitcoin is p2p cash, not a get rich quick scheme."

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 11:43 AM PST

    Just bought some of that bottom BCH... Those ATH's ain't gonna buy themselves ;)

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 05:33 PM PST

    Bitcoin Cash The Revolution: my attempt to reach out to Edward Snowden.

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 05:47 PM PST

    Started mining BCH today :) feels great

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 09:15 AM PST

    BSv (it really isn't Satoshi's Vision): TWO scammers actively destroying everything the white paper stands for while spewing bullshit claiming the opposite in order to acquire wealth. That's all it is.

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 05:19 AM PST

    Emin Gün Sirer: "The metric for a "Store of Value" isn't price. It's the variance in price."

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 11:40 AM PST

    Binance backed TrustWallet confirms support for Bitcoin [BTC]

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 11:20 PM PST

    Bitfinex'ed: "Who the hell sends money to Bitfinex to buy Bitcoins at 3-4% over spot? Seriously, who does that?"

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 04:20 PM PST

    Bennett Tomlin on Twitter: “Hey someone wanna help me figure out what the hell @adam3us is doing in this exchange involving Giancarlo of @bitfinex?” (see tweet)

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 12:33 PM PST

    When does another stress test make sense?

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 07:33 PM PST

    I would personally love to see another stress test soon- we have successfully upgraded the network, major services are back online, and we have learned from the last stress test.

    We're in a perfect position to set new transaction records at a time when confidence in crypto is low. Seems like the perfect time to demonstrate the capacity of the BCH network.

    Thoughts?

    submitted by /u/Sugarbird676
    [link] [comments]

    Text-Enabled BCH Payments Now Available in 35 Countries With Cointext

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 08:35 AM PST

    AMA with Douglas Dimola, CEO and Co-founder of GigLabs on Thursday, 4:00 - 4:30 PM EST, December 13, 2018.

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 09:30 PM PST

    One of the biggest competitive advantages that blockchain games have over traditional games centers around the idea of value creation. With blockchain, players can improve the value of their in-game assets over time and actually earn money while playing. Despite this breakthrough, blockchain game adoption is still relatively low from a user perspective.

    For this week's AMA, we're bringing in Douglas Dimola, CEO and Co-founder of GigLabs, the team that developed CryptoRome. We'll talk about the story behind GigLabs and why CryptoRome became their first major product launch. Along with the recent developments in CryptoRome, we'll discuss why this lifelong gamer believes blockchain is the next disruptive force in gaming and what needs to happen to scale adoption. Ask him anything!

    About Douglas Dimola and GigLabs

    Douglas is a seasoned entrepreneur with over 15 years of product development experience. He is the CEO and Co-Founder of GigLabs, a blockchain development company that focuses on building solutions that enable widespread adoption of blockchain technology.

    About CryptoRome

    CryptoRome is a conquest game that involves economic, military and political strategy. On their villages, players grow and produce goods that can be used throughout the game or be sold into the market for real money. While their fortunes build, players take armies into battle to compete against other players for daily prizes. Built on the Ethereum blockchain, land and other asset tokens are unique and owned by the players.

    Schedule

    Questions submission: Comment below with your question(s) before 2:00 PM EST on Thursday, December 13, 2018.

    AMA session: Thursday, 4:00 - 4:30 PM EST, December 13, 2018.

    https://www.dapp.com/article/dapp-com-ama-episode-6-guest-douglas-dimola-ceo-and-co-founder-of-giglabs

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

    Any way to recover from a failed BCH SV/ABC split?

    Posted: 10 Dec 2018 12:57 AM PST

    In an attempt to split some SV from ABC, I sent a small transaction from my Electron wallet to a Kraken deposit address.

    The BCH ABC was deposited on Kraken, but not the SV. I did not use this wallet after the split and before making this transaction, so I believe it should be repayable. Did I fail to broadcast the transaction on the SV chain? Is there a way to still split SV coins?

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

    Charlie Lee and Roger Ver Debate - Winces

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 10:43 PM PST

    Everybody sort topics by “New” and downvote the trolls posting incessant proSV antiABC content.

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 10:11 AM PST

    They are doing the same. Which means you probably won't see this thread. But you have to address children's behavior directly like this sometimes.

    When people don't like to play fair, I know which side I'm picking. When I saw the immoral behavior of the core Reddit moderators, that was a huge sign as to who was on the side of right and wrong.

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

    0conf Insurance: A Revolutionary New Paradigm

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 09:56 AM PST

    Long time lurker and BCH supporter here. I am coming out of the shadows to present what I think to be a revolutionary take on 0conf security. This is not an in-depth technical analysis but merely a general system overview. I hope people will take the time to examine this and pick it apart; I am rather confident it will hold up to scrutiny but we shall see!

    The current problem with 0conf:

    As it currently stands, 0conf is quite secure if all the miners are assumed to be honest. If a wallet waits 6.29 seconds and receives 37 transaction announcements it has a %99.922 chance of detecting a double spend (https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/848064fa2e80f88a57aef43d7d5956c6/P2P2013_093.pdf). However, the double spend chance starts increasing dramatically when a miner colludes with the double spender. In addition, there is no penalty to attempting a double spend (you could argue the transaction fees are a penalty but they are negligible at best).

    Currently Proposed Solutions to Improve 0conf Security:

    Awemany's 0conf solution is based around a forfeit penalty (https://www.yours.org/content/awemany%E2%80%99s-0-conf-solution-05c960d3d60e).The proposal requires the sender of the transaction to put forth a security deposit with their zero conf transaction. This security deposit can be claimed by a miner if the sender's public address is used twice.This system, while a significant improvement over current 0conf security, has some significant drawbacks:

    1. The transaction receiver (the merchant) does not get reimbursed, they have no direct protection.
    2. The security deposit must be bigger than the transaction to provide a proper disincentive.
    3. If a miner is colluding with the double spender the security deposit has to be enlarged in proportion to the miner's hash share to provide a proper disincentive since any miner can claim the forfeit. A 33% miner colluding would require the security deposit to be at least twice the size of the transaction to still provide a disincentive (it might even be worse than this if the colluding miner has an advantage claiming the deposit compared to other miners)

    ABC has also announced something called "preconsensus", but there is practically no information on what that exactly is.

    0conf Insurance: A New Paradigm

    There is not really a solution to this rather intractable problem of confirming something that hasn't been confirmed. Like Awemany's ZCF proposal, the 0conf insurance model relies on disincentive to prevent double spending. However, unlike the ZCF proposal, the insurance model provides strong guarantees that the transaction receiver (the merchant) will be reimbursed, requires the consumer to only have the transaction value on hand, and is not nearly as susceptible to miner collusion. The basis of the insurance system is a contract between the miners and the merchant. The miners in effect become the insurers for 0conf transactions and will reimburse merchants for double spends. In addition, the penalty for a miner colluding with the double spender is severe enough to stop practically any double spend attempt.

    Here is how it works:

    When miners mine a block they are given the coinbase reward, transaction fees, and insurance fees (more on that later). Instead of being able to be move them immediately, they are delayed 200 blocks (henceforth known as the miner's "stockpile"). This stockpile is used as the basis for miners to provide insurance with the following steps:

    1. the transaction receiver sends a request to the producers of the 100 last blocks (from where the receiver thinks the current block height is). It specifies the transaction amount that the receiver wants to insure and what block height range it should be in
    2. the producers send the transaction receiver a signed message indicating they are interested
    3. if producers for at least 80 of those last 100 blocks reply that they are interested, the transaction receiver creates a contract based on its previously sent message (transaction info and block height range target) that is only valid when signed by all of the block producers specified in the contract
    4. the transaction receiver sends this contract out to be signed by the interested producers
    5. if all of the interested producers specified in the contract sign the contract, the transaction receiver accepts the contract by sending a fee to all those who signed (1% of the insured value split up between specified producers)
    6. if the transaction does not make it into the next 5 blocks and all the fees made it into the next 2 blocks, the receiver can create a new transaction using the contract which fulfills the insurance guarantee with coin from the insurers' delayed coinbase and transaction fee stockpile

    ​

    Using this scheme, the receiver has his transaction insured by ~80% of the total network hashrate.

    In practice, step 6 will never actually happen. Since 80% of the hashrate is incentivised they can readily orphan the double spend block while resting assured that at least 80% of the network is doing the same thing. The (possibly) colluding 20% miner has its block orphaned and he loses the coinbase reward and transaction fees.

    Let's actually describe a scenario.

    ​

    Receiver sees a current block height of 50000.

    Of the blocks 49901 to 50000:

    Miner A has mined 13

    Miner B has mined 35

    Miner C has mined 5

    Miner D has mined 32

    Miner E has mined 15

    1. The merchant receives a request from a consumer for a 0conf transaction totaling 10000 sats
    2. The merchant sends a message to miners A-E asking for insurance for a 10000 sat transaction from the sender to the merchant that should appear somewhere between block height 50001-50005
    3. Miners B,D, and E sign a message indicating they are interested in the policy and send it to the merchant
    4. The merchant creates a contract specifying the value (10000 sats), the source and destination (consumer address and merchant address), the miners signatures required (B,D and E), the division of the insurance fee (based on the # of blocks the miner created in the 49901-50000 range) and the block height range (50001-50005). This contract can only be used if miners B,D, and E sign the contract AND all the insurance fees transactions are in the 50001-50002 range.
    5. The merchant sends out miners B, D and E for signing
    6. Miners B, D, and E verify that the required miner signatures do in fact match 80% of the blocks from range 49901-50000 and the consumer does have 10000 sats in his address (as of block 50000). They then sign the contract and send it back to the merchant.
    7. The merchant verifies the miners signatures and then sends out the fees as specified in the contract: 43 sats to miner B, 39 sats to miner D, 18 sats to miner E.
    8. The merchant accepts the transaction from the consumer
    9. The consumer attempts to double spend the transaction while colluding with miners A&C
    10. The colluding miners (A and C) successfully mine block 50001 with the double spend before the honest miners (B,D and E) can

    What happens if the honest miners respond:

    -Upon receiving the block(s) containing the double spend and the insurance fees, the honest miners (B,D and E) orphan the block containing the double spend (and any others that have been built on top of it) and continue trying to make the block with the transaction they insured and their fees.

    -Since the insurers control a vast majority of the hashrate, their chain is quickly able to outpace the chain created by the colluding miners (A&C) and the Nakamoto consensus eliminates it.

    What happens if the honest miners don't respond:

    -The double spend block is accepted by the network in block 50001

    -The insurance fees are successfully confirmed in blocks 50001-50002

    -When the merchant see the current block height is 50005 and the contract has not been fulfilled, he submits his contract to the network and claims his insurance payout from honest miners' stockpiles (4300 from B,3900 from D, and 1800 from E).

    ​

    To sum it up, this incentivizes the insuring miners to act like mercenaries for the consumer, actively attacking any miner collusion.

    ​

    Advantages:

    -The merchant's transaction is effectively fully insured unless the miners have to reimburse an amount greater than their stockpile. The reimbursement is highly unlikely ever to happen though, because the honest 80% is actively orphaning the colluding blocks.

    -Miners will love this model as it creates a whole new (potentially huge) revenue stream. This will attract hashrate to BCH not just based on the coinbase reward and # of transactions (transaction fees), but also based on 0conf transaction value. A feature which will prove very valuable as the coinbase reward disappears.

    -The consumer does not need to put any security deposit forward

    -It is extremely fast. Messages need to be sent back and forth between the miners and merchant twice, so assuming at most 500ms of transit time we can assert the merchant should accept the transaction within 2seconds + processing time

    Disadvantages:

    -This requires protocol changes

    -Historical hashrate (last 100 blocks) may not accurately reflect hashrate working on the next block (added risk for the insuring miners)

    ​

    I eagerly await comment and criticism!

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

    Binance Launches ‘Sub-Accounts’ Feature for Institutional Clients

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 08:46 PM PST

    It is not Bitcoin which needs retooled to fit into legacy businesses, it is legacy businesses which need retooled to fit into Bitcoin. Bitcoin is much bigger than p2p cash. It creates the foundation for a new p2p economy.

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 11:45 AM PST

    Joseph Young: "It's almost impossible to buy or sell crypto in India and it's a shame. India is the world's biggest remittance market and cross-border transactions can be very difficult for expats w/out banking accounts in some regions. Overregulation is killing a high potent market for crypto"

    Posted: 10 Dec 2018 12:27 AM PST

    BCH Trading is starting on Monday the 10th of December at 1PM on the GEMINI Exchange. Its a nice exchange and will help with cross country payments.

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 08:53 AM PST

    what is the worst thing about lightning network?

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 11:57 AM PST

    i am actually very much a core supporter but when i ask questions in the /r/bitcoin forum i never get answers so i come over here.

    even tho supportive of core i also been a big opponent of offchain scaling and all that good stuff..

    so since im not a pro on a technical level at all id just love to know some reasons to be critical about lightning. to me it never felt that promising..

    /discuss

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

    The consequences of being antagonistic

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 05:06 AM PST

    I am perhaps not the best person to write about the consequences of antagonism, but even I cannot escape some interesting observations.

    BSV proponents (chief among them CSW and Calvin) have the habit of being antagonistic to everybody. To pick one example,

    Watch us double spend and reorg exchanges

    -- CSW about exchanges that don't support SV, Aug. 29th

    On Nov. 15th his chain splits off, and is being mined at a substantial loss by... somebody who's got a lot of money to spend. Estimates put it that he controls between 70-90% of the hashpower on SV.

    The consequence: Exchanges have been somewhat reluctant to list BSV. Those that did list it eventually have taken pragmatic measures to protect themselves, such as requiring between 30-60 confirmations for a BSV deposit while it is between 3-10 for BTC or BCH. Some exchanges that apply more strict verification of what instruments they list and put each trough a lengthy evaluation phase (such as gemini or coinbase) have not listed BSV at all and probably will not list it for a long time if ever.

    The lesson: A cryptocurrency does not exist in a vacuum. There is an existing community of businesses, developers and users and there is a lot of competition. Antagonizing a large part of that community (exchanges) with threats of losses/fraud is not doing your cryptocurrency any favors.

    Unfortunately this lesson is entirely lost on Calvin:

    Unnamed co-conspirator exchanges and payment processors need to seek legal advice as all details on this manipulation come out in discovery. The only way to limit liability now is to reduce damages by delisting illegal ABC and having BSV be fully functional as BCH.

    -- Calvin Ayre, Dec. 8th

    Somehow Calvin still believes that since antagonizing didn't work in the first place to get his cryptocurrency preferential treatment, more antagonizing (this time with threats of lawsuits) will now solve the problem...

    Calvin, lots of money is no substitute for common sense and good relationships with the community that you depend on. You should know that. Apparently you want the support of the community. But you're surprised that community is unwilling to do you any favors when you're being nasty to them. I find this a frankly baffling and inexplicable behavior in a businessman.

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

    SV is Pro governments because they want to sell Bitcoin to Banks, Govts, and Businesses. Thus the patents.

    Posted: 09 Dec 2018 06:19 AM PST

    The whole pro-government bullshit is so Calvin can make bitcoin seem "safe" for businesses and banks to participate in.

    They own patents because they plan to sell layer two services and get rich.

    This is all about them getting money. This whole thing. And his followers don't even realize it.

    If you're not seeing how this is playing out and where they're going by now, it's time to wake up.

    They're literally doing a Blockstream business model with Layer two products and services.

    submitted by /u/BitttBurger
    [link] [comments]
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment