• Breaking News

    Monday, April 15, 2019

    Home Unlabelled BTC Wikileaks has evidence Craig Wright has manipulated past blog posts to pretend to be Satoshi - EP9: 5MinsOfCrypto

    BTC Wikileaks has evidence Craig Wright has manipulated past blog posts to pretend to be Satoshi - EP9: 5MinsOfCrypto

    April 15, 2019

    BTC Wikileaks has evidence Craig Wright has manipulated past blog posts to pretend to be Satoshi - EP9: 5MinsOfCrypto

    Wikileaks has evidence Craig Wright has manipulated past blog posts to pretend to be Satoshi - EP9: 5MinsOfCrypto

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 03:05 PM PDT

    Whole banking system for Belgium shut down last night for maintenance. Impossible to transact or pay with debit/credit cards.

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 10:07 PM PDT

    Bitcoin Unlimited has become sclerotic and it's a problem

    Posted: 15 Apr 2019 12:04 AM PDT

    Some may know that u/imaginary_username recently called for a BU membership vote to expel "Norway" from BU after his role in an attempt to doxx a BTC proponent named Hodlnaut as part of Calvin Ayre and Craig Wright's decision to begin suing a number of individuals for libel. For those who are out of the loop, cryptotwitter has been in overdrive for the past week with Calvin and Craig sending out letters to individuals who have called Craig Wright a fraud or denyied that he is Satoshi Nakamoto, informing of their intent to sue unless provided with a public apology. This use of the justice system is a way of financially bullying and silencing individuals who lack the resources to challenge Calvin and Craig in court. So far, it appears that Hodlnaut, Peter McCormack and Vitalik have been targeted.

    It seems that u/imaginary_username's BUIP request was intended to push BU to address the toxic situation, in which BU members are not only maintaining support for Craig and Calvin throughout this ordeal, but are also directly involving themselves in the worst of their behaviour. The response from BU has, so far, been rather lacklustre.

    Solex (BU President) responded by suggesting that such action would not be appropriate, because Norway's behaviour was not directed at BU:

    The issues I see with this BUIP is that the conduct mentioned is not directly against the BU organisation. It is about a third-party matter. This means it requires a much higher threshold of evidence i.e. that @Norway published the doxxing info before anyone else or received payment for it. … The principle is clear. BUIPs for removal of memberships need to to lay out a case for conduct against BU, contrary to its rules, which includes damage to its reputation. This requires some work to collate evidence and present for a membership decision. The example given about doxxing can only be considered in the overall context of damaging the org's reputation. The connection in this case is very slight, hence the bar is high. It would be different if hodlonaut was a BU member, but, like you @Tom Zander, he never bothered to apply for membership.

    Instead, it has been proposed that u/imaginary_username either (1) personally collect evidence demonstrating that Norway's bad behaviour is "a long-standing pattern of actions that cause harm to Bitcoin Unlimited", or else (2) modify the original BUIP to instead "condemn the doxxing and/or suing of individuals for reasons of blockchain politics". Understandably, u/imaginary_username, whilst standing by his initial proposal, has decided to settle for (2) due to the high bar that BU Officers have set for (1):

    I think this particular offence is different [to past cases of bad behaviour from BU members], and @Norway did not merely join in "calling for" the doxxing, but also posted information himself as well as broadcasted it in a couple dozen replies. This is the only instance I feel egregious enough to warrant action - I have better things to do otherwise. But if the bar is higher, I'll relent.

    With all that said, I'll modify the BUIP into a call for censure instead before the deadline. It might be symbolic in practice, but a vote on it will still show where the membership stands, and hopefully cushion some of the damage that has been done in the eyes of the wider public.

    Whilst BU's response seems in keeping with usual procedure, I am concerned that BU's procedure is not equipped to deal with our current situation, in which BSV is using its weight to financially bully individuals in the Bitcoin Cash community and others in cryptocurrency generally. For those unaware, BSV is also suing three Bitcoin Cash developers for writing the code that forked BCH in November.

    Make no mistake, this legal action will cost many people tens (perhaps hundreds) of thousands of dollars, and it will be effective in silencing those without the financial resources to defend themselves in court. It is simply indefensible and utterly contemptible behaviour. The people involved in this activity have shown themselves to be toxic, and it is my opinion that Bitcoin Cash can no longer afford to empower these individuals by continuing to associate with them through Bitcoin Unlimited.

    Either the Bitcoin Unlimited leadership is strangely ignorant of what is actually transpiring, or they are tacitly endorsing this activity by refusing to materially disassociate the organisation from these bad actors. As somebody who has always believed that integrity, honesty and freedom lie at the heart of Bitcoin, I'm appalled to witness this turn of events.

    I am concerned that Bitcoin Unlimited is at a point where it must decide where its values and future lie, and that by refusing such a decision, the organisation is enabling bad actors. If something isn't done, I fear that Bitcoin Unlimited will tarnish this community's reputation and, in the long-run, resign itself to irrelevance.

    Please receive this as an appeal to do something while the situation still permits.

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

    Craig Wright is suing Vitalik Buterin too.

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 04:47 PM PDT

    https://coingeek.com/craig-wright-legal-fight-crypto-critics/

    On April 12, Wright's attorneys issued similar legal papers to two individuals – Bitcoin podcast host Peter McCormack and Ethereum co-founder Vitalik Buterin

    submitted by /u/jagga8
    [link] [comments]

    When people complain about the wastefulness of mining, remember this

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 02:25 PM PDT

    Yes my son, your $10 BTC transaction needs premium security which costs $1...

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 11:49 AM PDT

    Am I f*cked over with my BTC?

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 09:14 PM PDT

    It have been 7 hours with still 0/3 transactions made.

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

    Nearly 1,000 different tokens have already been created on top of Bitcoin Cash!

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 09:33 PM PDT

    This Week in BCH

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 07:12 AM PDT

    BitPay blog post: “Why Is BitPay Settling to Merchants with Stablecoins?” BitPay settling to 3 different Ethereum ERC-20 stablecoins because it’s more favorable for merchants than BCH. :-/

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 10:09 PM PDT

    I hope binance delists bsv.

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 11:18 PM PDT

    This woud be so bullish for bch they would have to rename it and all Calvin s money pumps bch

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

    Yes, ‘Bitcoin is Clearly Shaking The System’ and Even IMF Can’t Control It

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 11:01 AM PDT

    Blocks Compressed by 99% and Over $2 Million BCH shuffled - Bitcoin.com Weekly News Show

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 08:09 AM PDT

    The BCH blockchain is 165GB! How good can we compress it? I had a closer look

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 05:40 AM PDT

    Someone posted their results for compressing the blockchain in the telegram group, this is what they were able to do:

    • 165 GB - Blockchain size uncompressed
    • 130 GB - tar.gz compressions
    • 113 GB - 7zip ultra compression

    Note, bitcoin by its nature is poorly compressible, as it contains a lot of incompressible data, such as public keys, addresses, and signatures. However, there's also a lot of redundant information in there, e.g. the transaction version, and it's usually the same opcodes, locktime, sequence number etc. over and over again.

    I was curious and thought, how much could we actually compress the blockchain? This is actually very relevant: As I established in my previous post about the costs of a 1GB full node, the storage and bandwidth costs seem to be one of the biggest bottlenecks, and that CPU computation costs are actually the cheapest part, as were able almost to get away with ten year old CPUs.

    Let's have a quick look at the transaction format and see what we can do. I'll have a TL;DR at the end if you don't care about how I came up with those numbers.

    Before we just in, don't forget that I'll be streaming today again building a SPV node, as I've already posted about here. Last time we made some big progress, I think! Check it out here https://dlive.tv/TobiOnTheRoad. It'll start at around 15:00 UTC!

    Version (32 bits)

    There's currently two transaction types. Unless we add new ones, we can compress it to 1 bit (0 = version 1; and 1 = version 2).

    Input/output count (8 to 72 bits)

    This is the number of inputs the transaction has (see section 9 of the whitepaper). If the number of inputs is below 253, it will take 1 byte, and otherwise 2 to 8 bytes. This nice chart shows that, currently, 90% of Bitcoin transactions only have 2 inputs, sometimes 3.

    A byte can represent 256 different numbers. Having this as the lowest granularity for input count seems quite wasteful! Also, 0 inputs is never allowed in Bitcoin Cash. If we represent one input with 00₂, two inputs with 01₂, three inputs with 10₂ and everything else with 11₂ + current format, we get away with only 2 bits more than 90% of the time.

    Outputs are slightly higher, 3 or less 90% of the time, but the same encoding works fine.

    Input (>320 bits)

    There can be multiple of those. It has the following format:

    • Previous output (288 bits): This specifies which output is being spent by this input. It's the transaction hash (32 bytes), plus the output index within that transaction (4 bytes).The transaction hash is usually a random number. How can we compress that? Well, we already know this transaction and its hash. If it's part of the blockchain, we can uniquely identify it by its block (via blockheight) and its position in that block. We'll list all transaction outputs of the block by whatever order is present for that block (TTOR/CTOR), and then encode the position of the output in that list. For the blockheight, we can use 4 bytes, which will allow 4 billion blocks (83,781 years) and for the transaction output we can either use 4 bytes (max. 430GB big blocks) or more, but we can use 1 bit as a flag once blocks get really large.So in total, this will be 8 bytes, or 64 bits. If transactions aren't in the blockchain yet but in the mempool, we can use something similar Xthinner uses by encoding only the prefix required to uniquely identify the transaction. But I haven't thought that through yet.
    • Signature script (≥ 8 bits): As most scripts have a standardized format, we don't have to put the whole script into the input every time. Say there's seven standard formats, then we'd use 3 bits for the format. If all bits are set, the transaction will continue to be serialized in a standard way. The most common transaction type is Pay-To-Public-Key-Hash, which requires a signature and a public key. The signature currently uses the DER format, which can currently be up to 73 bytes, but just actually stores two 32 byte numbers, which can actually be represented with 512 bits.
      The public key can be compressed to 257 bits, plus 1 to specify if it's compressed in the original transaction. Makes 258 bits.
    • Sequence (32 bits): For almost all programs, this is FF FF FF FF. We can use 1 bit to determine if it's that number (0), and encode the sequence number ordinarily if not (1).
    • So in total that 838 bits per P2PKH input, or about 105 bytes.

    Output (≥72 bits)

    There can be multiple of those. They have the following format:

    • Value in satoshis (64 bits): Currently, the first 13 bits of this amount will always be 0 (as there's a maximum of 21M BCH), but there's efforts to allow sub-satoshi values in Bitcoin, so we can't rely on that. Also, most of the time, transactions will send much less than 21,000,000 BCH, or even 21 BCH. Therefore, if we encode the sent value separately, we can use integer compression schemes, as outlined in this paper, which achieves between 6 and 16 bits per 32 bit integer (see Table 4, p. 21). I think it's save to assume we can get away with 16 bits if we implement that scheme here.
    • Public key script (≥8 bits): Here, we can use the same trick as with the input, by having 3 bits for the format. For Pay-To-Public-Hash transactions, we only need 20 bytes or 160 bits for the address.
    • So in total that is 179 bits per P2PKH output.

    Lock time (32 bits)

    This is FF FF FF FF most of the time and only occasionally transactions will be time-locked, and only change the meaning if a sequence number for an input is not FF FF FF FF. We can do the same trick as with the sequence number, such that most of the time, this will be just 1 bit.

    Total

    So, in summary, we have:

    • Version: 1 bit
    • Input/output count: two times 2 bits
    • Input: 838 bits per input
    • Output: 179 bits per output
    • Lock time: 1 bit

    Nice table:

    No. of inputs No. of outputs Uncompressed size Compressed size Ratio
    1 1 191 bytes (1528 bits) 128 bytes (1023 bits) 67.0%
    1 2 226 bytes (1808 bits) 151 bytes (1202 bits) 66.5%
    2 1 339 bytes (2712 bits) 233 bytes (1861 bits) 68.6%
    2 2 374 bytes (2992 bits) 255 bytes (2040 bits) 68.2%
    2 3 408 bytes (3264 bits) 278 bytes (2219 bits) 68.0%
    3 2 520 bytes (4160 bits) 360 bytes (2878 bits) 69.2%
    3 3 553 bytes (4424 bits) 383 bytes (3057 bits) 69.1%

    Interestingly, if we take a compression of 69%, if we were to compress the 165 GB blockchain, we'd get 113.8GB. Which is (almost) exactly the amount which 7zip was able to give us given ultra compression!

    I think there's not a lot we can do to compress the transaction further, even if we only transmit public keys, signatures and addresses, we'd at minimum have 930 bits, which would still only be at 61% compression ratio (and missing outpoint and value). 7zip is probably also able to utilize re-using of addresses/public keys if someone sends to/from the same address multiple times, which we haven't explored here; but it's generally discouraged to send to the same address multiple times anyway so I didn't explore that. We'd still have signatures clocking in at 512 bits.

    Note that the compression scheme I outlined here operates on a per transaction or per block basis (if we compress transacted satoshis per block), unlike 7zip, which compresses per blockchain.

    I hope this was an interesting read. I expected the compression ratio to be higher, but still, if it takes 3 weeks to sync uncompressed, it'll take just 2 weeks compressed. Which can mean a lot for a business, actually.

    I'll be streaming again today!

    As I've already posted about here, I will stream about building an SPV node in Python again. It'll start at 15:00 UTC. Last time we made some big progress, I think! We were able to connect to my Bitcoin ABC node and send/receive our first version message. I'll do a nice recap of what we've done in that time, as there haven't been many present last time. And then we'll receive our first headers and then transactions! Check it out here: https://dlive.tv/TobiOnTheRoad.

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

    21 US Congress Members Petition the IRS for Clarification on Crypto Tax Regulations - The Tokenist

    Posted: 15 Apr 2019 01:03 AM PDT

    France Passes Bill to Allow Insurance Providers to Invest In Crypto and Tokens

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 07:08 AM PDT

    Over 200 locations in Slovenia where you can pay with BCH

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 05:51 AM PDT

    Just gonna leave this here...

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 04:54 AM PDT

    Cryptocurrencies Are Less Correlated with Bitcoin in 2019

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 01:32 PM PDT

    KeePassXC team now accepts BitcoinCash for donations.

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 04:48 AM PDT

    I found my BTC wallet from 7 years ago. Where is it?

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 10:18 AM PDT

    So I just recently found my BTC wallet from 7 years ago and I wanted some help because i dont even know where to look up my pk to know if i had any BTC on this wallet. Im not to keen on looking up the PK on any random website so Im asking u guys if you could provide any help.
    *Will reward after if I happened to find some BTC in it.

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

    Bitcoin Cash Futures Volumes: A Prelude to the Recent BCH Price Appreciation

    Posted: 14 Apr 2019 10:46 PM PDT

    Roger Ver will take stage at Blockchain Life 2019 - Singapore

    Posted: 15 Apr 2019 02:09 AM PDT

    Oh Boy! What Did Craig Wright Do Now?!

    Posted: 15 Apr 2019 02:01 AM PDT
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment