• Breaking News

    Monday, March 4, 2019

    Home Unlabelled BTC Because Bitcoin.com is building tools to bring economic freedom to the world, we are likely under government backed attacks.

    BTC Because Bitcoin.com is building tools to bring economic freedom to the world, we are likely under government backed attacks.

    March 04, 2019

    BTC Because Bitcoin.com is building tools to bring economic freedom to the world, we are likely under government backed attacks.

    Because Bitcoin.com is building tools to bring economic freedom to the world, we are likely under government backed attacks.

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 02:43 PM PST

    Bitcoin on Twitter: "I keep seeing people call Bitcoin Cash fans used car salesmen, but if we're using car analogies then BTC is the overpriced clunker that only works sometimes and BCH is the dependable and economical option."

    Posted: 04 Mar 2019 01:04 AM PST

    Bitcoin Cash Now ACCEPTED For Direct-From-Source Thailand & Laos Arabica Coffee

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 11:50 PM PST

    To introduce more people to our direct-from-source coffee project & test interest from the community, we are accepting Bitcoin Cash this week in our shop for fresh roasted beans. Just select "Bitcoin Cash" at checkout: https://coffeecoin.io/shop/
    Please let me know if you have any questions!

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

    New Token: "Who will build the roads?" Ticker: MuhRoads

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 08:08 PM PST

    Whitepaper: https://bitbacker.io/user/wecx/#profile-panel

    Token: Who will build the roads?

    Quantity 1,000,000

    1 MuhRoads for every $1 of pledges to Bitcoin Cash protocol developers on Bitbacker.io

    Entire month must go by to claim.

    Claim with a Tweet @Wecx_ or a post to subreddit r/btc Tag u/Wecx-

    - Link to BitBacker

    -Shout out to the developer you support

    -SLP Address (Match Listed in Bitbacker Account)

    ​

    submitted by /u/Wecx-
    [link] [comments]

    Chris Pacia: "Just paid for dinner with the neutrino wallet :p"

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 04:52 PM PST

    Banks are treating digital currency firms and the cannabis industry in equal measure. They don’t want to open accounts for crypto projects

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 10:02 PM PST

    Block-Size Limit/Off-Chain Tx Propaganda began at least as early as 2013: https://youtu.be/cZp7UGgBR0I

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 05:59 PM PST

    GoxDox2 Email-Gate: How Jed Met Peter Part 1

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 10:48 PM PST

    ��Amsterdam, March 2019: 8 meetups, 7 venues & 150+ blockchain enthusiasts. Register now for your favorite meetups to learn about peer to peer electronic cash @Crypt0canal

    Posted: 04 Mar 2019 01:29 AM PST

    Someone just made some BSV tokens on the Bitcoin Cash block chain.

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 05:13 PM PST

    BTC maximalist states that the ends justify the means. -> BTC justifies censorship.

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 03:40 PM PST

    No, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) Wasn't Banned in Thailand: More Reason to Distrust r/Bitcoin

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 03:18 PM PST

    Reminder: Bitcoin (BTC) is Being Hot-Wired for Settlement

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 10:14 AM PST

    I think it's important that we occasionally point out the fundamental problems with the philosophy driving BTC's development. Explaining the benefits of Bitcoin in general without pointing out the problems with the current banking system would be... awkward. Similarly, it's difficult to explain the benefits of BCH without pointing out the problems with BTC. So here's why I think BTC is doomed to failure, and why BCH will not suffer the same fate.

    Settlement

    "Settlement" is the process of finalizing a trade. It's when the "actual payment" happens. For example, a group of friends may typically exchange IOUs to help pay for meals, and may eventually settle by paying each other the outstanding balances with cash. Similarly, in a gold-based economy, banks may occasionally settle differences in digital account balances between each other by physically delivering gold. In both cases, the common form of "money" used in day-to-day transactions is in a sense just pretend. The IOUs in the case of the group of friends, and the bank account balances in the latter case are forms of substitute money that are just representative of the eventual genuine payment that should be made at some point in future.

    Substitute money like this has certain benefits however, usually around being faster and easier to use than the underlying hard-money. When there are two forms of money being used like this, we can say that typical transactions occur on the "payment" or "second" layer, with occasional settlements occurring on the "settlement" or "base" layer.

    Money substitutes can sidestep benefits of the base money

    In a hypothetical economy where all payments are made with gold and silver coins, it's nearly impossible to inflate the money supply. It's also very difficult to censor/freeze payments, confiscate coins, or spy on transactions. These sorts of interference require on-the-ground police action. However, precious metal coins are awkward to use, store, and authenticate. Being physical rather than digital objects, they require much more effort to store, transport and inspect. As a result, people will naturally move to store their coins in bank accounts and instead transact by transferring amounts between their bank accounts electronically. The amounts recorded in these bank account balances become a substitute money, and transactions between the accounts constitute a new payment layer. However, unlike the base money, this substitute money can be easily inflated, censored, confiscated and spied on; both by the bank itself and by government authorities.

    From the perspective of a totalitarian government and/or the existing financial establishment, it is extremely important that that day-to-day transactions should occur on a payment system that can be centrally controlled; such as through electronic bank accounts. The assets that can be bought with this payment system, or the types of money that may serve as underlying settlement has little significance. Even if there are strong guarantees that bank account amounts can be redeemed/settled in precious metal coins, this is of little concern to authorities so long as the only way to make use of the value in these coins is to later sell them again using the normal electronic payment networks.

    All of the powers to inflate, censor, confiscate and spy have much more power when applied to payment layers rather than settlement layers. For example, imagine if Bitcoin were to become a settlement money backing the value stored in all existing bank accounts. People would continue to transact using exactly the same electronic payment systems (including credit cards) and may be about as likely to settle in high-fee Bitcoin as they would be to settle to gold coins (if this were still an option). Yes, withdrawal of the hard money might be an option for those paranoid enough to keep their coins under their mattress / in their hardware wallet, but the promise of Bitcoin having any kind of practical impact on the financial freedom of people worldwide would be an utter failure.

    So, in order to maintain control, the incumbent financial establishment need only direct/manipulate development such that Bitcoin becomes a settlement layer behind a more easily controlled payment layer. They do not necessarily need to corrupt Bitcoin itself.

    Bitcoin is being hot-wired for settlement

    Back in 2015, by far the most common understanding of Bitcoin was that it would function as a peer-to-peer electronic cash, suitable for small casual payments. That is, it would become so cheap, fast and seamless to use that people would always prefer to transact with it directly like cash, rather than using a substitute money on a secondary payment layer.

    So, when the article "Bitcoin is Being Hot-Wired for Settlement" by Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen appeared, the title came across as a little paranoid. Yes, there were a few people working on Bitcoin who would prefer if it became relegated to a settlement layer for a different (perhaps more easily controlled) payment network, but the most common attitude by far was that technical scaling challenges would ultimately be resolved (with no fundamental barriers to this), and that Bitcoin would become an effective cash-like money for the world. There were simply far too many people involved who understood the importance of maintaining the cash-like qualities of Bitcoin for it to be successfully lured into becoming a mere settlement layer.

    Fast forward three years, and we find the article's warning shockingly prescient.

    • The transaction throughput of BTC is still artificially constrained, with serious discussion about constraining it further to encourage fees to rise to provide demand for cheaper second layer payment solutions, such as the Lightning Network.
    • BTC is more and more often described in the community and popular media as an analogue of digital gold rather than digital cash.
    • The push for merchant adoption has all but been abandoned until usable payment layers arrive, with a resulting nosedive of companies accepting Bitcoin for payments.
    • Direct use of BTC for payments (and especially micro-payments) is shunned almost as much as email spam.

    Part of the reason that this transformation in the direction of development has been successful is due to the promise that the Lightning Network (LN) will be an effective second layer that maintains all of the same assurances as the underlying bitcoins. The current widespread assumption in the BTC community is that the LN will eventually be used directly by everyone as a payment layer for Bitcoin. It can be shown (although it's debatable) that control over the bitcoins in a LN node are as good as or better than control over the underlying bitcoins. Unlike in the second layer examples I gave earlier, bitcoins in the LN can not be inflated, are no more easily confiscated or censored and may be even harder to spy on than base layer bitcoins. With this understanding, many/most developers in the BTC community support the LN and are comfortable constraining the Bitcoin base layer such that bitcoins are not used directly for payments.

    The Lightning Network is not for you

    Back in 2015 and earlier, the idea that there was an agenda to transform Bitcoin into a settlement network (that had a hope of succeeding) was seen as a paranoid conspiracy theory. Now, people might doubt that the idea was ever even contentious. Similarly, I predict that there is an agenda to ensure that the Lightning Network will not be used by end users. It will function as a very effective way to securely transact bitcoins, but it will never be user friendly. It will always either require an unreasonable amount of always-on server hardware, or will simply be too complex and costly to set up for the average user. I predict instead that the LN will merely be an electronic transfer mechanism for institutions such as banks. End users will then only transact with bitcoins via bank transfers. For example, most people will have a Bitcoin bank (e.g. Coinbase) account, and will transact simply by instructing their bank to transfer money to the receiver's account. Their bank may then occasionally settle by paying the receiver's bank through the LN. At this point, the relegation of Bitcoin to being a genuine settlement layer will be complete.

    With end users only ever seeing the digital numbers on their Bitcoin bank accounts, the number of "bitcoins" in the system can be freely inflated using much the same mechanisms as occur today with commercial bank created money. All the usual forms of confiscation, censorship and spying will continue.

    Wasn't this bound to happen anyway?

    While BTC is being intentionally engineered to discourage direct use, Bitcoin Cash (BCH) is instead being engineered explicitly to encourage it. BCH aims to maintain reliably small transaction fees and fast, friction-free transactions at the base layer. In this environment, there will be far less incentive for people to move to corruptible second layers. Furthermore, BCH was created in reaction to BTC's design decision to become a settlement layer, and as a result, BCH's most defining feature is its dedication to maintaining the cash-like qualities of Bitcoin. Therefore it is significantly less likely to become corrupted the same way as BTC, and has the community most dedicated to bringing a good truly peer-to-peer electronic cash to the world.

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

    If Facebook Marketplace had a mandatory cryptocurrency (assumed as BTC), would you be willing to use it more or less?

    Posted: 04 Mar 2019 01:09 AM PST

    If Facebook Marketplace had a mandatory cryptocurrency (assumed as BTC), would you be willing to use it more or less?

    the same question was recently asked on finnoq's opinion marketplace with btc as the picture. the results were as follows:

    https://i.redd.it/1uh91fkli2k21.png

    in the end, 41/77 (53/25%) said they'd used it more. 36/77 said they'd use it less.

    1. do you think this is a good sign or bad sign?
    2. do you think this would be the result if 1,000 people were asked the same question?
    3. what do you think about the question itself?

    for me, i think it is encouraging and the results wouldn't be so different if 1,000 people were asked the same question. as an evangelist of btc, i truly believe in what it can do to change lives, and think it would facilitate the business of fb in this instance. on the other hand, there is a question of control and power of large institutions, be it banks or corporations. so in sum, i think it is positive for btc lovers out there, and we need to consider what this would do for the btc movement on the whole if it were implemented. don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot.

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

    New March artwork on Honest.Cash. This time you can also buy it with 100% going to the artist.

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 04:32 PM PST

    Preparing for the next bull: some reading recommendations to make better choices if you find yourself with an abundance of options

    Posted: 04 Mar 2019 02:02 AM PST

    Pretty awesome: Merchants in Queensland created an economic closed loop system based on Bitcoin BCH

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 03:42 AM PST

    Will a high tx fee actually *increase* the expected confirmation time?

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 02:28 PM PST

    Suppose you are bitcoin miner (of any fork), with command of less than (say) 5% of the total hashpower, and you receive a transaction from a user that pays $50 of fee. Is it in your interest to forward that tx to other miners?

    Until Jan/2017 or so, the answer should have been "no". If other miners got (or will soon get) that tx by some other path, sending it again would be a pointless waste of bandwidth. So suppose that no one else will get it by other means. If you hold onto that tx and keep adding it to your candidate blocks, when you finally solve a block you will collect those $50. On the other hand, if you forward it to other miners, there is at least a 95% chance that some other miner will collect those $50.

    Since Jan/2017 the question became more complicated, because Matt Corallo's improved block propagation protocol (FIBRE) will transmit a block very fast if the receiving miner has already seen all transactions contained in it. Any transactions that he has not yet seen must be transmitted at that time; and the receiver cannot use or forward the block until all those "unseen" transactions have arrived.

    So, if you hold that transaction with $50 fee, and the other miners will not get it by some other means, when you finally solve a block you will have to send that transaction with it. Your block will take a bit longer to propagate to other miners. Then there is an increased chance that another miner will solve his block and forward it to everybody, while yours is still propagating. Then your block may be orphaned and you will lose the reward that you would otherwise have collected.

    The key parameter is the extra delay D that would be added to the propagation time of your block, if a single transaction in it was not seen by anyone else and had to be transmitted with the block. I don't know how much D can be. Let me guess that 1 extra unseen tx adds D = 6 milliseconds to the propagation time. The probability that some other miner will solve his block in those 6 milliseconds is 600/0.006 = 1/100'000. The block reward, at the current price, is about $50'000. Therefore, the expected loss for holding a transaction, if no one else will receive it by other means, is $0.50.

    It follows that, if the extra delay D is 6 ms and the price is $3800, you should not forward to other miners any transaction that pays more than $0.50 of fee. On average, you will earn more if you hold that transaction, and keep putting it into your candidate blocks, until you solve one.

    Makes sense?

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

    Chris DeRose: " Bitcoin core is not Bitcoin. This is uncontentious."

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 10:14 AM PST

    Cash Accounts Developer Publishes User-Friendly Cashual Wallet Concept

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 02:16 PM PST

    Lightning is an altcoin. Change my mind! ⚡️

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 01:38 PM PST

    Bitcoins Civil War – Everything you Need to Know about Bitcoin versus Bitcoin Cash

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 05:29 AM PST

    Bahrain Courts Indian Crypto Businesses in Collaboration With Government

    Posted: 04 Mar 2019 01:30 AM PST

    Come like my page, Bitcoin Cash Memes For Economically Literate Teens. I need the help. FB is rejecting my ads

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 10:40 AM PST

    Bitcoin Likely Seized From Dark Web Operators Auctioned by Wilsons Auctions

    Posted: 03 Mar 2019 04:41 PM PST
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment