• Breaking News

    Saturday, October 12, 2019

    Home Unlabelled BTC I found a bar & restaurant that accepts Bitcoin Cash near my apartment in Bangkok! 🇹🇭🍴

    BTC I found a bar & restaurant that accepts Bitcoin Cash near my apartment in Bangkok! 🇹🇭🍴

    October 12, 2019

    BTC I found a bar & restaurant that accepts Bitcoin Cash near my apartment in Bangkok! ������

    I found a bar & restaurant that accepts Bitcoin Cash near my apartment in Bangkok! ������

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 10:20 PM PDT

    Imagine being such a totalitarian dictator that you think you have the moral right to tell hundreds of millions of other human beings what they can and can’t sell without your permission. That’s the SEC.

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 06:33 PM PDT

    IRS’ claim that cryptocurrency forks are taxable is like taxing dog breeders when puppies are born.

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 12:26 PM PDT

    Here's their new FAQ: https://www.irs.gov/individuals/international-taxpayers/frequently-asked-questions-on-virtual-currency-transactions

    In summary, the IRS now claims that you incur a tax liability when the fork occurs.

    This is like taxing dog breeders when the puppies are born. Or for a more rural analogy: taxing a farmer whenever their chickens lay eggs, rather than when the eggs are sold.

    In both cases, the individual owns "assets" which produce further assets (which cannot be immediately "liquidated".) The new "assets" (puppies or eggs) have value, but they're not taxed until they're sold, potentially weeks or months later.

    With some straining, some are interpreting these guidelines as claiming that the liability is only incurred if/when you first move the forked coins. (By interpreting the phrase "dominion and control.") Even this interpretation fails to account for forks which have no replay protection, where ordinary users might not even realize that they've "moved their coins" on the other network. As Americans, you may not even be allowed to use the few exchanges which support new forks, so "market prices" of new cryptocurrencies are almost guaranteed to be inflated at the moment the IRS claims your new taxes are due.

    The IRS appears to believe that cryptocurrency forks are like cash dividends from equity in a company. This is absurd:

    1. They've already decided cryptocurrency is not money. It is property. Yet when you "receive cryptocurrency from another cryptocurrency", they want a percentage of this "payment" as if it's a liquid, fungible form of money. It's not. They've already decided its property. Here they are attempting to tax it both ways.
    2. This implies the IRS believes that cryptocurrency holders are "shareholders" in the cryptocurrency. This is false: shareholders have voting rights as partial owners in an incorporated company. Shareholders have the opportunity to vote "no" or to sell their shares in the corporation. By definition, cryptocurrency holder have no say in the choices made by others to "airdrop" new tokens on their existing wallets. It's impossible to even notify all holders of a future "planned fork," much less if the fork is created and initially released in secret.
    3. Let's pretend (for the sake of argument) that every hold of a cryptocurrency is a "shareholder." When a cryptocurrency "spins off" another cryptocurrency, this would be equivalent to a stock-only dividend (i.e. holders are not given the choice between a cash dividend or stock dividend, they must take the stock). Under existing regulations, this is not a taxable event for American stock investors.

    This new guidance creates a regulatory patchwork which is impossible to fully comply with (even if one attempts in good faith to be a law-abiding citizen.)

    Because compliance will be subjective, these guidelines will used against political opponents of the current and future administrations. I hope the Americans at least challenge this in their court system.

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

    I just finished another talk in Maracaibo, Venezuela about BCH usage. More photos coming soon!

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 04:06 PM PDT

    New talk in Maracaibo, Venezuela just finished! 20 people assisting and new more users know how to use Bitcoin Cash for payments ����

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 05:01 PM PDT

    Never Forget: BTC Maximalists Caught in ERC20 Sh*tcoin Scheme, Try Walking Back as "IPO" ��

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 05:03 PM PDT

    eatBCH - We're helping to bring communities closer.

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 01:18 PM PDT

    "This restaurant in Brazil (My Sushi) at Indaiatuba gives 10% off if you pay with bitcoin cash (BCH)"

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 10:35 AM PDT

    Printable on boarding cards to give out to businesses? Link to?

    Posted: 12 Oct 2019 01:11 AM PDT

    Thank you and limitless Peace

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

    Bitcoin Unlimited Is Increasing the Limit on Chained Mempool Transactions to 500

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 08:49 AM PDT

    on "freezing" the protocol: good, better, best

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 05:53 PM PDT

    There are no doubt benefits to ossifying or freezing the protocol. Stability and protection from certain kinds of attacks come to mind. The key insight is that you make the engineering changes you need to make first, and then you "freeze it" (if you're going to freeze it).

    BTC is a "good" protocol because it is more or less frozen and handles 300-400k transactions per day.

    BSV is a "better" protocol because it removed the silly blocksize limit (and then froze the protocol). (Note: I'm not saying BSV is better or a more legit project than BTC overall. There are plenty of other reasons not to support BSV outside the scope of this post.)

    BCH is the "best" protocol we have because we have a solid roadmap to make the engineering changes, and then, we can consider freezing the protocol as it will be complete, at least for a foreseeable future.

    https://www.bitcoincash.org/roadmap.html

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

    We find ourselves in a peculiar period of history. Where BTC has abandoned its original design & vision in favor of becoming a purely speculative asset. However, most people are not aware of this bait and switch yet. The alts now serve humanity instead with utility & purpose.

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 04:27 AM PDT

    Just a photo of Adam Back speaking in Hong Kong on the evils of democracy

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 08:09 AM PDT

    My review of "A model for Bitcoin’s security and the declining block subsidy" -- a new research paper by Hasu, Prestwich & Curtis

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 11:52 AM PDT

    In their new paper, authors Hasu, James Prestwich and Brandon Curtis present a simple yet realistic model for bitcoin's security as the block subsidy declines:

    https://uncommoncore.co/research-paper-a-model-for-bitcoins-security-and-the-declining-block-subsidy/

    With a block subsidy halving scheduled for next spring, the topic is timely. As the authors' note

    "the most important source of miner revenue, the block subsidy, will have to be replaced by an entirely new source of revenue"

    Indeed, and it is miner revenue that plays the critical role in bitcoin's security.

    Work on this topic tends to come in two flavors. Flavor 1 is full of mathematical splendor built upon assumptions that are too simplistic to make realistic predictions (e.g., assuming an arbitrary amount of hash power can be easily rented and thus predicting that double-spends should be occurring all the time [yet they rarely do]). Flavor 2 is better grounded in empirical fact but often limited to qualitative reasoning alone. This paper has the best features of both: it succeeds in incorporating the most-important real-world factors but in a way that still results in a rigorous model that permits quantitative reasoning about the system's security properties.

    Key to the model is the concept of miner-extractable value (MEV). This is the total value that a miner can extract by "not mining honestly" as it were (e.g., reorging the chain or other shenanigans permitted by the protocol). If the MEV is big enough, then a miner can earn more profit by attacking than by mining honestly.

    The paper is unique by incorporating the term p(postAttackPrice) in the model. If p(postAttackPrice) = 95%, it means the price of a bitcoin fell to 95% of its pre-attack price as a direct result of the attack. Interestingly, in the authors' model, only MEV and the miners' revenue are discounted by this term. The miners' cost remains fixed, as these costs are tied to consuming real-world resources like electricity and transistors. This means the expected value of the attack becomes negative very quickly with even small changes in postAttackPrice.

    (Aside: Does this highlight an important difference between proof-of-work (PoW) and proof-of-stake (PoS)? In a proof-of-stake system, the costs are denominated in the same "units" as the rewards, since there is no tether to the physical world via mining. And so the terms in the equations related to the miners' costs might scale with p(postAttackPrice) too, thereby weakening the security model compared to PoW.)

    The authors' then describe how, based on their research, ~50% of the cost of mining is due to fixed infrastructure costs (a term in their model called "commitment") rather marginal costs. Since a decrease in postAttackPrice applies over the entire lifetime of this infrastructure, even a slight decrease can impose a big cost on the miner, making dishonest mining unprofitable if detected.

    (Aside: although the authors consider the security of confirmed transactions in their model, the arguments related to the infrastructure commitment and postAttackPrice apply similarly to miner-assisted fraud for unconfirmed transactions. Proposals such as subchains, STORM and double-spend proofs that bring visibility to miner shenanigans thus increase unconfirmed transaction security by providing the market with the information it needs to react (e.g., to drive down postAttackPrice)).

    Finally, the authors include a term in their model that reflects the fact that the users could temporarily suspend Nakamoto consensus and fork to a different chain where the miners' infrastructure commitment has no value. This isn't new (it's often called the "nuclear option") but it's also incorporated into their quantitative model.

    In terms of solutions moving forward, the authors talk about constraining the amount of block space produced to derive maximal transaction fee revenue from the users. This is a topic explored in depth by Nicola Dimitri in a recent peer-reviewed paper from the spring of 2019 that the authors may not be aware of:

    https://ledgerjournal.org/ojs/index.php/ledger/article/view/145/153

    The authors also discuss the controversial option of ceasing the reward halvings in the future in order to maintain sufficient miner revenue for security. I agree this is a discussion we need to have. The point driven home by the authors is that, whether through transaction fees or inflation, security must be paid for somehow. And it's not yet clear what methods provide the best value for the network as a whole.

    I do find it odd -- and a testament to how religious the cryptocurrency space is -- that the authors were brave enough to discuss increasing bitcoin's inflation head on, yet only skirted around the taboo topic of increasing the block size limit. It is very easy to see that by scaling bitcoin on-chain, for example to 50,000 tx/sec each paying $0.02 in transaction fees, would result in $1000 per second of miner revenue even without any subsidy -- 5 times more than the ~$200 per second the miners earn today. If bitcoin (BTC) discourse is actually at the point where an increase in the inflation schedule is on the table while an increase in the block size limit remains off the table, then BTC is doomed. Ironically, the authors discuss that one way to erode confidence in the system is by limiting transaction throughput:

    "one way to achieve this [erode user trust in the system] would be to establish a mining monopoly and stop processing any transaction at all"

    which, depending on the lens through which one is looking, is nearly the situation BTC finds itself in today.

    Overall I think this was a really well written paper that both bitcoin newbies and veterans will enjoy.

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

    Telegram $1.7 Billion ICO Stopped: SEC Takes Emergency Action via Temporary Restraining Order

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 02:33 PM PDT

    My Crypto Screener using technical indicator

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 11:09 PM PDT

    Hi, I am building a crypto screener using a technical indicator.

    It's a mobile app where the user can

    • Scan the market using technical indicators such as SMA, EMA, BBand, RSI and more.
    • Users can change the setting of indicator such as Length and source to any of the OHLC values.
    • Users can scan 5M, 1H, 4H, 1D and weekly charts.
    • If you want to track only one coin, then you can set a custom alert for any coin using a technical indicator.
    • You can scan multiple time frames at once.
    • And Most important, you can set notification and be notified when any new coin fulfills your requirement.

    Tradeplan.co is the landing page, I am more than 80% done with the development, so trying to reach out to the community and looking to get some early beta users for the app.

    Looking for your feedback and please spread the word. If you have any doubt feel free to ask.

    Thanks.

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

    PSA: The world's central banks are creating money out of thin air. The Fed just announced $60 billion per month in new printing.

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 03:38 PM PDT

    BCH docker image?

    Posted: 12 Oct 2019 01:02 AM PDT

    Can anyone please recommend the "best" docker image to use for a BCH node? Or the best for each node implementation?

    Zquestz/bitcoin-abc is linked from the abc homepage, and looks like the natural choice.

    What do you all think?

    submitted by /u/crypto_spy1
    [link] [comments]

    A quick reminder: Bitcoin was never supposed to be supported by dwellers running their "nodes" on Raspberry PIs in their fucking basements. This is just some kind of popular mental delusion.

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 04:34 AM PDT

    Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (...) which only requires (...) about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. (...) as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node

    -- Satoshi Nakamoto, 2 November 2008

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

    Tomorrow is Shuffle Saturday

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 10:42 AM PDT

    Core trolls are trying to get Saturday rebranded as a day for negative statistics about Bitcoin Cash.

    Let us show them we SHUFFLE on SATURDAY.

    https://cashshuffle.com

    Get your shuffle-capable Electron Cash wallet, transfer some money into it, and help boost transactional privacy and thwart snooping chain analysts:

    https://www.electroncash.org

    Get ready for Shuffle Saturday today!

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

    EBay, Stripe and Mastercard abandon Facebook’s libra cryptocurrency

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 01:26 PM PDT

    Bloomberg: Bitcoin [Core] No Longer Seen as the Driving Force in Crypto Market

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 09:34 AM PDT

    "RealmX is now available on the App Store. Download and play on your iOS devices."

    Posted: 12 Oct 2019 01:16 AM PDT

    Bitmain announces two new Antminer 17 series miners at World Digital Mining Summit

    Posted: 11 Oct 2019 09:37 AM PDT
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment