• Breaking News

    Thursday, February 28, 2019

    Home Unlabelled BTC On boarding Bitcoin Cash’s newest fans in Tokyo:

    BTC On boarding Bitcoin Cash’s newest fans in Tokyo:

    February 28, 2019

    BTC On boarding Bitcoin Cash’s newest fans in Tokyo:

    On boarding Bitcoin Cash’s newest fans in Tokyo:

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 10:10 PM PST

    Bitcoin on Twitter: "BTC's block size has been constrained to a mere 1MB so anyone can afford to run a node, but users are expected to transact on #LightningNetwork which requires multiple hard drives and an always-online full node that causes users to lose all their money if it goes offline. Hmmm"

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 12:50 PM PST

    Major Update to the Bitcoin.com Wallet today allowing several major markets to buy BCH directly within the app!

    Posted: 28 Feb 2019 01:22 AM PST

    Onboarding North Queensland's Newest Cashie

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 06:52 PM PST

    BTC fees are already ridiculous, why do Core supporters keep denying there's a problem?

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 05:16 PM PST

    26.7% of all BTC addresses with a balance, have a balance of 0.0001 BTC (~$0.40) or less. BTC transaction fees regularly cost that much to get in the next block.

    https://btc.com/stats/rich-list

    This is assuming a standard 2 in 1 out transaction, a good number of those probably have more inputs than that.

    That means over 6.2 Million addresses effectively cannot be used, and are bloating the UTXO set.

    By Contrast, less than 2 Million BCH addresses contain 1000 Satoshis or less, and the fee for next block is always 1 Sat./b, or ~340 Satoshis for a standard 2 in 1 out transaction.

    https://bch.btc.com/stats/rich-list

    The question is, what happens with $5 BTC fees? Assuming the price rises to $5K and fees to $5, (0.001 BTC, or ~300 sat./b) then ~71.75% of BTC addresses (~16.7 Million addresses!) would require a fee greater than or equal to 10% their current balance! Also 11.6 Million (or ~50% of all) addresses would require a fee greater than their current balance!

    And if fees go to $50, then those ~16.7 million addresses would require a fee greater than their current balance!

    Why is it so hard to understand that excessive fees are not the solution to BTC's problems?

    submitted by /u/324JL
    [link] [comments]

    @Bitcoin on Twitter is giving away free BCH to show the world how P2P Cash works.

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 04:33 PM PST

    Cryptopia Estimates 9% of Total Assets Stolen During January Hack

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 11:26 PM PST

    Dream becomes real! I now accept Bitcoin & Bitcoin Cash at my Coffee Bar

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 05:04 AM PST

    http://imgur.com/awwD6IE

    Hey guys, I now officially accept Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash at my Pop-up Espresso Bar.

    I opened a thread about it few days ago here and I can't thank you enough for all of your support guys.

    As I'm not a tech geek, I tried to keep things simple. I display my Wallet's QR code on the desk. Whoever wants to pay with crypto can scan the code and send the amount they spend.

    It's just a beginning. I'm sure it's gonna improve and lead to new things in this crypto journey that I'm in.

    I posted that move on my Instagram and Twitter pages too.

    And again thanks for putting some time and effort to answer my questions and clear the air.

    If you ever hang around Camden area, just pop in and say hi to me 👍

    https://www.instagram.com/p/BuYlR4Fh_5N/

    https://twitter.com/Coffee_Tune/status/1100734272120475651?s=19

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

    Nathaniel Popper (NY Times Reporter) in 2017: "I haven't heard about a sudden surge of people using Bitcoin to buy things -- the opposite seems to be more the case -- [...] "

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 02:05 PM PST

    Core Minion Logic About Custodial Services: Coinbase Bad, Square Good ��...

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 05:00 PM PST

    Soyuz Rocket Launches 1st of Many Satellites for OneWeb's Global Internet Constellation

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 07:43 PM PST

    5th public developer meeting of 2019 takes place on 23:00 GMT/UTC February 28th. Attend using the Zoom link

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 02:25 PM PST

    Is this a joke? LN becomes more and more convoluted every day.

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 06:38 AM PST

    It's been 10+ years for Bitcoin and it still is not ready to be world p2p money. BCH is getting there, but isn't it clear by now that Bitcoin was nowhere ready when it was released....and the halvening count-down continues....

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 05:09 PM PST

    I see bitcoin ghosts!!!!

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 10:25 PM PST

    Here is my wallet:

    1M3puR9CMP69az6hKbSQUQkVXtChdWPup1

    It has 40$ in it.

    The wallet keys are publicly available. So first come first serve.

    Hint: search google

    submitted by /u/brian3482
    [link] [comments]

    Alex Jones Tells Joe Rogan He Refused $5M to Pump Bitcoin by Soros Associates

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 07:22 PM PST

    Why the Lightning Network is not a "Scaling Solution"

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 07:50 AM PST

    It's honestly a little bizarre to see people still pushing the idea that the Lightning Network is a "scaling solution" for Bitcoin. It seems to me that the key observation in understanding why this is not the case is the recognition that the Lightning Network is a necessarily-imperfect money substitute for on-chain transactions, and moreover, that it becomes an even more imperfect substitute the more the blockchain it is operating on top of is constrained.

    The Lightning Network Necessarily Defines a More Limited Payment Possibilities Graph

    With on-chain transactions, the graph of possible payments is essentially a complete graph. Anyone who holds bitcoin can pay anyone else any amount up to all of the money the payer holds. And the possible recipients in this case don't even need to be already "in the network." Anyone who can generate and provide a valid payment address can receive payment.

    In contrast, with the Lightning Network, anyone who is connected to the Lightning Network can pay anyone else who is also connected to the Lightning Network, and to whom a route exists and can be found, an amount that is limited by the hop in the route having the smallest available liquidity in the required direction. (If multiple routes exist and can be found, and don't share the same limiting hop, the maximum possible payment can be increased accordingly, but the same general limiting principle applies.)

    The Lightning Network Is Necessarily Less Secure - Part 1

    The security model of an on-chain transaction is based on the fact that double spending a confirmed transaction "quickly becomes computationally impractical for an attacker" if a majority of the hash rate is honest. Thus, confirmed payments grow more secure over time—and very quickly become "irreversible" for practical purposes—as additional confirmations are received. Protecting funds received via such payments does not require any active monitoring or continued connection to the network.

    In contrast, the security model of the Lightning Network requires eternal vigilance (that this vigilance can be outsourced to proposed "watch towers" does not change this problem, but merely moves it). If a channel partner broadcasts an old channel state in an attempt to steal funds from you, you must detect the attempted theft and act to block it in a timely manner by getting your own "breach remedy transaction" added to the blockchain within a defined "dispute period." That is a fundamentally different (and weaker) security model. It depends on a user's supposed ability to, when needed, get an on-chain transaction confirmed on the blockchain in a timely manner, which is, of course, exactly what's compromised by an artificial constraint on on-chain capacity. This is the first way in which the LN becomes a more imperfect substitute the more the base blockchain is constrained, and is what I refer to as the LN's "fractional-teller banking" problem.

    It's also worth noting that an individual's inadvertent broadcasting of an out-of-date channel state (e.g., due to a faulty node backup) can result in their losing all of their funds in the channel. This represents a second risk vector that is not present with on-chain payments. A closely-related problem is the fact that funds in a LN wallet, unlike funds in a regular wallet, cannot be backed up statically (e.g., with a 12-word seed). Instead, a new backup must be created and securely stored every time any of your "channel state" information changes. This occurs every time you send a LN payment, every time you receive a LN payment, and every time someone else's payment is routed through one of your channels.

    The Lightning Network Is Necessarily Less Secure - Part 2

    If a channel partner becomes uncooperative, you will be forced to close that channel via a unilateral close, in which case your funds will be effectively frozen until the end of the dispute period. That's a form of counterparty risk that simply does not exist with funds that are held on-chain.

    The Lightning Network Has a Natural Tendency to Centralize That is Exacerbated by a Constrained Base Blockchain

    It's important to keep in mind that the Lightning Network is not a piece of software. It's a network that grows and changes as people open channels, route payments through those channels (thereby changing their liquidity states), and close channels. There is of course a cost to opening a channel. This cost includes the cost of the requisite on-chain transaction as well as an opportunity cost, i.e., funds committed to one channel can't simultaneously be used to fund another channel with someone else. There is also a cost associated with the risk that a particular channel will not prove useful, leading to its closure in the future and thereby necessitating a second on-chain transaction fee. On the other hand, the primary benefit of opening a channel is the possible future payments it will allow you to send and receive. The greatest benefit in these terms is provided by a well-funded (on both sides) channel connection to a channel partner who has a huge number of other well-funded channel connections (i.e., a "hub"). Of course, becoming such a "hub" will require massive capitalization to fund all of these channels. There's also a positive feedback loop / network effect aspect to hub formation. As an emerging hub grows more connected, it becomes an even more desirable channel partner, encouraging even more connections, making it an even more desirable channel partner, etc., etc. A constrained base blockchain amplifies this naturally-centralizing dynamic by greatly increasing the cost of opening and closing channels. If, for example, it costs $50 every time someone goes to open (or close) a channel, individuals will have a strong incentive to be very reluctant to open channels with any nodes other than those who can provide the most benefit (i.e., massively-capitalized, massively-connected hubs). It's interesting to consider that while the naturally-emergent topology of the Lightning Network is one of massive centralization, the naturally-emergent topology of the Bitcoin mining network is the exact opposite, i.e., a near-complete graph with all miners connected to all or nearly-all others. It's thus incredibly ironic that those attempting to move us toward the former and away from the latter have attempted to justify their actions with appeals to protecting "decentralization."

    If the Lightning Network Were a Perfect Substitute, That Would Paradoxically Represent a Very Dangerous Situation

    For at the least the reasons outlined above, the Lightning Network is not a perfect substitute for the blockchain. But the counterfactual is worth considering. If it were somehow the case that there were no downside to making a particular payment via the Lightning Network, that would paradoxically represent a very dangerous state of affairs. As the block subsidy is phased out, Bitcoin's security will increasingly need to be paid for via transaction fees. If everyone could get all of the benefit of an on-blockchain transaction without actually using the blockchain and paying those transaction fees (or rather, if they could get all of those benefits by using the blockchain once to open a LN channel they kept open forever), that would create a tragedy of the commons.

    Conclusion

    Contrary to the claims of many of its proponents, the Lightning Network does not represent "trustless scaling." At best, it promises a kind of "reduced-trust banking." While the LN is obviously not traditional, fully-custodial banking (you put the coins in the bank's vault and only they hold the key), more critically, neither is it the "be your own bank" of Bitcoin proper (the coins are in your own vault and only you hold the key). It's essentially a hybrid model--which we might call "semi-custodial banking"--in which you and your "bank" (i.e., hub) both lend funds to an entity (the channel) over which control is shared. It's an interesting idea, and one that might even prove to be useful one day. But it simply cannot eliminate the need for actual (i.e., on-chain) scaling. There will always be a natural balance between money proper (in Bitcoin's case, on-chain transactions) and various money substitutes. The problem with an arbitrary limit on the capacity of the former is that it distorts this balance.

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

    open source BCH API for vendor website

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 04:58 PM PST

    I'm looking to accept payments for digital goods I'm offering at freshmintrecords.com If there can be anything I can use that's open source that would be appreciated.

    I'm also looking to use ethereum, too.

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

    24 hour Bitcoin Cash SALE - I've started accepting BCH and today you can get 10% off with code "BCH"

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 09:47 AM PST

    Don't worry guys, LN routing is super easy, it's a "Super Solved" problem. Didn't you take CS102 in undergrad? [53:20 mark]

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 12:49 PM PST

    LN user experience as envisioned by Blockstream/Core

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 10:12 AM PST

    Vultr supports Bitcoin Cash payments for cloud servers!

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 03:07 AM PST

    Does holding public elections make a mafia legitimate? If no, then what distinguishes a government from a mafia? If yes, does that mean anyone holding a public election anywhere has the right to form a new government?

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 10:12 AM PST

    Can LN get even more sad?

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 06:42 AM PST

    Top CEO: This Enterprise Blockchain Nonsense Is Short-Lived And Bitcoin Will Win

    Posted: 27 Feb 2019 11:25 PM PST
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment