• Breaking News

    Wednesday, February 19, 2020

    Home Unlabelled BTC ABC 0.21 changes the BCH protocol to issue 5% of every new coin and 5% of all transaction fees to Amaury Sechet and his friends. Do not run this software if you care about the future of bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

    BTC ABC 0.21 changes the BCH protocol to issue 5% of every new coin and 5% of all transaction fees to Amaury Sechet and his friends. Do not run this software if you care about the future of bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

    February 19, 2020

    BTC ABC 0.21 changes the BCH protocol to issue 5% of every new coin and 5% of all transaction fees to Amaury Sechet and his friends. Do not run this software if you care about the future of bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

    ABC 0.21 changes the BCH protocol to issue 5% of every new coin and 5% of all transaction fees to Amaury Sechet and his friends. Do not run this software if you care about the future of bitcoin: a peer-to-peer electronic cash system.

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 04:52 PM PST

    Private key Sweeping is back!!!

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 08:22 PM PST

    More research highlighting flawed 'lightning network'

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 06:33 PM PST

    Understand what's at stake + personal remarks on how I will handle the current situation as an oldtimer.

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 11:01 PM PST

    What makes crypto special?

    • P2P transactions without intermediaries
    • based on sound money principles
    • permissionless to any participant in any possible role (dev, miner, user, investor, node operator, business).

    A crypto with a built-in tax (no matter if it's called a "dev tax", a "miner tax" or an "investor tax") is against the principles formulated in the whitepaper.

    Only users have to pay a fee in order to make use of their right to transact on-chain. Despite the users self-interest to pay a fee as low as possible there is also self-interest in generally paying a fee as it secures the network. This means their incentives are aligned.

    Now I suppose that neither in 1913 nor in 2020 people are thinking about the (real) long term consequences of their actions. Some may question if such a thing as karma (action) exists or not. Still it's undeniable that actions have long term consequence resulting in responsibility today.

    This is meant when we are talking about precedents (bending principles we signed up for), as well as tragedies of the commons (we didn't sign up for but likely ignored). More could be said about slippery slopes and degradation of values over time resulting in divide and rule schemes or why the road to hell is paved with good intentions (from good guys). Because people always forget that all three: intentions, people and successors change over time.

    So I may be the first to ask this question: Who has thought about the long term consequences of this tax proposal*?

    *Remarks: I know that funding devs is a hard problem we as community should tackle. Still I think it's a red herring (propaganda) to frame this tax around a thing we all can agree upon. Namely that development (caveat: NOT developers) needs funding in order to bring forward and scale this project.

    So fast forward [>>] : After installing this temporary tax (we all know it won't be temporary) what potential outcomes can be expected in the future when reward (inflation) tends against zero.

    In this not to distant future fees have to pay for security of the network. Notice how BTC and BCH fundamentally disagree on how fees have to pay for security. But they both agree that fees will have to and also will be sufficient to pay for security. (Notice how Monero begs to disagree and uses tail emission instead).

    In that future world what implications does a "mere" 5% tax have? Which incentives do the tax collectors in control have? But most important: Won't they be incentivized that the stream of funds will never stop even if rewards decline (like every other tax system in human history)?

    Now what kind of methods can they use to leverage their influence over the network? And how easy is it to influence certain policies (from easy to hard):

    • Keep or change beneficiaries
    • Increase or decrease tax?
    • Increase or decrease fees?
    • Increase inflation aka 21M limit?

    I am quite sure the list above is incomplete. My main take away is that by adjusting the effective tax rate after (and even before) rewards have gone to zero, "we" created a financial policy instrument that will be used to influence the economy built on top of Bitcoin (Cash) as well as control other (opposing) participants.

    If an entity (let's call it "Fundstream") can leverage centralized control over the network AND use this for all kinds of monetary policy (e.g. alimenting the good developers aka the good guys and fighting against the bad guys, whoever they may be) a central bank like structure has successfully been established on top of Bitcoin. This is genius -or NOT!?

    Fellow Bitcoiners. This is our personal Wilson Woodrow moment. Everything else is history.

    Personal remarks:

    I will immediately stop any activities that will lead to more adoption for BCH be it through new users or through investors. I can not recommend to invest in a project that is planing to introduce a tax on their investors. That's 100% against what Bitcoin stands for. I already started to talk to current investors and made them aware of the situation including the potential necessity of complete divestment.

    As someone who entered this market as an investor in 2011 and someone who manages quite a huge amount of BCH for others I will observe the situation closely and am already looking into best divestment strategies in the case Amaury gets his way.

    A funding model based on voluntarism and accountability like it's perfectly working on Monero is the way forward and anybody denying that is either not interested in accountability or is more interested in attacking Bitcoin (Cash) right before it enters a new bull market and just before BTC's fee problems could wake up plenty of people. Monero proves and other oldtimers agree with me that funding is not the problem. UX and accountability is. I hope Flipstarter can help in this regard just like CCS helped Monero.

    If this was about funding developers we would simply sit down. Evaluate what projects need to be funded in the next 3 or 6 months (looking at the roadmap) and come up with some numbers. But this is not about funding developers. This is about playing a power play to gain as much control over the Bitcoin protocol as possible in order to define monetary policies a decade or two down the road.

    I wonder when we will call this an attack of one or two colluding miners who built a cartel with the devs of the reference client maxing out their current power (going all-in on control).

    The BTC capture has been bad. You can like the propagated arguments for node decentralization or not. But in the end a fee market is still some kind of free market. The capture of the protocol we see in BCH is even worse. It introduces government and central bank like capabilities into BCH. And believe me - it won't be temporary. If anything it will kill the host like every government system does if you give it enough time as there never will be enough taxes for all the wonderful things we could fund.

    Also notice how BTC produced a spill over effect into alts in early 2017 when it maxed out for the first time. The tax on BCH willl create another spill over effect as miners can enforce some rules but fortunately they don't have ultimate power. Capital controls won't work in BCH. Imagine what would happen if citizens were free to move their money in the light of the fact that a 5% tax is going be enforced on all investors in stock markets...

    Without capital controls the money will simply leave! That's economics 101.

    I fear for the long term prospects of BCH if economic illiterates take over once again just like they did when Amaury himself had to provide the code for a fork from BTC.

    submitted by /u/gr8ful4
    [link] [comments]

    'Central Banking Is Socialism for the 1%' - Report Cites Wealth Inequality Driven by Stimulus

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 01:31 PM PST

    Reminder: You can even order Japanese Pancakes with Bitcoin Cash!

    Posted: 19 Feb 2020 12:14 AM PST

    "It was a pleasant surprise to find a restaurant that accepts Bitcoin Cash in my area (Asturias, Spain)." -Reizu

    Posted: 19 Feb 2020 12:34 AM PST

    Research: 0.5 Bitcoin can lock most liquidity, payment channel loopholes paralyze Lightning Network

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 08:10 PM PST

    May Hardfork Scenario Analysis

    Posted: 19 Feb 2020 01:39 AM PST

    As everyone probably knows by now, the BitcoinABC developers have pushed code (https://github.com/Bitcoin-ABC/bitcoin-abc/releases/tag/v0.21.0) and done a code freeze on the release for May that includes a 5% tax on mined blocks (incl fees) and will be active on the network once 66% of miners have approved it.

    ​

    Bitcoin Unlimited opposes this (https://twitter.com/PeterRizun/status/1229921793697124353) as do hundreds of other traders, developers, and miners (https://www.reddit.com/r/btc/comments/f4qgry/lets_have_a_show_of_hands_who_supports_the_ifp/).

    ​

    So, come May there will obviously be some contention. Below are the possible scenarios and how they play out, any devs who can weigh in on the uncertainties would be helpful:

    ​

    Scenario 1: The IFP does not get 66% support and it never gets activated on the network.

    This is the smoothest outcome but does not appear likely given the miner support of the tax so far. But it would result in a unified BCH and no orphaning or forking would occur.

    ​

    Scenario 2: The IFP gets 66% support and the anti-IFP people concede and run the new ABC code to be in consensus.

    This basically is the "okay we give up you win" scenario where the ABC supporters who want the IFP triumph and the BCH community unites in consensus, supporting the tax. This seems unlikely given that the opposition to IFP is based on core principles around altering the protocol and what is appropriate for such cases. As such, if this does happen, it likely results in a decline in BCH price and perhaps even larger support for BSV. But, no new coin would arise out of this.

    ​

    Scenario 3: Some miners run the new ABC code and the network gets 66% support, but some miners and users refuse to support it and continue to run Bitcoin Unlimited.

    As I understand it, and /u/Peter__R can correct me, the current BU code being run would just result in those miners running BU getting orphaned from the network. I am unclear on whether this will lead to a new chain being forked as well where BU supporters would then have a new chain with no replay protection. Those in the BCH community who can't stomach BSV or the IFP will find some way to fork into a new coin and preserve BCH as they think it should be.

    ​

    Feel free to add to this, I am just thinking outloud about what can happen in May. What do you guys think?

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

    Voluntary Financing: Bitcoin Cash Devs Reveal Noncustodial Funding App Flipstarter

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 10:33 AM PST

    Thanks to Calvin Ayre many BCH users have added 50%-100% of their BCH holdings (selling BSV, buying BCH). Overall this has made BCH more scarce since the BCH supply is still limited.

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 11:30 PM PST

    On the other hand Calvin is left holding BSV which is a coin based on the false premise that the original creator of Bitcoin would create a minority fork and not be able to sign any addresses. Which is a ridiculous joke/scam and really makes BSV the current Bitconnect.

    We warned many people about Bitconnect but some people still bought it and lost it all when it went to $0. So dear friends of r/btc beware of BSV. It is built on a lie and will likely end in losses.

    submitted by /u/frozen124
    [link] [comments]

    Two Notable Bitcoin Cash Developers Announce Opposition to the IFP

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 04:32 PM PST

    Proof BCH transactions are faster and more reliable than BTC transactions.

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 06:30 PM PST

    Thoughts on the IFP - A Dev Perspective (by quest)

    Posted: 19 Feb 2020 01:54 AM PST

    More updates for mint.bitcoin.com!!

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 01:14 PM PST

    mint.bitcoin.com

    February 18th release:

    • New options for creating tokens: fixed supply, document hash on file upload and info linking to notary
    • Burn token / burn baton feature
    • Dividends page where you can pay dividend to any token
    • OP_RETURN message on dividends
    submitted by /u/MemoryDealers
    [link] [comments]

    Tether to mint SLP tokens

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 06:30 AM PST

    The issue with dev funding proposals is control of the donation addresses

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 09:14 AM PST

    Removing the HK company from the plan was an improvement.

    The current issue is that donation addresses are whitelisted in the client.

    Whoever controls the dominant client today or in 10 or 20 years controls the funding of development.

    Letting miners choose their donation address is a nonstarter, because they could simply pay 5% to their own address, or a thinly disguised "development group" that really pays back into their own balance sheet.

    Some cryptocurrencies solve this with a foundation, which is similar to the HK company model. The challenge here is that a legal entity can be infiltrated and regulated.

    Others let miners "vote" on valid donation addresses. This is arguably less problematic, but could lead to a shorter list of favored donation addresses, and depending on the % required for consensus, could also lead to larger pools/miners donating to shell development groups that are really themselves.

    This list of acceptable donation addresses seems to be the crux of the debate around redirecting coinbase rewards towards development.

    We need an agreeable solution to this problem, if we move forward with this approach at all.

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

    Ethereum DeFi Platforms Gamed Again: $1,000,000 Total in Two Instances Over Four Days

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 06:40 AM PST

    Tether to Launch on Bitcoin Cash SLP; FCoin: $130 Million Missing; Ripple CEO Slams BTC Mining

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 10:27 AM PST

    "When you're ready to protest income (and sales, and estate, and capital gains, and VAT) tax as hard as you're protesting this 'miner tax,' holler at me." - Vin Armani

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 07:15 PM PST

    BashCo is trolling this subreddit

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 06:42 AM PST

    How I Became a Bitcoin Cash Maximalist

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 11:52 AM PST

    Maybe we should make NOTAX hats and sell 6 million of them at 1 USD per hat and then use that money to fund ABC?

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 03:54 PM PST

    Against the mindset of "I am getting to the conclusion that all crypto projects are doomed. [...] It is impossible to distinguish the truth"

    Posted: 19 Feb 2020 02:10 AM PST

    The top comment on a frontpage post in this sub is literally what's in the title. It makes my senses tingle. I want to strongly encourage this community to refuse this ill mindset.

    Not all might be aware on what the actual goal of trolls is. Most of you will think that it's fear, uncertainty and doubt; or that they want to convince people to join other projects; or that they want to create divisiveness; or that they want to grow fabricated concerns.

    Yes, all of that is true to some degree. But there is one goal that is above all the others, and because it's damn effective.

    The goal is not to convince, but to confuse. To instill a feeling that there is no truth. And that if there is a truth, it is unknowable to me, a common mortal.

    It leads to people acting emotional and irrational. It's aims at disheartening and consequent abandonment by honest people.

    We're in a middle of an important debate about the future of BCH. It's important to have it, and it's great that we have a free speech avenue where to have it. Unfortunately there is no way to completely exclude trolls and dishonest actors.

    We've seen this before, time and time again. Rightfully so, because it's so effective. Don't fall for it.

    Now I'm no expert on the matter, but there are some precautions we can take to mitigate the influx of trolls.

    1. Is the post/comment I'm reading nuanced or blunt? Is it speaking to my reason or to my emotions?
    2. is the post/comment by a known community member that I respect? Don't disregard new users (that might want to speak out now) but don't exaggerate their opinion just because it resonates with your emotions.
    3. Disregard comments that are emotional one-liners (expecially outraged ones). It's fine to disagree, but with arguments and nuance.
    4. It is important to call out bad behaviour when it happens, but not to make it personal. Also be suspicious of people that go "I'm done with X because they did a stupid thing that one time". Try to have the whole picture in mind.
    5. Base your opinion in facts, and not just the latest fact, but the whole track records of people/organisations.

    Tl;dr: Don't get disheartened, it's the real goal of trolls. This community resilience depends upon it. We've been here time and time again.

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

    2 small bugs with the bitcoin.com wallet on iOS

    Posted: 18 Feb 2020 11:04 AM PST

    We've discovered 2 small bugs with the new bitcoin.com wallet (version 6.0.7 (2)) on iOS 13.3:

    1. APP LOCK: The bitcoin.com wallet has an option for "app lock" — we are assuming that this option means that the app should require authentication (TouchID or FaceID) to launch/open? But even though we've got the bitcoin.com wallet's option for "app lock" turned on, the app never locks itself. Even if we leave the app for 20 minutes, 30 minutes, or more. Even if we lock our phone for an hour and then unlock our phone an hour later, the bitcoin.com app doesn't lock itself. The app can just be opened without any further authentication or credentials (TouchID or FaceID). Unless we're misunderstanding what the purpose of the "app lock" feature is? Our assumption was that "app lock" means further authentication/credentials before allowing it to open?

    2. iOS NOTIFICATION PROBLEM ON iPHONE (but works fine on iPad): Even though we have all notifications turned on within both (a) the bitcoin.com wallet and (b) the iPhone's iOS Notification Settings for the bitcoin.com app, we are never notified by iOS when we have received a new incoming transaction. Strangely enough, this bug does not occur on iPad, only on iPhone. So the iOS notifications work fine on iPad. But they do not work on iPhone. Also note that the app's notifications WITHIN the bitcoin.com wallet app itself still work fine (e.g. if you have the wallet app launched & open, the app will notify you WITHIN THE APP ITSELF when a new transaction is received). But the iPhone app does not push those notifications outward to the iOS level of system notifications, so the iOS notifications will not trigger on iPhone. We have not tried deleting & reinstalling the app yet, so no idea if that would fix the problem or not.

    EDIT: Regarding #2, this is interesting — if you shut down the phone and restart the phone, and then relaunch the app, you will NOT be notified within the app itself of any new transactions that have been received since the last time you launched the app. This might be by design.

    EDIT AGAIN: Discovered a 3rd bug. See comments below.

    u/memorydealers u/maplesyrupsucker

    submitted by /u/scotty321
    [link] [comments]
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment