Bitcoin Wiki

Should we sit down for a moment and talk about Bitcoin and cryptocurrency.

submitted by Yozhur to conspiracy [link] [comments]

The Elites Twitter Accounts were not Hacked. They sent money to there breakaway civilization.

The Twitter accounts of some of the most prominent U.S. political and business leaders, from Barack Obama and Joe Biden to Jeff Bezos and Warren Buffett, were hacked Wednesday afternoon in an apparent effort to promote a Bitcoin scam. The attacks were stunning in scope and almost certainly coordinated. Others whose Twitter accounts were caught up in the security incident included Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Kanye West, Uber Technologies Inc., Apple Inc. and Michael Bloomberg, the founder and majority owner of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP. The accounts sent out tweets promising to double the money of anyone sending funds via Bitcoin within 30 minutes.
So you’re telling me in a day and age where Twitter can make or break someone Anonymous Hackers Hacked Americas most powerful companies and rich people accounts and only used the “limited access” they had to scam for bitcoin? Which just so happens to be “untraceable” funds?
Ya Im not buying it. 1st of all: Its a American Presidential election year and if you hacked any Presidential accounts running for the highest office in the land you would not just use it to scam for bitcoin. A lot of people if they had access to these accounts would troll the hell out of America. My evidence for this theory is look at what happened to Trumps account. A Twitter employee who was fired before he left used his access to delete Trumps account before it was restored for like 5 minutes. He did not use it to scam for bitcoin.
One tweet can make or break the stock market. Your company or your reputation. And you use it to scam for bitcoin. Ya okay. Yet at the same time the untraceable funds that they successfully scammed out of people is going somewhere. My guess is to the Breakaway Civilization thats being built by these billionaires like Elon Musk, Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet. Musk especially has had a lot of success with his Rocket technology.
Edit: Why is this post instantly at 0 the moment I posted? I get shit for bringing politics into this sub yet I post a real conspiracy theory and instantly downvoted to 0 never to see “rising”.
submitted by Stevemagegod to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Musk tries to explain Bitcoin to JK Rowling, attacks central banks

Musk tries to explain Bitcoin to JK Rowling, attacks central banks submitted by leidogbei to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Crypto currencies are controlled by the elite as well. Bilderberg invested $55mil in bitcoins early days. AXA, all from SEC’s website

SS: Bilderberg controls bitcoin.
https://www.sec.gov/comments/sr-batsbzx-2016-30/batsbzx201630-137145.htm
submitted by ChipChippersonsSoul to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Eth 2.0 vs Polkadot and other musings by a fundamental investor

Spent about two hours on this post and I decided it would help the community if I made it more visible. Comment was made as a response to this
I’m trying to avoid falling into a maximalist mindset over time. This isn’t a 100% ETH question, but I’m trying to stay educated about emerging tech.
Can someone help me see the downsides of diversifying into DOTs?
I know Polkadot is more centralized, VC backed, and generally against our ethos here. On chain governance might introduce some unknown risks. What else am I missing?
I see a bunch of posts about how Ethereum and Polkadot can thrive together, but are they not both L1 competitors?
Response:
What else am I missing?
The upsides.
Most of the guys responding to you here are full Eth maxis who drank the Parity is bad koolaid. They are married to their investment and basically emotional / tribal in an area where you should have a cool head. Sure, you might get more upvotes on Reddit if you do and say what the crowd wants, but do you want upvotes and fleeting validation or do you want returns on your investment? Do you want to be these guys or do you want to be the shareholder making bank off of those guys?
Disclaimer: I'm both an Eth whale and a Dot whale, and have been in crypto for close to a decade now. I originally bought ether sub $10 after researching it for at least a thousand hours. Rode to $1500 and down to $60. Iron hands - my intent has always been to reconsider my Eth position after proof of stake is out. I invested in the 2017 Dot public sale with the plan of flipping profits back to Eth but keeping Dots looks like the right short and long term play now. I am not a trader, I just take a deep tech dive every couple of years and invest in fundamentals.
Now as for your concerns:
I know Polkadot is more centralized
The sad truth is that the market doesn't really care about this. At all. There is no real statistic to show at what point a coin is "decentralized" or "too centralized". For example, bitcoin has been completely taken over by Chinese mining farms for about five years now. Last I checked, they control above 85% of the hashing power, they just spread it among different mining pools to make it look decentralized. They have had the ability to fake or block transactions for all this time but it has never been in their best interest to do so: messing with bitcoin in that way would crash its price, therefore their bitcoin holdings, their mining equipment, and their company stock (some of them worth billions) would evaporate. So they won't do it due to economics, but not because they can't.
That is the major point I want to get across; originally Bitcoin couldn't be messed with because it was decentralized, but now Bitcoin is centralized but it's still not messed with due to economics. It is basically ChinaCoin at this point, but the market doesn't care, and it still enjoys over 50% of the total crypto market cap.
So how does this relate to Polkadot? Well fortunately most chains - Ethereum included - are working towards proof of stake. This is obviously better for the environment, but it also has a massive benefit for token holders. If a hostile party wanted to take over a proof of stake chain they'd have to buy up a massive share of the network. The moment they force through a malicious transaction a proof of stake blockchain has the option to fork them off. It would be messy for a few days, but by the end of the week the hostile party would have a large amount of now worthless tokens, and the proof of stake community would have moved on to a version of the blockchain where the hostile party's tokens have been slashed to zero. So not only does the market not care about centralization (Bitcoin example), but proof of stake makes token holders even safer.
That being said, Polkadot's "centralization" is not that far off to Ethereum. The Web3 foundation kept 30% of the Dots while the Ethereum Foundation kept 17%. There are whales in Polkadot but Ethereum has them too - 40% of all genesis Ether went to 100 wallets, and many suspect that the original Ethereum ICO was sybiled to make it look more popular and decentralized than it really was. But you don't really care about that do you? Neither do I. Whales are a fact of life.
VC backed
VCs are part of the crypto game now. There is no way to get rid of them, and there is no real reason why you should want to get rid of them. They put their capital at risk (same as you and me) and seek returns on their investment (same as you and me). They are both in Polkadot and Ethereum, and have been for years now. I have no issue with them as long as they don't play around with insider information, but that is another topic. To be honest, I would be worried if VCs did not endorse chains I'm researching, but maybe that's because my investing style isn't chasing hype and buying SUSHI style tokens from anonymous (at the time) developers. That's just playing hot potato. But hey, some people are good at that.
As to the amount of wallets that participated in the Polkadot ICO: a little known fact is that more individual wallets participated in Polkadot's ICO than Ethereum's, even though Polkadot never marketed their ICO rounds due to regulatory reasons.
generally against our ethos here
Kool aid.
Some guy that works(ed?) at Parity (who employs what, 200+ people?) correctly said that Ethereum is losing its tech lead and that offended the Ethereum hivemind. Oh no. So controversial. I'm so personally hurt by that.
Some guy that has been working for free on Ethereum basically forever correctly said that Polkadot is taking the blockchain tech crown. Do we A) Reflect on why he said that? or B) Rally the mob to chase him off?
"I did not quit social media, I quit Ethereum. I did not go dark, I just left the community. I am no longer coordinating hard forks, building testnets, or contributing otherwise. I did not work on Polkadot, I never did, I worked on Ethereum. I did not hate Ethereum, I loved it."
Also Parity locked their funds (and about 500+ other wallets not owned by them) and proposed a solution to recover them. When the community voted no they backed off and did not fork the chain, even if they had the influence to do so. For some reason this subreddit hates them for that, even if Parity did the 100% moral thing to do. Remember, 500+ other teams or people had their funds locked, so Parity was morally bound to try its best to recover them.
Its just lame drama to be honest. Nothing to do with ethos, everything to do with emotional tribalism.
Now for the missing upsides (I'll also respond to random fragments scattered in the thread):
This isn’t a 100% ETH question, but I’m trying to stay educated about emerging tech.
A good quick intro to Eth's tech vs Polkadot's tech can be found on this thread, especially this reply. That thread is basically mandatory reading if you care about your investment.
Eth 2.0's features will not really kick in for end users until about 2023. That means every dapp (except DeFI, where the fees make sense due to returns and is leading the fee market) who built on Eth's layer 1 are dead for three years. Remember the trading card games... Gods Unchained? How many players do you think are going to buy and sell cards when the transaction fee is worth more than the cards? All that development is now practically worthless until it can migrate to its own shard. This story repeats for hundreds of other dapp teams who's projects are now priced out for three years. So now they either have to migrate to a one of the many unpopulated L2 options (which have their own list of problems and risks, but that's another topic) or they look for another platform, preferably one interoperable with Ethereum. Hence Polkadot's massive growth in developer activity. If you check out https://polkaproject.com/ you'll see 205 projects listed at the time of this post. About a week ago they had 202 listed. That means about one team migrated from another tech stack to build on Polkadot every two days, and trust me, many more will come in when parachains are finally activated, and it will be a complete no brainer when Polkadot 2.0 is released.
Another huge upside for Polkadot is the Initial Parachain Offerings. Polkadot's version of ICOs. The biggest difference is that you can vote for parachains using your Dots to bind them to the relay chain, and you get some of the parachain's tokens in exchange. After a certain amount of time you get your Dots back. The tokenomics here are impressive: Dots are locked (reduced supply) instead of sold (sell pressure) and you still earn your staking rewards. There's no risk of scammers running away with your Ether and the governance mechanism allows for the community to defund incompetent devs who did not deliver what was promised.
Wouldn’t an ETH shard on Polkadot gain a bunch of scaling benefits that we won’t see natively for a couple years?
Yes. That is correct. Both Edgeware and Moonbeam are EVM compatible. And if the original dapp teams don't migrate their projects someone else will fork them, exactly like SUSHI did to Uniswap, and how Acala is doing to MakerDao.
Although realistically Ethereum has a 5 yr headstart and devs haven't slowed down at all
Ethereum had a five year head start but it turns out that Polkadot has a three year tech lead.
Just because it's "EVM Compatible" doesn't mean you can just plug Ethereum into Polkadot or vica versa, it just means they both understand Ethereum bytecode and you can potentially copy/paste contracts from Ethereum to Polkadot, but you'd still need to add a "bridge" between the 2 chains, so it adds additional complexity and extra steps compared to using any of the existing L2 scaling solutions
That only applies of you are thinking from an Eth maximalist perspective. But if you think from Polkadot's side, why would you need to use the bridge back to Ethereum at all? Everything will be seamless, cheaper, and quicker once the ecosystem starts to flourish.
I see a bunch of posts about how Ethereum and Polkadot can thrive together, but are they not both L1 competitors?
They are competitors. Both have their strategies, and both have their strengths (tech vs time on the market) but they are clearly competing in my eyes. Which is a good thing, Apple and Samsung competing in the cell phone market just leads to more innovation for consumers. You can still invest in both if you like.
Edit - link to post and the rest of the conversation: https://www.reddit.com/ethfinance/comments/iooew6/daily_general_discussion_september_8_2020/g4h5yyq/
Edit 2 - one day later PolkaProject count is 210. Devs are getting the hint :)
submitted by redditsucks_goruqqus to polkadot_market [link] [comments]

Your Choice To Make

TL;DR: Wakey wakey, give a crap about freedom, or accept the consequences.
Another Sunday afternoon, another news item about Monero being delisted from a centralized exchange, this time in Australia.
Last year it was OKEx and others.
Just a few days ago it was Coinspot.
It is sort of an open secret that Coinbase is not listing Monero due to external pressures. Today we're hit with news that Kraken will be ceasing Monero trading for AU residents.
And you will also recall that Japan and South Korea have made similar moves.
It's a near impossibility with me, especially when powered by caffeine, which is most definitely the case today, but I will try to make this brief, sweet and to the point.
These are not isolated incidents. There is an International Organization™ in particular orchestrating, behind the scenes, the policies and requirements that financial institutions (crypto exchanges have since joined that category for this purpose) must follow, or else.
Here is what bothers me about this.
Have you been consulted about this? Anyone you know?
Heard of it in the news?
Yeah, me neither.
You have to know where to look to find some information on what they would like to see happening (we'll get to that in a moment), and often you have to read PDFs with dozens of pages to find the good stuff too.
I will leave that as an exercise to the reader. Suffice to say, I have been digging a bit deeper myself, and what I found shocked me.
FATF wants nothing less than the complete elimination of anonymity and privacy in financial affairs, even going so far as to consider BANNING peer to peer transactions so that people are forced to interact with each other through exchanges, where data collection is more reliable and certain, effectively obliterating one of the major selling points of cryptocurrency (p2p-ness) with complete disregard for the millions of people who are already onboard with the vision.
No privacy and no anonymity, imagine that.
Many of you probably already use plastic cards for everything, day in day out, and don't think too much about this stuff.
But the fact that an international organization that you have little to zero democratic control over is planning to get rid of class of financial tools that 99.99999% of people don't even realize exists yet should give you pause for concern.
The tools I speak of are, of course, digital cash-like cryptocurrencies like Monero.
I would like you to PAUSE, daydream a bit, visualize and imagine, what a world without zero financial privacy/anonymity would look like.
Consider, this has certainly not been the case in human history, ever -- yes, even today.
Today most of you still have cash as a choice. But what happens when that goes out of the window, and the only options are CBDCs, CorporateCoins, and transparent cryptocurrency ?
Needless to say, both in the case of CorporateCoins and CBDCs, there will be little to none privacy/anonymity, and even if there was (in the case of CorporateCoin), the state would obviously bully its way into it and force them to do otherwise (without being asked to do so, of course).
So, imagine that world.
Every donation you make. Every $50 transfer to a friend or family member. Every item you buy. Every service you purchase. Every money you send to help a friend you.
All of it stored, forever, to be accessed later at will for whatever reasons.
Would you make the same choices, knowing that your entire financial life is entirely exposed to powerful organizations of which you likely know very little about and almost certainly can hardly ever influence at all?
Does that seem like a good recipe for a free society?

Consequences

The people at the top either don't care about the consequences of what they're imposing worldwide, or they don't understand.
Sounds highly concerning to me either way - It comes down to either bullying or ignorance.
Would you ever have truly heart-to-heart conversations if you knew your worst enemy was potentially watching and recording everything?
Could you make passionate love knowing hundreds of strangers are analyzing your every move?
Can you be spontaneous knowing you are being recorded?
What if you did not have a choice in those matters ?!
What if someone has already decided for you, your friends, your family, your neighbors, your country, that you are all potential criminals and the thing to do is to keep records on everyone, just in case ?
Newsflash: It already happened.
It's been happening for awhile, and it seems to be picking up pace; the technology that was going to liberate us, slowly enslaving us instead -- because the general public largely does not understand the issues at hand, while the elite certainly does, and boy oh boy, are they thrilled with the technological advancements that help them cement their power.
What do I mean by cement?
Imagine trying to kick-start civil rights in a place where every social map is known, everything a person is interested in is known, every transaction they make is known, every website they have visited is known, every time they step on the street, an AI-powered camera automatically identifies them and tracks their movement.
You would be unable to organize. To exchange value. To discuss behind curtains, so to speak.
You would not have any privacy, and you would not have any anonymity.
Could you be free under these circumstances?

Conclusion

It's been a long road towards more freedom, but nowdays it is disappearing fast. Stopping to consider the implications is a most pressing issue.
They want Monero(-like tools) GONE because Monero ACTUALLY would change the paradigm.
By the time they are done with their "recommendations" (which really mean: comply, or else...), mark my words, there will be a name behind every Bitcoin address in some centralized database, query-able by partners in deciding who can and cannot use the system.
Merchants will be forced to perform chain analysis and by law they will be compelled to reject/refund/report transactions coming from "anonymous clusters" (addresses that are not known to have an identity tied to them).
This is what the normalization of the lack of privacy has brought us.
The possibility was there, and they took it. Of course they did.
I repeat, it is no accident that it's not Dogecoin and Nano, Bitcoin or Litecoin being delisted.
The star of the show (for better or for worse) is Monero, and that is because it works.
It lets you transact anonymously and privately, like cash - why the hell should FATF know that you sent $500 to your mother last week? in fact, why the hell should they know your entire financial history?!
When cash goes (and we can be fairly certain that it will be gone; would already be gone if this sort of authoritarian mindset had its way), Monero or tools like Monero, will become the only way to make any transaction outside the eyes of the state.
It's not because you have anything (nefarious) to hide. It's not because you're a criminal.
Rather, it's because to accept anything else is to bow to tyranny.
It's your choice to make - are you meekly going to accept that in perhaps less than a decade there will be zero privacy and anonymity in financial matters, or are you going to fight back?
Will you organize, campaign, email, discuss, spread awareness?
Will you spend precious summer Sunday afternoons writing for strangers on the Internet trying to help a few more see the major shit-show we're headed into?
Or will you be a good boy and do what you're told?
Tomorrow, by the way - if left unchallenged - it won't just be financial privacy that disappears.
One of the most prominent examples in the introductory part of this post (Australia) has already made quite clear that they don't like the fact that people can hide things from them (encryption).
In other words, either they know about it (and archive it forever), or you better let them know. After all, a threat - any threat! - could be lurking somewhere in that encrypted data. And you have nothing to hide anyway, yes?
This is a cryptocurrency sub though so let's not steer too far from that. It is important to remember that ultimately the issue is the same though - totalitarian control over everyone's life; mass-surveillance, and the ability to rewind and see someone's entire life exposed for the benefit of the state.
Their actions are letting you know what really works and what really threatens the status quo. That is useful information.
If you care at all about the freedom and privacy of your future self, your friends and family, children present or future, I think you would do well to think long and hard about these issues.
Because the direction assumed by the most prominent regulators seems to be headed in a uniform direction - that is no surprise, seeing as how they meet with each other.
You have to ask yourself though, is this for your benefit, your safety?
Or is it to keep the statuo quo?
How would the world be different if human beings - regardless of color, nationality, age, sexual orientation, political beliefs- with an Internet connection could freely exchange value privately and anonymously (the way we can still communicate private and anonymously in most places today - though not so in authoritarian places like China, AND THAT IS NOT A COINCIDENCE)?
It would be instant, like an instant message. It would cost very little.
Well, I have news for you: It's already possible, and a growing number of people are realizing this.
This tool is called Monero. It exists today, and the cat is out of the bag. The technology will only get better, and more interesting tools may even come along later.
In fact, barring mass persecution of open-source developers, that is very likely what is going to happen, as ultrasmart people everywhere congregate in virtual spaces to discuss better ways to do stuff.
If we keep losing our right to be left alone until suspected of a crime, life will increasingly come to resemble what the regulator types are - consciously or unconsciously - creating: a Panopticon society.
If you don't speak up, then the decision has already been made - and you're probably going to live to regret being complicit in it.
Freedom or Tyranny. It's your choice to make.
p.s: Yes, totally failed at making this short. I guess it's just not my thing.
submitted by xmr_kayront to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

MetaDAO - update

MetaDAO - update
Wax on. Wax off.
Quick update on the MetaDAO concept and outreach to Edgeware one of the first Substrate based chains after Polkadot and Kusama.
Since the intial post, both Polkadot and Kusama have seen explosive growth, with Polkadot now #6 on Coingecko and Kusama #60. Edgeware is at #107 and all have treasuries to spend - c$8m in $EDG, c$6 $KSM and $38m $DOT.
The reaction to both the proposal and building bridges to Decred from the (small) Edgeware community has been positive - you can see an overview of last week's community call here on Commonwealth, which is their expanded version of something like Politeia and hosts various conversations and threads.
There is another call today at 2:45pm EST - you can join a google hangout here if you're interested. Hopefully the call will progress the conversations again.
So what values / characteristics do Decred and Edgeware have in common?
Well both are focused on governance, both launched aiming to offer a wide and fair distribution (info on lockdrop here) and both have treasuries that can sustain them long into the future.
There are also key differences.
Decred is older (and perhaps a little jaded) prioritising slow, careful progress that considers every action through the lens of unintended consequences with the aim of maximising privacy and security.
It is a philosophy rooted in the project's origins at Company 0 - see 'return to zero' and the north star of building a fairer financial system.
Edgeware is new on the scene, filled with excitement, enthusiasm and buckets of shower thoughts that would be shot down in an instant by the Decred community. The project will not be as secure or private as Decred but will move faster and can potentially become a bridge to the wider ecosystem, taking chances the older project can't (or won't)...
Now I'm showing my age, but when seen side by side, the two projects reminds me of the central relationship in the 80's classic The Karate Kid.
Mr Myagi is the old master weary of new things.
“Never put passion in front of principle, even if you win, you’ll lose”.
Daniel San is the young and impetuous grasshopper.
Together they achieve great things and teach other a few things along the way.
Aaaaanyway....
The next stage is to move the concept to a formalised proposal for Edgeware's council to vote on (it is an NPOS system) and a request for funding that can officially kick off the MetaDAO project and potential areas for collaboration and co-financing.
Post this, I will also submit a formal proposal to Politieia to hopefully gain stakeholder approval and gain extra insights along the way.
u/jet_user has suggested a few ideas here.
- Personally I'm interested in the "real stuff" that boosts autonomy and resilience of individuals: open hardware, UX improvement to solve that huge self-custody UX challenge, security audits (perhaps we use some common libraries), etc.
- devs in the smart contract land might borrow some elements of dcrdex's coin swap sequence (coordinating a peer-to-peer swap required to figure out a lot of ugly edge cases), or we could borrow something from them.
- new forum software with stronger transparency, integrity protection and data preservation properties that has Reddit-like UX but Politeia-like security and transparency.
- Another is crypto job market/bounty system/issue tracker combo to unlock the energy sitting on the sidelines and improve mass coordination.
I think Decred could integrate with Commonwealth for working group discussions ahead of Pi-Reddit and could perhaps also utilise the project's infrastructure for subDAOs ahead of being possible with Decred.
One other area that I'm particularly interested in is figuring out a way to bring alive the story of Open Source - a definitive history of the movement, it's achievements and the path to Bitcoin, Decred, et al but done in a contemporary (and cool) way that connects to a much bigger picture and is hosted on decentralised streaming infrastructure like Livepeer.
Right now it is still a story that most do not understand nor connect with.
Ultimately Decred was created to solve the funding issue in OSS so I feel it is an important piece of the puzzle that will aid in the project's broader awareness and understanding in the long term.
Until now all content about this revolution has been delivered in a very old school TV way - see Open Source Money.
submitted by monsieurbulb to decred [link] [comments]

The exact process by which currency is created and manipulated is not generally well understood, but might be the most important aspect of maintaining cabal power. How currency is actually created. (Repost of /u/letsbebuns)

I propose that it would be superior to fix the currency system and replace it with something honest. Open-source rules that are clear and simple and available to all for viewing.
While some people have proposed eliminating currency altogether, I think that completely eliminating currency would result in:
1) a lot of problems in the transition period
2) a lot of human behavior problems in the post-scarcity period
3) How does one eliminate currency without slipping into communism, which doesn't work?
I propose that fixing the currency system is easier to implement than eliminating it entirely. Currency is nothing but tokens, representations of value. An honest currency system has not been tried in our lifetime! We have no frame of reference for what it would be like to earn a little bit of money and have it keep its value forever.
The major problems with currency are like this:

DEBT BASED CURRENCY:

All "money" currently in circulation is debt. Federal Reserve Notes (FRN) are purchased by the government from a private bank called the federal reserve. The supreme court (united states vs gonzalez) decided that the federal reserve is a privately owned bank in 1983. So when the govt needs to enter more money into circulation, even though they have the legal authority to issue it (scrip) straight out of the treasury, or to mint it through the bureau of printing and engraving, instead they go to this private bank and take out a loan. The loan has interest attached to it. That money enters circulation, and the debt runs.
This is problematic for several reasons. First of all, it's unnecessary debt. The govt gave away their power to print money to someone else (they are authorized to print money but not to give the power away) and then they go into debt to receive something that they gave away in the first place.
Second of all, that means that whatever value enters circulation, then that means an equal amount of debt plus interest. (.6%)
What does this mean?
It means the US govt owes more money than is in circulation. They owe over 100% of the money in circulation. This is why it is said that the currency of the USA is "DEBT BASED CURRENCY"

FRACTIONAL RESERVE LENDING:

The above is bad enough. But now hear this: You give bank $100. They have $100 on the books now. Under fractional reserve lending, they are legally able to CREATE money out of nothing based on their holdings.
If a new person comes in and wants a loan, they are able to create new money (debt) at a 9:1 ratio. This is confusing, but it means from the original $100, they are able to lend out $90 of it, earning interest on that 90$, while at the same time telling the original investor that their entire 100$ is still in the bank.
If that guy who took the loan for 90$ goes and puts it in another bank, that bank can also make more loans at the same 9:1 ratio. Meaning they can loan out $81 dollars while still telling the guy they have the original $90 still on the books. If the guy who took out the loan for $81 dollars wants to put that in a new bank, the new bank can loan $73 while still telling him they have the original $81 on the books.
If you continue these loans until the amount is too low to loan, then from that original $100 dollar investment, the bankers can spawn almost $1,000 in new currency. The problem is, all of this new currency is in the form of a loan to a bank. It's $900 of new debt entering the economy on a $100 real money investment. They loaned out money they never had and are collecting interest on it!
And this is separate from the fact that ALL the currency is backed by debt, as shown in the first section. These two issues COMPOUND each other.

FIAT CURRENCY

Fiat is latin for "Let it be" and "Fiat Lux" means "Let there be light". In the world of currency, Fiat currency is called such because it is designated currency by an authority, not because it has an intrinsic value. When items have an intrinsic value, they are not a FIAT currency. Fiat currencies are entered into circulation by an authority, not by nature.
Fiat currencies are not always bad, but they have the potential to become bad, because they are synthetic and made by man. Therefore the rules which govern them are obviously subject to the appetites of man. You can make any rule you want and add it to a fiat currency.
In the USA, the constitution requires the government to use gold and silver. However, the government of previous generations (before any of us were alive) didn't follow this and created a situation where the economy was inflated with fiat scrip. Due to the presence of so much scrip, the economy can probably never go back to the way it used to be. It has been artificially inflated way too high and the correction would be egregious.
Most modern thinkers agree that the best way to handle the fiat currency situation is not to enforce the old ways, but learn the lessons from them instead. Study the Tallystick system, perhaps the most famous currency system of the ancient world, wherein the King took boughs of wood and carved unique lines into them. Then, he split the bough in half and kept one side in his castle while entering the opposing side into circulation among the people. Pretty good so far, right?
The final step was to make the king's taxes payable in the tallystick. You could discharge your monetary duty to the king by simply giving him a stick (which had originated with him). This instantly made the sticks very valuable and people accepted them as currency overnight. No gold necessary - just a stick. The tallystick system flourished for over 700 years.

SOLUTIONS

1) Obviously the biggest problem is that the federal reserve met on christmas eve 1913 without a quorum present in senate and passed their unlawful charter. Since then americans have not owned their money, but instead they borrow it from a private bank and they pay interest for the privilege of using currency. Seeing as how the Divine Creator as well as the United States Constitution allows for the government of the people to handle this themselves, there is really no reason to rely on a "for profit" bank to provide this service.
2) The second biggest problem is that the currency doesn't hold its value and is debt-based. This is by design. It's annoying, because, let's say you work 8 hours and you can buy 8 sandwiches as a result. However, you stick that money under your mattress for 6 months, and suddenly you can only buy 7 sandwiches with that money. If you wait years, you might only be able to buy 4 sandwiches instead of the original 8. That's pretty jacked up, because the number of hours you worked to earn that purchasing power didn't change. You worked the number of hours necessary to purchase 8 sandwiches! You don't get your time back when inflation strikes...
It's actually really easy to keep a currency at the same value. Silver has kept identical purchasing power for the last 100 years. You could buy the same amount of sandwiches with a silver quarter in 1925 as you can today. The only thing that changes is the value of silver in FRNs. The value of silver is not changing - the value of the FRN is. Crazy, right?
I don't recommend going to a global standard of metals for exchange, but the lessons that can be learned there are invaluable. They prove it's possible to keep purchasing power identical for 100+ years.
And the currency needs to go back into the hands of the people's government. Eliminate the private banks from government entirely.
3) Eliminate Usury from the issuance of currency entirely. THIS ALONE WOULD BE LIKE GIVING THE WORLD TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS
There is a lot more but this post is getting a bit long. Basically the problem is not money, but the fact that the money has been completely corrupted and used as a weapon.
As you can see here, the entire currency system is set up from top to bottom to steal from people.
Fixing the inherent theft is the superior path.

How can I learn more?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2i6uftJhB8
Here's a great documentary that explains the situation in a clear factual manner that you can rely on. It is phrased in such a way where you could explain to a banker, using his own terms, why the system is dishonest.

Get educated and may God bless each and every one of you.

submitted by HibikiSS to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Namecoin and the future of self-sovereign digital identity.

Namecoin's motto is "Bitcoin frees money – Namecoin frees DNS, identities, and other technologies."
biolizard89 has done fantastic work on the DNS part, but let's focus on the identity use case here. Recent events have convinced me that digital identity on the internet is broken. Consider:
What was true in 1993 when cartoonist Peter Steiner wrote "On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog" is still true today. The only difference is that identity is increasingly being weaponized using AI/ML so "On the internet, nobody knows you are a bot" would perhaps be more apt.
I read the following comment from a user on slashdot yesterday:
For the time being, you can assume that this comment was written by a human being. You can click on my username, look back at my history of posts, and go, "OK, here's a bunch of posts, by a person, going back more than a decade, to the TIME BEFORE BOTS." That is, before the first year of 2020.
Since humans are likely to adopt the majority opinion, bad actors find real value in being able to control the narrative online by surrounding the reader with manufactured opinions by bots that due to advances in ML/AI are quickly becoming indistinguishable from real users. This amounts to a Sybil attack on the minds of digital content consumers and poses major threat to the integrity of our social fabric.
Apart from the recent twitter incident used for scamming, nation states have been known to create massive bot armies of fake and hijacked user accounts to try and shift the narratives regarding the Hong Kong independence protests as well as national elections. This will only increase.
Currently, our digital identity is fragmented into silo's largely controlled by government institutions and mega corporations (FAANG) based on a "Trust us" model. As recent events have proven, this is a bad model and in dire need of improvement/replacement. IMHO we need to move from "Trust us" to a "Trust but verify" model where the user is in full control of their digital identity.
Namecoin can and should play an important role in building this 'web of trust composed of self-sovereign identities" as it is neutral (no owner), permissionless and secure (merge-mined). Daniel already developed a proof of concept with NameID but what can we do to take this further?
Personally I'd like to see users create Namecoin identities and link them to their social identities (e.g. Google, Facebook, Twitter, Reddit, etc). Then whenever they create content, they sign it with their private keys. This would allow a reader to verify the content was created by the user. Content verification would have stopped the recent twitter hack, because even if the hackers would have access to internal admin tools they would not have the private keys that the users produce valid content with. "Not your keys, not your content"
Content verification is only one part. Ideally a user would like to verify the integrity of the content creator as well. E.g. has this user passed human verification in any of the linked platforms? Does a trusted linked entity vouch for the reputation or integrity of this user (e.g. a government entity, financial entity or non-governmental organization?). This would require those platforms to allow linking of Namecoin ID with their Platform ID and allow lookup and signing of metadata provided by these platforms. (e.g. UserID Y is linked to PlatformID X and completed human verification on date Z, signed Twitter).
I image users could install an extension similar to uBlock or Privacy Badger that contains human curated blacklists and heuristics that operate on Namecoin entities to perform these checks and flag or filter content and users that fail integrity checks. This would allow a users to automatically weed out potential bots and trolls but keep full control of this process themselves, avoiding potential censorship if this task would fall on the platform owners themselves (something governments are pushing for).
We could take this even further and integrate Namecoin ID's in software and hardware devices as well. This could create chains of trust to verify the entire chain of content creation and manipulation to the final content posted on a social platform. Where every entity signs the resulting content. (E.g. camera -> photoshop -> twitter post)
Apart from signing content/messages (PGP style). Namecoin could perhaps also be used for managing identity tokens in a users 'Identity wallet'. Looking into my physical wallet this could include things like credit cards, insurance cards, government issued IDs, membership cards, transportation cards, key cards, etc. This could be done similar to 'colored coins' on Bitcoin. But would have to support some type of smart contract functionality to be useful (e.g. expiring tokens, etc).
I'm not a developer nor a technical writer, but I do think we need to think long and hard about how we can solve digital identity in a way that empowers users to trust and verify the content and identities of the peers we interact with online while also respecting privacy and preventing censorship by external parties. Namecoin could be the better path to building this web of trust, but given the current pace of AI/ML and the willingness by bad actors to weaponize it at scale against users interests we might not have much time. (Apologies for the rant!)
submitted by rmvaandr to Namecoin [link] [comments]

What's Happening At Dash? | Continually Updated News & Announcements Thread

Welcome to dashpay!
If you are new to Dash, we encourage you to check out our wiki, where the Dash project is explained from the ground up with many links to valuable information resources. Also check out the menu bar on top and the sidebar to the right. We have very active Discord and Telegram channels where the community is happy to answer any and all newcomer questions.

Purpose of this post

This post is directed towards community members who wish to rapidly access information on current developments surrounding the Dash cryptocurrency.
Lately we've noticed how the pace of events picked up significantly within the Dash project due to many years of hard work coming together and pieces falling into place ("Evolution" is finally here. It's called Dash Platform). For the purpose of keeping these many pieces of information together, however, singular Reddit submissions are insufficient. Thus we decided to maintain a pinned thread collecting blog posts, interviews, articles, podcasts, videos & announcements. Check back regularly, as this thread will always feature the latest news around Dash, while also serving as a mid-term archive for important announcements and developments.
Journalists looking for news and contact opportunities wrt Dash, please bookmark:

Dash Press Room

"At Dash Press Room you will find the latest press releases, media materials and product updates on Dash - Digital Cash."

Dash Platform Video Series (formerly known as "Evolution") with Amanda B. Johnson

  1. Dash is Becoming a Cloud | Dash Platform #1
  2. What is Dash Drive? | Dash Platform #2
  3. What is Dash's Decentralized API? (DAPI) | Dash Platform #3
  4. Usernames & Dash Platform Name Service (DPNS) | Dash Platform #4

Dash Core Group News

(last updated: Oct 9th, 2020)

Dash Insights with Mark Mason & Dash Talk with Amanda B. Johnson

(last updated: Oct 9th, 2020)

Development news

(last updated: Oct 9th, 2020)

Adoption, Partnership, Business Development, General News

(last updated: Oct 3rd, 2020)
submitted by Basilpop to dashpay [link] [comments]

The Intellectual Foundation of Bitcoin比特幣的智識基礎. By Chapman Chen, HKBNews

The Intellectual Foundation of Bitcoin比特幣的智識基礎. By Chapman Chen, HKBNews

https://preview.redd.it/w6v3l8n3zxu41.jpg?width=2551&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=fb0338a36a1a321d3781f43ff5eb6929d8b92edc
Summary: Bitcoin was invented by the anonymous Satoshi Nakamoto as recently as 2008, but it is backed up by a rich intellectual foundation. For instance, The 1776 First Amendment separates church and state, and contemporary American liberation psychologist Nozomi Hayase (2020) argues that money and state should similarly be separated. Just as Isaac Newton’s study of alchemy gave rise to the international gold standard, so has the anonymous creator Satoshi Nakamoto's desire for a “modernized gold standard” given rise to Bitcoin. Indeed, Bloomberg's 2020 report confirms Bitcoin to be gold 2.0. Montesquieu (1774) asserted that laws that secure inalienable rights can only be found in Nature, and the natural laws employed in Bitcoin include its consensus algorithm and the three natural laws of economics (self-interest, competition, and supply and demand). J.S. Mill (1859) preferred free markets to those controlled by governments. Ludwig von Mises (1951) argued against the hazards of fiat currency, urging for a return to the gold standard. Friedrich Hayek (1984) suggested people to invent a sly way to take money back from the hands of the government. Milton Friedman (1994) called for FED to be replaced by an automatic system and predicted the coming of a reliable e-cash. James Buchanan (1988) advocated a monetary constitution to constrain the governmental power of money creation. Tim May (1997) the cypherpunk proclaimed that restricting digital cash impinges on free speech, and envisioned a stateless digital form of money that is uncensorable. The Tofflers (2006) pictured a non-monetary economy. In 2016, UCLA Professor of Finance Bhagwan Chowdhry even nominated Satoshi for a Nobel Prize.
Full Text:
Separation between money and state
The 1791 First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution enshrines free speech and separates church and state, but not money and state. "Under the First Amendment, individuals’ right to create, choose their own money and transact freely was not recognized as a part of freedom of expression that needs to be protected," Japanese-American liberation psychologist Nozomi Hayase (2020) points out (1).
The government, banks and corporations collude together to encroach upon people's liberties by metamorphosing their inalienable rights into a permissioned from of legal rights. Fiat currencies function as a medium of manipulation, indulging big business to generate market monopolies. "Freedom of expression has become further stifled through economic censorship and financial blockage enacted by payment processing companies like Visa and MasterCard," to borrow Hayase's (2020) words.
Satoshi is a Modern Newton
Although most famous for discovering the law of gravity, Isaac Newton was also a practising alchemist. He never managed to turn lead into gold, but he did find a way to transmute silver into gold. In 1717, Newton announced in a report that, based on his studies, one gold guinea coin weighed 21 shillings. Just as Isaac Newton’s study of alchemy gave rise to the international gold standard, so has the desire for a “modernized gold standard” given rise to Bitcoin. "In a way, Satoshi is a modern Newton. They both believed trust is best placed in the unchangeable facets of our economy. Beneath this belief is the assumption that each individual is their own best master," as put by Jon Creasy (2019) (2).
J.S. Mill: free markets preferable to those controlled by governments
John Stuart Mill (1806-1873) the great English philosopher would be a Bitcoiner were he still around today. In On Liberty (1859), Mill concludes that free markets are preferable to those controlled by governments. He argues that economies function best when left to their own devices. Therefore, government intervention, though theoretically permissible, would be counterproductive. Bitcoin is precisely decentralized or uncontrolled by the government, unconfiscatable, permissonless, and disinflationary. Bitcoin regulates itself spontaneously via the ordinary operations of the system. "Rules are enforced without applying any external pressure," in Hayase's (2020) words.
Ludwig von Mises (1958): Liberty is always Freedom from the Government
In The Free Market and its Enemies, theoretical Austrian School economist Ludwig von Mises (1951) argues against the hazards of fiat currency, urging for a return to the gold standard. “A fiat money system cannot go on forever and must one day come to an end,” Von Mises states. The solution is a return to the gold standard, "the only standard which makes the determination of the purchasing power of money independent of the changing ideas of political parties, governments, and pressure groups" under present conditions. Interestingly, this is also one of the key structural attributes of Bitcoin, the world’s first, global, peer-to-peer, decentralized value transfer network.
Actually, Bloomberg's 2020 report on Bitcoin confirms that it is gold 2.0. (3)
Von Mises prefers the price of gold to be determined according to the contemporaneous market conditions. The bitcoin price is, of course, determined across the various global online exchanges, in real-time. There is no central authority setting a spot price for gold after the which the market value is settled on among the traders during the day.
Hayek: Monopoly on Currency should End
Austrian-British Nobel laureate Friedrich Hayek’s theory in his 1976 work, Denationalization of Money, was that not only would the currency monopoly be taken away from the government, but that the monopoly on currency itself should end with multiple alternative currencies competing for acceptance by consumers, in order "to prevent the bouts of acute inflation and deflation which have played the world for the past 60 years." He forcefully argues that if there is no free competition between different currencies within any nation, then there will be no free market. Bitcoin is, again, decentralized, and many other cryptocurrencies have tried to compete with it, though in vain.
In a recently rediscovered video clip from 1984, Hayek actually suggested people to invent a cunning way to take money out of the hands of the government:- “I don’t believe we shall ever have a good money again before we take the thing out of the hands of government, that is, we can’t take them violently out of the hands of government, all we can do is by some sly roundabout way introduce something they can’t stop” (4). Reviewing those words 36 years hence and it is difficult not to interpret them in the light of Bitcoin.
Milton Friedman Called for FED to be Replaced by an Automatic System
Nobel laureate economist Milton Friedman (1994) was critical of the Federal Reserve due to its poor performance and felt it should be abolished (5). Friedman (1999) believed that the Federal Reserve System should ultimately be replaced with a computer program, which makes us think of the computer code governing Bitcoin (6).[\](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_Federal_Reserve#cite_note-:2-12) He (1970) favored a system that would automatically buy and sell securities in response to changes in the money supply. This, he argued, would put a lid on inflation, setting spending and investment decisions on a surer footing (7). Bitcoin is exactly disflationary as its maximum possible supply is 21 million and its block reward or production rate is halved every four years.
Friedman passed away before the coming of bitcoin, but he lived long enough to see the Internet’s spectacular rise throughout the 1990s. “I think that the Internet is going to be one of the major forces for reducing the role of government," said Friedman in a 1999 interview with NTU/F. On the same occasion, he sort of predicted the emergence of Bitcoin, "The one thing that’s missing, but that will soon be developed, is a reliable e-cash, a method whereby on the Internet you can transfer funds from A to B, without A knowing B or B knowing A." (8)
Of course, Friedman didnt predict the block chain, summed up American libertarian economist Jeffery Tucker (2014). “But he was hoping for a trustless system. He saw the need. (9).
Bitcoin Computer Code as Constitution in the Buchananian Sense
American economist cum Nobel laureate James Buchanan (1988) advocates constitutional constraints on the governmental power to create money (10). Buchanan distinguishes a managed monetary system—a system “that embodies the instrumental use of price-level predictability as a norm of policy”—from an automatic monetary system, “which does not, at any stage, involve the absolute price level” (Buchanan 1962, 164–65). Leaning toward the latter, Buchanan argues that automatic systems are characterized by an organization “of the institutions of private decision-making in such a way that the desired monetary predictability will emerge spontaneously from the ordinary operations of the system” (Buchanan 1962, 164). Again, "Bitcoin regulates itself through the spontaneous force of nature, flourishing healthy price discovery and competition in the best interest of everyone" (Hayase 2020).
Shruti Rajagopalan (2018) argues that the computer code governing how the sundry nodes/computers within the Bitcoin network interact with one another is a kind of monetary constitution in the Buchananian sense. One of Buchanan's greatest inputs is to differentiate the choice of rules from the choice within rule (Buchanan 1990). One may regard the Bitcoin code as a sort of constitution and "the Bitcoin network engaging in both the choice of rules and choice within rules" (Rajagopalan 2018) (11).
Tim May: Restricting Digital Cash may Impinge on Free Speech
Cypherpunks are activists who since the 1980s have advocated global use of strong cryptography and privacy-enhancing technologies as a route to social and political liberation. Tim May (Timothy C. May [1951-2018]), one of the influential cypherpunks published The Crypto Anarchist Manifesto in September 1992, which foretold the coming of Bitcoin (12). Cypherpunks began envisioning a stateless digital form of money that cannot be censored and their collaborative pursuit created a movement akin to the 18th Enlightenment.
At The 7th Conference on Computers, Freedom, and Privacy, Burlingame, CA. in 1997, Tim May equated money with speech, and argued that restricting digital cash may impinge on free speech, for spending money is often a matter of communicating orders to others, to transfer funds, to release funds, etc. In fact, most financial instruments are contracts or orders, instead of physical specie or banknotes (13).
Montesquieu: Laws that secure inalienable rights can only be found in Nature
In his influential work The Spirit of Laws (1748), Montesquieu wrote, “Laws ... are derived from the nature of things … Law, like mathematics, has its objective structure, which no arbitrary whim can alter". Similarly, once a block is added to the end of the Bitcoin blockchain, it is almost impossible to go back and alter the contents of the block, unless every single block after it on the blockchain is altered, too.
Cypherpunks knew that whereas alienable rights that are bestowed by law can be deprived by legislation, inalienable rights are not to be created but can be discovered by reason. Thus, laws that secure inalienable rights cannot be created by humankind but can be found in nature.
The natural laws employed in Bitcoin to enshrine the inalienable monetary right of every human being include its consensus algorithm, and the three natural laws of economics (self-interest, competition, and supply and demand) as identified by Adam Smith, father of modern economics.
Regarding mathematics, bitcoin mining is performed by high-powered computers that solve complex computational math problems. When computers solve these complex math problems on the Bitcoin network, they produce new bitcoin. And by solving computational math problems, bitcoin miners make the Bitcoin payment network trustworthy and secure, by verifying its transaction information.
Regarding economic laws, in accordance with the principle of game theory to generate fairness, miners take part in an open competition. Lining up self-interests of all in a network, with a vigilant balance of risk and rewards, rules are put in force sans the application of any exterior pressure. "Bitcoin regulates itself through the spontaneous force of nature, flourishing healthy price discovery and competition in the best interest of everyone," to borrow the words of Hayase (2020).
A Non-monetary Economy as Visualized by the Tofflers
In their book, Revolutionary Wealth (2006), futurists Alvin Toffler and his wife Heidi Toffler toy with the concept of a world sans money, raising a third kind of economic transaction that is neither one-on-one barter nor monetary exchange. In the end, they settle on the idea that the newer non-monetary economy will exist shoulder-to-shoulder with the monetary sector in the short term, although the latter may eventually be eclipsed by the former in the long run. What both the Tofflers' The Third Wave (1980) and Revolutionary Wealth bring into question is the very premise of monetary exchange. The vacuum left over by cash in such a non-monetary economy may be filled up by Bitcoin as a cryptocurrency.
Satoshi Nakamoto Nominated for Nobel Prize by UCLA Finance Prof.
UCLA Anderson School Professor of Finance Bhagwan Chowdhry nominated Satoshi Nakamoto for the 2016 Nobel Prize in Economics on the following grounds:-
It is secure, relying on almost unbreakable cryptographic code, can be divided into millions of smaller sub-units, and can be transferred securely and nearly instantaneously from one person to any other person in the world with access to internet bypassing governments, central banks and financial intermediaries such as Visa, Mastercard, Paypal or commercial banks eliminating time delays and transactions costs.... Satoshi Nakamoto’s Bitcoin Protocol has spawned exciting innovations in the FinTech space by showing how many financial contracts — not just currencies — can be digitized, securely verified and stored, and transferred instantaneously from one party to another (14).
Fb link: https://www.facebook.com/hongkongbilingualnews/posts/947121432392288?__tn__=-R
Web link: https://www.hkbnews.net/post/the-intellectual-foundation-of-bitcoin%E6%AF%94%E7%89%B9%E5%B9%A3%E7%9A%84%E6%99%BA%E8%AD%98%E5%9F%BA%E7%A4%8E-by-chapman-chen-hkbnews
Disclaimer: This article is neither an advertisement nor professional financial advice.
End-notes
  1. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/bitcoin-is-the-technology-of-dissent-that-secures-individual-liberties
  2. https://medium.com/hackernoon/why-sir-isaac-newton-was-the-first-bitcoin-maximalist-195a17cb6c34
  3. https://data.bloomberglp.com/professional/sites/10/Bloomberg-Crypto-Outlook-April-2020.pdf
  4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYhEDxFwFRU&t=1161s
  5. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6fkdagNrjI
  6. http://youtu.be/mlwxdyLnMXM
  7. https://miltonfriedman.hoover.org/friedman_images/Collections/2016c21/IEA_1970.pdf
  8. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MnQJFEVY7s
  9. https://www.coindesk.com/economist-milton-friedman-predicted-bitcoin
  10. https://www.aier.org/research/prospects-for-a-monetary-constitution/
  11. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3238472
  12. https://www.activism.net/cypherpunk/crypto-anarchy.html
  13. http://osaka.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/tcmay.htm
  14. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/i-shall-happily-accept-th_b_8462028
Pic credit: Framingbitcoin
#bitcoin #bitcoinhalving #jamesBuchanan #MiltonFriedman #AlvinToffler #FirstAmendment #LudwigVonMises #TimMay #freeMarket # SatoshiNakamoto #FriedrichHayek #Cypherpunk #Cryptocurrency #GoldStandard #IsaacNewton
submitted by HKBNews to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Public CodeValley/Emergent Consensus questioning and investigation Thread. Ask your hard questions and dispel your doubts here.

What is going on here?
I am asking some hard questions for the CodeValley Company, which recently proposed a new revolutionary software development paradigm called Emergent Coding at the latest big Bitcoin Cash conference in Australia.
I am asking these questions because, as I (and ~150 people who agreed with me) noticed, there are stunning similarities between CodeValley and the companies who have tried and succeeded in crippling Peer-To-Peer Electronic Cash: nChain and Blockstream.
According to me, as it looks now, similarities between these 3 companies (nChain, Blockstream, CodeValley) are the following:
}- Sources of funding are extremely unclear or openly hostile to Bitcoin
}- At first and even second glance, there is no product, no way to make money
}- Whitepaper & Documentation is missing, hollow or total abstract bullshit, company has no logical sense of existence
}- Detailed specifications or proofs of operation are not available
}- Main products are closed-source patented blobs (BSV, Liquid, Emergent Coding)
}- They have huge influences in the industry or try to establish themselves in such position to have the infuences
I am here (and you are here, I assume) because we want to find out the truth, whatever the truth is. The point of this topic is to ask the hardest possible questions in order to estimate the probability of CodeValley company being legit.
But this is also a chance for CodeValley to clear their name by providing sufficient information that proves that (after 4 years of having working company and 10+ years of having patents [Archived]) they actually have a working product and are a legit company, and not an infiltrator designed and paid by banks/TPTB in order to cripple and destroy Bitcoin Cash. Also if they truly are what they claim and they truly have such a revolutionary technology, this is a great opportunity for promotion. To show the world that the tech actually works.
I will ask my questions and you can ask your questions as well. Don't make them easy. Don't have mercy (but these things work better when you are polite).
Let's begin the trial by fire!
Calling nlovisa
My Questions/Tasks for CodeValley:
[Of course you actually don't have to answer any of them or you can give us bullshit answers again, but in such case the community may conclude that you actually are next nChain/Blockstream and an enemy infiltrator, reject you and shoot down all your efforts. So the choice is yours]
@@@@ 1. Please upload your actual businessplan which you presented to the people in power who gave you funding(VCs? Government?) to create $50 Million BCH tech park. A businessplan which is supposed to explain spending of $50 million AUD should have at least 7 pages (but more probably 20+). Some names and unimportant details (but NOT money/financial numbers) can be redacted.
-- You have 6 hours to complete this task --
@@@@ 2. Please list your current VCs and >%5 shareholders, with CEO names and HQ locations of each of them.
-- You have 4 hours to complete this task --
@@@@ 3. Few days ago you promised to upload freely-accessible documentation to https://codevalley.com/docs subpage which would describe emergent coding in greater details.
@ - What happened to that promise?
@@@@ 4. After I accused that your company is bullshit and your product is hollow, you immediately started to praise me and offered me a trip to Australia [Archived].
@ - So, do you always praise and offer a paid trip across the world to Australia to all people on the Internet who heavily criticize you? Is this a common practice in your company?
@@@@ 5. A travel from Poland to Australia and back would cost something under $2000 AUD, counting buses, with hotels that would make something close to $2500 AUD even for few days. Based on this, I estimate your "invite random people from the internet to Australia in order to show them the product" budget has to consist of at least $50.000 AUD yearly (but $100.000 - $200.000 is more probable of course).
@ A) In your financial books, what exactly is called the Excel position of your budget expenses under which would your secretary put my trip's expenses?
@ B) How do you maintain such a large budget for such frivolous spending and how do you explain it to your shareholders/VCs?
@@@@ 6. Few days ago you answered somebody a question: "The trust model is also different. The bulk of the testing happens before the project is designed not after. Emergent Coding produces a binary with very high integrity and arguably far more testing is done in emergent coding than in incumbent methods you are used to.".
@ A) Who EXACTLY does the testing? People? Software? AI? Non-bullshit answer, please.
@ B) Why exactly is there "more testing" in Emergent Coding than in normal software creation paradigm? Why is emergent coding different? Do the developers who work in this paradigm are somehow special? Are the programming languages magical?
@ C) What are the specific software tools used for this "testing"? "Agents" is a non-answer, so don't even try.
@@@@ 7. Please provide a simple demo binary of a simple program created completely using your "Emergent Coding" and also provide all the binary sub-component files that make up the final binary.
Requirements: There has to be a minimum of 3 sub - binaries making up the final big binary for this to be valid. 2 or less does not count. None of the binaries can be obfuscated, they have to be clean X86/X86_64 machine code binaries.
Notes: It should be incredibily simple, quick and easy task for you, since designing such a complex and apparently breakthough system must have required thousands, tens of thousands if not hundereds of thousands tests. All of these tests produced working binaries - after all you wouldn't claim you have a working marvellous revolutionary product without extensive testing, right?
-- You have 18 hours for this task --
Of course, If you are saying the truth and have truly developed this revolutionary "emergent coding" binary-on-the-fly-merging technology, this should normally take you under 18 minutes to just find the test samples and upload them.
@@@@ 8. Please construct a simple (binary or source) single-use-compiler demo that will combine 3 or more sub-binaries into final working product. Please upload the sub-binaries and the "single-use compiler" to publicly available site so people in our community can verify that your product is actually working.
The single-use-compiler binary can be obfuscated with proper tool in order to hide your precious intellectual property. The 3 sample sub-binaries cannot be obfuscated. They have to be pure, clean, binary X86/X86_64 machine code. Everything has to be working and verifable of course.
-- You have 72 hours to complete this task --
I understand all your technologies are patented with patents that basically predate Bitcoin and you are giving us obfuscated binaries, so you don't have to worry about anybody stealing your company's intellectual property, right?
@@@@ 9. You mentioned the only application I need to create programs using Emergent Coding is the pilot app.
@ - What programming language(s) is the pilot app written in?
@@@@ 10. When you developed the Emerging Coding, before it started existing, you couldn't have used emergent coding to create the first (test & development) applications because it is a chicken and egg problem.
@ - What programming language did you use to create first client/serveapi/daemon/tool used to merge multiple binaries into one in Emergent Coding?
@@@@ 11. Please list all of your current programmers and programming language each of them is using next to their name. Also provide LinkedIn profiles if applicable.
-- You have 18 hours to complete this task --
@@@@ 12. Please also list all Development Environments (IDEs) used by your current programmers next to their name.
-- You have 18 hours to complete this task --
@@@@ 13. Please list all compilers used by your current programmers next to their name.
-- You have 18 hours to complete this task --
@@@@ 14. So if I understand correctly CodeValley will be the company who runs $50 million BCH tech park and the tech will house multiple Bitcoin Cash-related startup and companies. Let's say I have a BCH startup and I would like to rent a loft/spot in your "tech park".
A) Please provide a PDF of sample basic contract you have (hopefully) prepared for such startups.
-- You have 4 hours to complete this task --
B) How much does the rent cost per a room (or m2/sqft) for a month and for a year?
@@@@ 15. Please submit the list of compilers that produce X86/X86_64/ARM binaries compatibile with Emergent Coding "mash-it-together" "binary compiler".
-- You have 4 hours to complete this task --
@@@@ 16. Is it possible for Emergent Coding to merge multiple non-binary applications (like Python or PHP programs) together? Or is it just binaries?
Who are you?
I am a freedom thinker and individual independent from all infuences who just does what he finds appropriate at the moment. Disclaimer to preempt questions:
}- I do not work for anybody
}- I do not have any hidden agenda
}- I am only doing what I think is right
}- I am a born revolutionist, this is why I am in Bitcoin
Why are you doing this?
}- Because I believe in truth above all. Truth will save us.
}- Because I believe in Satoshi's peer-to-peer cash for the world vision and I will not stray from this path.
}- Because most people are apparently missing psychological immune system which is why attempts like Blockstream, nChain appear and are repetedly [at least partially] successful. I have an anti-bullshit immune system that works great against this type of attacks. I was actually one of the first to be banned in /Bitcoin sub for pointing out their lies with manipulations and to spot Craig Wright's attempt to infiltrate and bend /btc sub to his will..
}- Because I was fooled twice by entities similar to CodeValley before (namingly nChain and Blockstream) and I will not be fooled again. Bitcoin Cash will not be co-opted easily as long as I am here.
}- Because if Bitcoin Cash community is an organism, then I became a B lymphocyte cell. I produce antibodies. I show you how to defend yourself from bullshit, lies and manipulation. This is my basic function.
}- Because I am here to kill the bank
submitted by ShadowOfHarbringer to btc [link] [comments]

A clear over-reaction over my post due to self-promotion rule. Let’s talk about self-promo, censorship, independent content creators, centralization of information, and healthy environment.

This subreddit is exclusively dedicated to the mods of reddit. They can post and talk about anything they like.
As some of you noticed, I’ve posted my article in this sub yesterday, which received a very negative reaction. I can understand that some old mods are very sensitive to self-promo posts, so they might downvote an article even without reading it, but I was also told to literally “fuck off” by u/roionsteroids, his comment was upvoted, all my comments were downvoted, and my post was even deleted. Wow, seems like a very healthy environment, guys.
Let me point out a few things about my original post:
  1. The link didn’t have any harmful content.
  2. The content of the article perfectly suited this sub and would be useful for at least some mods.
  3. The article was only posted in this sub (well, apart from dactivism, which I’ve created and it has 2 members).
The response that I got was a clear over-reaction due to self-promo, so I’ve decided to write this post in order to start a discussion about self-promo, which is perfectly aligned with the purpose of this sub “to discuss moderation things”. So for those, who missed, let’s recap what has happened.
Timeline.
  1. I was adding Reddit’s best practices to an open-source manual decentalized-activism.
  2. I’ve decided to move a section about Reddit to a separate Medium article.
  3. I’ve posted an article to dactivism (which I’ve created and it has 2 members)
  4. A few days later I’ve cross-posted an article to modclub.
  5. Firstly, I got a few upvotes, but then an article was heavily downvoted.
  6. I was told to “fuck off” and that comment was upvoted.
  7. I was called a spammer.
  8. Literally all my comments were downvoted.
Now, when we know a timeline, let’s discuss the details.
Why did I post the article in this sub?
  1. To increase exposure.
  2. To increase impact.
Exposure. A useful post and self-promotion are not exclusive ideas at all. An author, who writes articles and posts them on Reddit, is not necessary a spammer. More than that, self-promotion per se is not even forbidden on Reddit, but its ratio is recommended to be within 10%, which I’ll later argue is an outdated rule that centralizes the distribution of information, making it easier for well-funded adversaries to control the narrative (corporate media, state-sponsored propaganda, etc.).
Impact. After publishing an article, I’ve started writing Subreddit Improvement Proposals (SIPs) for different subs that I care about, e.g. CryptoCurrency, Monero, HongKong, etc. However, these SIPs take too much time to write and there are lots of crypto-related and activism-related subs, so I’ve also decided to post an article in a sub with lots of moderators to increase both exposure and impact. modclub seemed to be a good fit.
Value of the article.
Some people suggested that an article is not valuable, because all mods already know about flairs, wiki, and megathreads. Well, that might be true, but if you actually read the article, you will find many other more advanced recommendations like surveys, cultural exchanges, different ways to deal with noise, organize and request AMAs, etc.
I didn’t find any other article with such a detailed list of best Reddit’s practices with images and links, so I believe it to be a unique content. However, I might be wrong, so feel free to link such article here, I’d love to review it and link it in open-source manual decentralized-activism.
Also there are many subs that have 100K+ users and they still don’t use basic features like flairs or wiki, so even simple recommendations can be a good reminder for them. Anyway, it might be not a perfect article, but it definitely has many tips that will be useful for mods.
What could have happened if the article was not downvoted?
Firstly, less experienced mods would get ideas for their subs.
Secondly, more experienced mods could get some ideas as well (e.g. surveys, cultural exchanges, event calendars, hubs, etc.)
Thirdly, very experienced mods could give more cool suggestions that would be discussed, implemented, and also added to an original article and to an open-source manual.
Now addressing my high ratio of self-promo.
Here is a copy-paste response from another comment.
I write lots of crypto-related articles, which perfectly fit into many crypto-related subs at once. For example, my articles about off-chain scaling were often posted in 5-6 subs ( CryptoCurrency, Ethereum, Bitcoin, btc, etc.) and were still upvoted and discussed. One of the posts got 166 comments, which is a good proof that it's a valuable contribution, rather than spam, despite being posted in many subs.
Another example is articles about digital activism that also fit into many subs. For example, I was posting HK privacy/security suggestions not only in privacy-oriented subs, but also in subs of different countries, where protests have started. I don't care much whether somebody will call me a spammer, but I do care that the knowledge of Hong Kong activists will be shared with many other activists across the world, because that can potentially save their lives.
OK, enough about me.
Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? (c) Henry David Thoreau
Self-promotion in general.
Now, when I’ve shared my thoughts about yesterday’s situation, let’s talk about self-promotion in general. Many mods here contribute their free time to a good cause, which is great, and I do a lot of activism completely free as well. Luckily, I was also able to find a great sponsor (LocalCryptos) that supports most of my articles since 2019, so I get at least some compensations for my blog. However, many mods are not content creators themselves, so they are missing out a few crucial things. I’d argue that self-promotion is a good thing if done properly regardless of a ratio: 10%, 50%, or 100%. Let me explain.
Benefits of self-promotion.
Firstly, when an author posts his content, he will get all the notifications about new comments, so he will be able to participate in the discussion, give an accurate response, and may be edit his article/website with a new or more correct information. That’s exactly what happened with me many times before. If somebody would post my article, I would most likely miss the conversation or react too late.
Secondly, Reddit is one of the few platforms for independent creators to get exposure, because an exposure on Reddit depends on the quality and relevance of the content, rather than the amount of followers (Twitter, Facebook, etc.). A high-quality content will be upvoted, while a low-quality content will be downvoted by users, so there is no reason to remove the post, unless it has some harmful content. If mods censor out self-promo by removing or downvoting such posts, then they contribute to centralization of distribution of information. Some big subs even auto-remove all medium posts, which is extremely dangerous, because it cuts off many alternative voices.
Centralization of information.
Well-funded adversaries like corporate media or state-sponsored news outlets and think-tanks dominate the internet exactly because it’s very hard for independent creators to get exposure. For example, without Reddit my articles would get hardly any exposure, despite the fact that some of them are a unique content that was very contributional to certain communities and sparked many discussions.
Censoring out an author just for “self-promo” is a direct attack on freedom of speech. I understand that many mods have years of experience and became conservative over the time, so they take self-promo very personally. However, sometimes it’s nice to step back and see whether old rules are still relevant and what is the long-term impact of these rules. For example, I don’t like when people tell me to “fuck off”, but I like spaces that allow such behavior, because it’s an important part of freedom of speech.
10% rule is outdated.
Firstly, there are many people like me, who use Reddit to get daily news, but they don’t interact with a content. For example, I usually scroll certain subs like CryptoCurrency or HongKong without even logging in due to UX and privacy concerns. Some of these people happened to be content creators, so it’s completely natural that they will have a high “self-promo” ratio.
Secondly, this 10% rule will stop only honest content creators. Bad actors can easily cheat the system by:
- spamming other content to keep their own content at 10% ratio,
- using fake accounts, which is very easy on Reddit due to lack of e.g. a phone number verification (note that for well-funded adversary even a strict KYC is not an obstacle to create fake accounts),
- simply asking their friends to post their content, which is a ridicules UX.
As a result, I’d argue that nowadays this 10% rule increases centralization of distribution of information and encourages a malicious behavior.
Proposal.
May be the next time you want to censor something out (remove or downvote) due to self-promo, ask yourself these questions:
- Does this post have any harmful content?
- Was this link posted in many other subs?
- Did author participate in the discussions and answer questions about his content?
- Will this content be useful for the community?
Bottom-line.
If you’re very sensitive to self-promo posts, then go ahead and downvote them, but calling people “spammers”, deleting their posts, and telling them to “fuck off” without actually reading their content is not a healthy environment.
P.S. You should also understand that it was not posted in a sub with a few million people and I won’t get many clicks even if a post would get upvoted. I mean, come on, this sub has less than 5K members with 10-20 online. And I’m getting so much shit for honestly sharing my own content instead of gaming the system. There is definitely something wrong with that.
submitted by SamAiken to modclub [link] [comments]

Apparently, Christmas is on Halloween this year! :) [Winner's Thread #35]

Where to start? I think my first post-realization post pretty much sums it up. I guess it's a tasteful combination of surprised shock - because I'm the unluckiest fool on Earth when it comes to these things, I've never so much as won a sticker in a tombola -, guilt - I used to participate pretty regularly in this sub, but the last couple months I kinda lost track of it. I almost didn't participate actually, as I think the last winner or two probably didn't get the usual couple $ from me (I'll make up for it!), and only really commented because I thought the rake thing was funny -, and elation - as this couldn't have come at a better time. Winning is the kind of thing that I daydream about, and I love the idea of the community participating in making others' lives easier. This sub and its concept is awesome, and I love being a part of it (even when I don't win)!
I don't usually like to talk much about myself online, but y'all deserve to know a bit about who you're helping out :-) So, I'm 33, I live in Belgium. I'm a biologist, I have a cat, 4 birds, and a husband. My username is actually partially based off the name of one of my pets, Kiwi, a little conure that I helped save when she was a baby birb. Love of my life (sorry, hubby!). Life has been overall good, I know I'm lucky compared to many people, despite things being a bit rough and complicated recently, having a hard time finding work and such. We're not rich, but we have a roof over our heads and food on the table, and we've even been able to splurge a bit for our wedding this summer (well, more the honeymoon than the wedding itself, tbh), thanks to our friends who helped out. I might not have much, but I try to be generous with what I do have, and to be a positive addition to the lives of people I cross.
So what am I going to do with all these sudden riches? Well there was a nice little luxury villa in the Bahamas I had my eye on... More seriously, a good part will probably go to helping pay some bills that just popped up, like my kitty's recent vet visit, and rent which has just gone up. Then according to what's left, I would love to be able to take my husband out to a nice restaurant or a concert he's been eyeing, because he's a good man and I can't gift him these things as often as I'd like. Then, if it's possible, I'd love to fly over to see my brother, who lives in another country, and get to see my nephew for his birthday. We'll see what's possible :-) either way, I'm so grateful to all of you!
I just want to end with a big shout-out: to the mods, who are really friendly and do a great job a running this sub, and and u/lilfruini in particular who so patiently helped work through timezone and technical issues; to the community as a whole, for making this kind of thing possible, and restoring faith in humanity's ability to share and care about others; and of course, last but not least, to all of you, whether you donate or just leave a friendly comment, for bringing a smile to my face today and whenever I'll be raking my leaves :-)
Cheers to all of you!!
PS: Haiku!
It seems I have won Amazing rakes incoming! Leaves on lawn no more.
Edit: I'm blown away by the generosity. Every single one of you are amazing people! I hope you have a fantastic day <3
Edit 2: [Updated again!] As per request, here are the winnings so far :-)
Total = $1876.18
Thank you so much everyone, you're amazing!! I'm trying to answer and thank all of you personally ❤ I'm sending out big hugs also to those who have donated without leaving comments below, thank you so much! And also, a special high-five to one of you who sent me a PayPal request for a 1$ payment :-D don't worry about it, happens to the best of us and I had a good laugh :-D Cheers everyone! ❤
Edit 3 & 4: Kitty tax! and some birdy pics
This part is written by the mods:

All of the amounts below should result in lilikiwi receiving about $1 USD.

Methods of payment:


Tipbots

| Guide | Amount | Comment this to donate
:- | :- | :- | :-
Tippr | Guide | $1 | “tippr $1”
ChainTip | Guide | $1 | “chaintip”, then send $1 to the address

Cryptocurrency transfer

| Guide | Amount | Address (click for QR Code)
:- | :- | :- | :- | :-
Bitcoin Cash | Guide | 0.0023 BCH | bitcoincash:qqhycmf72aej5vrt79ttr2p6wsapf4cyuyv4t559dr
Handcash | Guide | $1 | $LILIWIKI2018 (for QR code, see Bitcoin Cash)
Bitcoin | Guide | 0.00016 BTC | 12GNZdCJCd5pummCSLfFs6D3TtAzNPQjQ3
Litecoin | Guide | 0.019 LTC | LKQrVGmJgMYPyxWT2vGNjSJXwKUgLojvQM
Ethereum | Guide | 0.0050 Ether | 0x55CDd28c2847b457Be8bc98C285fd945574BF9B7
Dogecoin | Guide | 225 Doge | DPn8m1Gfo1waFaaBuCHAe7UmrPMLcbA96i
Steem | Guide | 1.23 Steem | @millmakers

Cash transfer

| Guide | Amount | Address
:- | :- | :- | :-
PayPal | Guide | $1* | [email protected]

* - Transfer fee from U.S. to Europe varies depending on the amount, see this link
submitted by lilikiwi to millionairemakers [link] [comments]

Waltonchain adds GNU General Public License details to code - BUT does the code contain this?

Waltonchain adds GNU General Public License details to code - BUT does the code contain this?
Dear Crypto community,
Yesterday we saw Waltonchain release their Open Source code which resulted in huge criticism regarding the oversight of removing the original copyright to the original codebase, Ethereum Go, on which it is based.
Following this, the team have now updated the code to show the original copyright:
Image from Github
Source: https://github.com/WaltonChain/WaltonChain_Gwtc_Src/blob/mastep2p/rlpx.go?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Github: https://github.com/WaltonChain?tab=repositories

I'd like to say thank you to the community for having such strong opinion on this matter, and for all the subreddit admins that assisted in creating clarity toward this. As a global community we should hold every blockchain up to the same standards, and I am grateful that this was shown in regard to the GNU General Public License.

Now that the issue is resolved, and since Waltonchain is currently a hot topic, I implore all the coders and devs out there to delve deep into the code to see exactly what Waltonchain have released. Not just the modification to the eth codebase, but the additional code. What does the code allow?

What we've been told as a community is that the Waltonchain source code has changes that allows for:
  • Security - DASH X11 - Most cryptographic algorithms used in cryptocurrencies use only one hash function for calculation. There are 11 of them in X11, which provides a higher degree of protection against hackers and scams. Waltonchain has customised the DASH X11 hashing algorithm to fit their purpose.
  • More secure than Bitcoin. The Bitcoin algorithm is SHA-256 is based on a previous secure hash algorithm family of standards, namely SHA-2, the hash functions within the X11 algorithm all successfully made it into the second-round in search for a new, more secure standard — SHA-3. Keccak, the function which won the competition and is therefore the new standard on which SHA-3 is based on, can at the very least be considered more secure that SHA-256.
  • Efficiency — Waltonchain have produced ASICs with the equivalent hashing power of 200GPUs (32–40kW) whilst using only 135W, thus helping the parent chain become decentralised
  • PoS aspect works in tandem with PoW, in that it adds a reduced difficulty based on number of coins held and time between blocks. Effectively the longer coins are held and the longer the time between blocks, the lower the difficulty for mining blocks. This again enhances the power efficiency of the network in its entirety.
  • Fast cross-chain searching via Proof of Labour —PoL enables hash values or indices from sub-chains (child chains) to be synced with the parent chain in a ‘cross chain index mechanism’ to enable fast searches for data via the parent chain.
  • Scalibility — Unlimited scalibility due to child chains; each CC is an independent blockchain (or DAG) using its own consensus mechanism (PoS, PoA, PoW, PoeT, etc) and can store data within itself. The parent chain by nature therefore cannot become bloated.
  • Atomic Swaps — PoL by nature ensures a record of every inter-chain transaction is held, and allows the function of atomic swaps between currencies.

Also to note is that the code has been audited by Knownsec, the same company that audited projects like HPB and NANO.

Lets have an open dialogue and talk about these features of the code - but firstly, do they exist? Hopefully people will approach this with the same enthusiasm as they did yesterday.

EDIT 1st June: A user on the Waltonchain sub has done an analysis which by the looks of it, disproves the initial assessment by many of the 'blockchain experts' in cc that have said the open source code is simply a copy and paste . https://www.reddit.com/waltonchain/comments/bveqea/changeset_goethereum_v171_to_gwtc_v110/
It is interesting to see just how much people love to hate Waltonchain that they spread misinformation either intentionally, or unintentionally, and that it gets the most attention out of any announcement.

For reference:
Block explorer: www.Waltonchain.pro (all wallets, mining wallet, documentation etc is available via that link)
submitted by Yayowam to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Best General RenVM Questions of January 2020

Best General RenVM Questions of January 2020

‌*These questions are sourced directly from Telegram
Q: When you say RenVM is Trustless, Permissionless, and Decentralized, what does that actually mean?
A: Trustless = RenVM is a virtual machine (a network of nodes, that do computations), this means if you ask RenVM to trade an asset via smart contract logic, it will. No trusted intermediary that holds assets or that you need to rely on. Because RenVM is a decentralized network and computes verified information in a secure environment, no single party can prevent users from sending funds in, withdrawing deposited funds, or computing information needed for updating outside ledgers. RenVM is an agnostic and autonomous virtual broker that holds your digital assets as they move between blockchains.
Permissionless = RenVM is an open protocol; meaning anyone can use RenVM and any project can build with RenVM. You don't need anyone's permission, just plug RenVM into your dApp and you have interoperability.
Decentralized = The nodes that power RenVM ( Darknodes) are scattered throughout the world. RenVM has a peak capacity of up to 10,000 Darknodes (due to REN’s token economics). Realistically, there will probably be 100 - 500 Darknodes run in the initial Mainnet phases, ample decentralized nonetheless.

Q: Okay, so how can you prove this?
A: The publication of our audit results will help prove the trustlessness piece; permissionless and decentralized can be proven today.
Permissionless = https://github.com/renproject/ren-js
Decentralized = https://chaosnet.renproject.io/

Q: How does Ren sMPC work? Sharmir's secret sharing? TSS?
A: There is some confusion here that keeps arising so I will do my best to clarify.TL;DR: *SSS is just data. It’s what you do with the data that matters. RenVM uses sMPC on SSS to create TSS for ECDSA keys.*SSS and TSS aren’t fundamental different things. It’s kind of like asking: do you use numbers, or equations? Equations often (but not always) use numbers or at some point involve numbers.
SSS by itself is just a way of representing secret data (like numbers). sMPC is how to generate and work with that data (like equations). One of the things you can do with that work is produce a form of TSS (this is what RenVM does).
However, TSS is slightly different because it can also be done *without* SSS and sMPC. For example, BLS signatures don’t use SSS or sMPC but they are still a form of TSS.
So, we say that RenVM uses SSS+sMPC because this is more specific than just saying TSS (and you can also do more with SSS+sMPC than just TSS). Specifically, all viable forms of turning ECDSA (a scheme that isn’t naturally threshold based) into a TSS needs SSS+sMPC.
People often get confused about RenVM and claim “SSS can’t be used to sign transactions without making the private key whole again”. That’s a strange statement and shows a fundamental misunderstanding about what SSS is.
To come back to our analogy, it’s like saying “numbers can’t be used to write a book”. That’s kind of true in a direct sense, but there are plenty of ways to encode a book as numbers and then it’s up to how you interpret (how you *use*) those numbers. This is exactly how this text I’m writing is appearing on your screen right now.
SSS is just secret data. It doesn’t make sense to say that SSS *functions*. RenVM is what does the functioning. RenVM *uses* the SSSs to represent private keys. But these are generated and used and destroyed as part of sMPC. The keys are never whole at any point.

Q: Thanks for the explanation. Based on my understanding of SSS, a trusted dealer does need to briefly put the key together. Is this not the case?
A: Remember, SSS is just the representation of a secret. How you get from the secret to its representation is something else. There are many ways to do it. The simplest way is to have a “dealer” that knows the secret and gives out the shares. But, there are other ways. For example: we all act as dealers, and all give each other shares of our individual secret. If there are N of us, we now each have N shares (one from every person). Then we all individually add up the shares that we have. We now each have a share of a “global” secret that no one actually knows. We know this global secret is the sum of everyone’s individual secrets, but unless you know every individual’s secret you cannot know the global secret (even though you have all just collectively generates shares for it). This is an example of an sMPC generation of a random number with collusion resistance against all-but-one adversaries.

Q: If you borrow Ren, you can profit from the opposite Ren gain. That means you could profit from breaking the network and from falling Ren price (because breaking the network, would cause Ren price to drop) (lower amount to be repaid, when the bond gets slashed)
A: Yes, this is why it’s important there has a large number of Darknodes before moving to full decentralisation (large borrowing becomes harder). We’re exploring a few other options too, that should help prevent these kinds of issues.

Q: What are RenVM’s Security and Liveliness parameters?
A: These are discussed in detail in our Wiki, please check it out here: https://github.com/renproject/ren/wiki/Safety-and-Liveliness#analysis

Q: What are the next blockchain under consideration for RenVM?
A: These can be found here: https://github.com/renproject/ren/wiki/Supported-Blockchains

Q: I've just read that Aztec is going to be live this month and currently tests txs with third parties. Are you going to participate in early access or you just more focused on bringing Ren to Subzero stage?
A: At this stage, our entire focus is on Mainnet SubZero. But, we will definitely be following up on integrating with AZTEC once everything is out and stable.

Q: So how does RenVM compare to tBTC, Thorchain, WBTC, etc..?
A: An easy way to think about it is..RenVM’s functionality is a combination of tBTC (+ WBTC by extension), and Thorchain’s (proposed) capabilities... All wrapped into one. Just depends on what the end-user application wants to do with it.

Q1: What are the core technical/security differences between RenVM and tBTC?A1: The algorithm used by tBTC faults if even one node goes offline at the wrong moment (and the whole “keep” of nodes can be penalised for this). RenVM can survive 1/3rd going offline at any point at any time. Advantage for tBTC is that collusion is harder, disadvantage is obviously availability and permissionlessness is lower.
tBTC an only mint/burn lots of 1 BTC and requires an on-Ethereum SPV relay for Bitcoin headers (and for any other chain it adds). No real advantage trade-off IMO.
tBTC has a liquidation mechanism that means nodes can have their bond liquidated because of ETH/BTC price ratio. Advantage means users can get 1 BTC worth of ETH. Disadvantage is it means tBTC is kind of a synthetic: needs a price feed, needs liquid markets for liquidation, users must accept exposure to ETH even if they only hold tBTC, nodes must stay collateralized or lose lots of ETH. RenVM doesn’t have this, and instead uses fees to prevent becoming under-collateralized. This requires a mature market, and assumed Darknodes will value their REN bonds fairly (based on revenue, not necessarily what they can sell it for at current —potentially manipulated—market value). That can be an advantage or disadvantage depending on how you feel.
tBTC focuses more on the idea of a tokenized version of BTC that feels like an ERC20 to the user (and is). RenVM focuses more on letting the user interact with DeFi and use real BTC and real Bitcoin transactions to do so (still an ERC20 under the hood, but the UX is more fluid and integrated). Advantage of tBTC is that it’s probably easier to understand and that might mean better overall experience, disadvantage really comes back to that 1 BTC limit and the need for a more clunky minting/burning experience that might mean worse overall experience. Too early to tell, different projects taking different bets.
tBTC supports BTC (I think they have ZEC these days too). RenVM supports BTC, BCH, and ZEC (docs discuss Matic, XRP, and LTC).
Q2: This are my assumed differences between tBTC and RenVM, are they correct? Some key comparisons:
-Both are vulnerable to oracle attacks
-REN federation failure results in loss or theft of all funds
-tBTC failures tend to result in frothy markets, but holders of tBTC are made whole
-REN quorum rotation is new crypto, and relies on honest deletion of old key shares
-tBTC rotates micro-quorums regularly without relying on honest deletion
-tBTC relies on an SPV relay
-REN relies on federation honesty to fill the relay's purpose
-Both are brittle to deep reorgs, so expanding to weaker chains like ZEC is not clearly a good idea
-REN may see total system failure as the result of a deep reorg, as it changes federation incentives significantly
-tBTC may accidentally punish some honest micro-federations as the result of a deep reorg
-REN generally has much more interaction between incentive models, as everything is mixed into the same pot.
-tBTC is a large collection of small incentive models, while REN is a single complex incentive model
A2: To correct some points:
The oracle situation is different with RenVM, because the fee model is what determines the value of REN with respect to the cross-chain asset. This is the asset is what is used to pay the fee, so no external pricing is needed for it (because you only care about the ratio between REN and the cross-chain asset).
RenVM does rotate quorums regularly, in fact more regularly than in tBTC (although there are micro-quorums, each deposit doesn’t get rotated as far as I know and sticks around for up to 6 months). This rotation involves rotations of the keys too, so it does not rely on honest deletion of key shares.
Federated views of blockchains are easier to expand to support deep re-orgs (just get the nodes to wait for more blocks for that chain). SPV requires longer proofs which begins to scale more poorly.
Not sure what you mean by “one big pot”, but there are multiple quorums so the failure of one is isolated from the failures of others. For example, if there are 10 shards supporting BTC and one of them fails, then this is equivalent to a sudden 10% fee being applied. Harsh, yes, but not total failure of the whole system (and doesn’t affect other assets).
Would be interesting what RenVM would look like with lots more shards that are smaller. Failure becomes much more isolated and affects the overall network less.
Further, the amount of tBTC you can mint is dependent on people who are long ETH and prefer locking it up in Keep for earning a smallish fee instead of putting it in Compound or leveraging with dydx. tBTC is competing for liquidity while RenVM isn't.

Q: I understand correctly RenVM (sMPC) can get up to a 50% security threshold, can you tell me more?
A: The best you can theoretically do with sMPC is 50-67% of the total value of REN used to bond Darknodes (RenVM will eventually work up to 50% and won’t go for 67% because we care about liveliness just as much as safety). As an example, if there’s $1M of REN currently locked up in bonded Darknodes you could have up to $500K of tokens shifted through RenVM at any one specific moment. You could do more than that in daily volume, but at any one moment this is the limit.Beyond this limit, you can still remain secure but you cannot assume that players are going to be acting to maximize their profit. Under this limit, a colluding group of adversaries has no incentive to subvert safety/liveliness properties because the cost to attack roughly outweighs the gain. Beyond this limit, you need to assume that players are behaving out of commitment to the network (not necessarily a bad assumption, but definitely weaker than the maximizing profits assumption).

Q: Why is using ETH as collateral for RenVM a bad idea?
A: Using ETH as collateral in this kind of system (like having to deposit say 20 ETH for a bond) would not make any sense because the collateral value would then fluctuate independently of what kind of value RenVM is providing. The REN token on the other hand directly correlates with the usage of RenVM which makes bonding with REN much more appropriate. DAI as a bond would not work as well because then you can't limit attackers with enough funds to launch as many darknodes as they want until they can attack the network. REN is limited in supply and therefore makes it harder to get enough of it without the price shooting up (making it much more expensive to attack as they would lose their bonds as well).
A major advantage of Ren's specific usage of sMPC is that security can be regulated economically. All value (that's being interopped at least) passing through RenVM has explicit value. The network can self-regulate to ensure an attack is never worth it.

Q: Given the fee model proposal/ceiling, might be a liquidity issue with renBTC. More demand than possible supply?A: I don’t think so. As renBTC is minted, the fees being earned by Darknodes go up, and therefore the value of REN goes up. Imagine that the demand is so great that the amount of renBTC is pushing close to 100% of the limit. This is a very loud and clear message to the Darknodes that they’re going to be earning good fees and that demand is high. Almost by definition, this means REN is worth more.
Profits of the Darknodes, and therefore security of the network, is based solely on the use of the network (this is what you want because your network does not make or break on things outside the systems control). In a system like tBTC there are liquidity issues because you need to convince ETH holders to bond ETH and this is an external problem. Maybe ETH is pumping irrespective of tBTC use and people begin leaving tBTC to sell their ETH. Or, that ETH is dumping, and so tBTC nodes are either liquidated or all their profits are eaten by the fact that they have to be long on ETH (and tBTC holders cannot get their BTC back in this case). Feels real bad man.

Q: I’m still wondering which asset people will choose: tbtc or renBTC? I’m assuming the fact that all tbtc is backed by eth + btc might make some people more comfortable with it.
A: Maybe :) personally I’d rather know that my renBTC can always be turned back into BTC, and that my transactions will always go through. I also think there are many BTC holders that would rather not have to “believe in ETH” as an externality just to maximize use of their BTC.

Q: How does the liquidation mechanism work? Can any party, including non-nodes act as liquidators? There needs to be a price feed for liquidation and to determine the minting fee - where does this price feed come from?
A: RenVM does not have a liquidation mechanism.
Q: I don’t understand how the price feeds for minting fees make sense. You are saying that the inputs for the fee curve depend on the amount of fees derived by the system. This is circular in a sense?
A: By evaluating the REN based on the income you can get from bonding it and working. The only thing that drives REN value is the fact that REN can be bonded to allow work to be done to earn revenue. So any price feed (however you define it) is eventually rooted in the fees earned.

Q: Who’s doing RenVM’s Security Audit?
A: ChainSecurity | https://chainsecurity.com/

Q: Can you explain RenVM’s proposed fee model?
A: The proposed fee model can be found here: https://github.com/renproject/ren/wiki/Safety-and-Liveliness#fees

Q: Can you explain in more detail the difference between "execution" and "powering P2P Network". I think that these functions are somehow overlapping? Can you define in more detail what is "execution" and "powering P2P Network"? You also said that at later stages semi-core might still exist "as a secondary signature on everything (this can mathematically only increase security, because the fully decentralised signature is still needed)". What power will this secondary signature have?
A: By execution we specifically mean signing things with the secret ECDSA keys. The P2P network is how every node communicates with every other node. The semi-core doesn’t have any “special powers”. If it stays, it would literally just be a second signature required (as opposed to the one signature required right now).
This cannot affect safety, because the first signature is still required. Any attack you wanted to do would still have to succeed against the “normal” part of the network. This can affect liveliness, because the semi-core could decide not to sign. However, the semi-core follows the same rules as normal shards. The signature is tolerant to 1/3rd for both safety/liveliness. So, 1/3rd+ would have to decide to not sign.
Members of the semi-core would be there under governance from the rest of our ecosystem. The idea is that members would be chosen for their external value. We’ve discussed in-depth the idea of L<3. But, if RenVM is used in MakerDAO, Compound, dYdX, Kyber, etc. it would be desirable to capture the value of these ecosystems too, not just the value of REN bonded. The semi-core as a second signature is a way to do this.
Imagine if the members for those projects, because those projects want to help secure renBTC, because it’s used in their ecosystems. There is a very strong incentive for them to behave honestly. To attack RenVM you first have to attack the Darknodes “as per usual” (the current design), and then somehow convince 1/3rd of these projects to act dishonestly and collapse their own ecosystems and their own reputations. This is a very difficult thing to do.
Worth reminding: the draft for this proposal isn’t finished. It would be great for everyone to give us their thoughts on GitHub when it is proposed, so we can keep a persistent record.

Q: Which method or equation is used to calculate REN value based on fees? I'm interested in how REN value is calculated as well, to maintain the L < 3 ratio?
A: We haven’t finalized this yet. But, at this stage, the plan is to have a smart contract that is controlled by the Darknodes. We want to wait to see how SubZero and Zero go before committing to a specific formulation, as this will give us a chance to bootstrap the network and field inputs from the Darknodes owners after the earnings they can make have become more apparent.
submitted by RENProtocol to RenProject [link] [comments]

Happy Tipping Tuesday! Now that this sub is the main Bitcoin sub in terms of activity, it's time for everyone to get some Education and some free Bitcoin. Post here and get free bits! Bitcoin Cash will defeat the legacy banking oligarch system!

As someone who cares about Liberty and freedom, I have instinctively understood the importance of Bitcoin for spreading economic freedom across the globe. Being sick of the legacy too-big-to-fail central bank fiat bailout scam systems where they print the money from thin air, I saw Bitcoin as a tool that can really liberate humanity and help us reach our ultimate potential. The fact is economic freedom improves this world, and the stakes are very large. We are fighting an oligarch banking system that prints money out of thin air, holding back humanity's potential with their scam system that only works to enslave and not liberate humanity. In the past people fought for liberty and gave their lives on bloody battlefields. Today we fight troll wars on social media, but the stakes are quite similar, if not multiplied in this new technological age. By supporting Bitcoin and Satoshi's vision of a worldwide honest cash system, its one of the only ways to help lift humanity up to our ultimate limitless potential. The oligarch's saw this threat which is why we are under heavy attacks. They stole Bitcoin and the ticker, and crippled the system with high fees, unreliable transactions, and Trojan horse tech, but Bitcoin Cash adapted, survived, and lives on as the common sense continuation of the money ledger. It turns out that its not so easy to stop an idea whose time has come.
Bitcoin Cash is the true Bitcoin that follows Satoshi's vision of common sense and on-chain scaling. BCH is The Manifestation of the Honey Badger. Trolls will point to market cap and say BCH is losing and not the real Bitcoin. However they fail to understand the nature of the war we are fighting. Bitcoin is all about breaking oligarchy, as nChain's paper explains. We are fighting against a banker oligarch takeover of Bitcoin. Since they print money from thin air, they have us outgunned when it comes to market capitalization/price. This is what the trolls do not understand. To think that the oligarch bankers that control the money monopoly would not try to attack the Bitcoin system would be naive. It appears they have pumped the BTC-Core price to outrun Bitcoin Cash the real Bitcoin as soon as their trojan segwit tech was deployed. They likely will use segwit, strangled blocks, and Lightning Network as the strangler fig to usurp the system changing it to fiat legacy banking system 2.0. What they don't want people to realize is that Bitcoin was always the underdog against fiat systems. Just because they usurped the name and BTC ticker for their fiat 2.0 system it does not mean they are winning the war. Its a clever tactic sure, but BCH is still the #1 cryptocurrency by market cap in the world, they have shifted some shells around in trickery, but Bitcoin-BCH is still fighting as the underdog against the oligarchs as it always has.
Not only this but the numerous problems in Lightning are acting as a bottleneck for development on Core. All this while BCH development is soaring with things like memo.cash, blockpress.com, cashshuffle protocol, chainbet protocol, SLP token protocol, colored coins, tokeda, and much more. Now that we have solved the scaling issue we can finally build again. All this while numerous services like Dell, Steam, Reddit, Rakuten, Stripe, Circle, Microsoft, Fiverr, Satoshidice, Changetip, Expedia, and many more stopped accepting Bitcoin Core, while Coinbase, Bitpay, coins.ph, satoshidice, tippr, purse.io, dark web all are adding BCH support.
They thought they could use censorship to shut us up. But now we are seeing that free speech is more popular than censored cult subreddits. We are battling some powerful oligarch interests. But they have vastly underestimated the spirit of the Honey Badger. There is a reason there is so much COINTELPRO trolling and dirty tricks being done to Bitcoin Cash and its supporters. There is a reason they need to use vote manipulation, shaming and bullying tactics, censorship, and dirty tricks to try to get us to shut our mouths. The truth is they are terrified of Bitcoin Cash and Satoshi's vision, which is why they need to use such tactics. They are doing whatever they can to pen the Honey Badger up in sheer desperation and terror that it will soon break loose ripping them limb from limb and devouring them whole.
I would like to mention that the recent turmoil in the BCH community over a November fork with different factions fighting each other is on a lot of people's minds. Some newbs may also be wondering about what is going on. They may be falling into the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt that is being pushed by a lot of Core trolls, as well as some genuine members of the BCH community. I would like to point out that these disputes are actually healthy. We don't want a system where one person or group controls things. We want a system where people are fighting for control. Its an economic incentive system with different factions competing. This is what keeps Bitcoin robust and was the genius of Satoshi's design. We don't need to worry about the troll wars because we have Nakamoto consensus as the whitepaper says:
They vote with their CPU power, expressing their acceptance of valid blocks by working on extending them and rejecting invalid blocks by refusing to work on them. Any needed rules and incentives can be enforced with this consensus mechanism"
Miners will decide what to support and the community should respect it. Many prominent BCH miners are also meeting in the next days to have a discussion on how to proceed with the protocol in November. The miners have put in their work and investment and have earned their right to vote on new rules. Most of us trolls have not, we are simply picketing outside the polling booth trying to influence how miners vote. They may care what the community thinks, but at the end of the day, Bitcoin is about self-interest, so they may also not necessarily care what the community thinks. Bitcoin was never designed as a democracy 1user 1 vote system as people like Core and Andreas Antonopoulos think. We should celebrate the fact that BCH has many competing implementations, compared to Core's centralized coin with BlockStream Gatekeepers. We also have miner groups challenging developers. Since the system was designed for miners to vote, this is obviously much healthier than developer dictatorships. Miners have much more skin in the game and are incentivized economically to make the right decision. Often times people forget Bitcoin is an economic incentive system.
So after getting a little bit of education, the point of this thread is to post and get free bits, especially for newbs that want to try Bitcoin for the first time. BlockStream admits BTC-Core is not for everyone. But we have news for them, BCH is for everyone!.
Post here and get some free bits. Bits is the historical unit for Bitcoin, but it also went extinct from the high fees on BTC-Legacy. Bits can only be feasible on BCH the real Bitcoin with low fees, it just doesn't work on Bitcoin-Legacy anymore. Coinbase and Bitpay had adopted bits before the fees killed it and my hope is they will embrace it for BCH again. There are 1 million bits in a BCH. If newbs have any questions please feel free to ask in the thread as well and get advice on anything, from potential coin splits, to how to use the tip bot, and withdraw to your own wallet, or other aspects about why Bitcoin-BCH is good, and why Bitcoin-BTC is so bad.
Reddit usage for tippr directions are here: https://www.reddit.com/tippwiki/reddit-usage
Information on chaintip the other tip bot is here: https://www.chaintip.org/
I suggest using the Bitcoin.com wallet for withdrawing BCH because they have BCH as default. You may also want to try the Bitpay wallet, which has some added features like a shapeshift button to change your btc-segwits into Bitcoin-BCH (bitcoin.com has this as well), as well as an amazon button to purchase amazon gift cards instantly in the BitPay app using Bitcoin. And there is a bitcoin BitPay debit card option in the app as well.
In the BitPay wallet you will need to add the BCH wallet as a second wallet as its not there by default. So press the + symbol and create new personal wallet, then choose coin BCH and back it up.
If you need to change between legacy and the new cashaddr format then use this tool: https://cashaddr.bitcoincash.org/
tippr stats are here
submitted by cryptorebel to btc [link] [comments]

CODE FUD: Resolved.

Dear Waltonchain community,
Yesterday we saw Waltonchain release their Open Source code which resulted in huge criticism regarding the oversight of removing the original copyright to the original codebase, Ethereum Go, on which it is based.
Following this, the team have now updated the code to show the original copyright:
Source: https://github.com/WaltonChain/WaltonChain_Gwtc_Src/blob/mastep2p/rlpx.go?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app
Github: https://github.com/WaltonChain?tab=repositories

I'd like to say thank you to the community for having such strong opinion on this matter, and for all the subreddit admins that assisted in creating clarity toward this. As a global community we should hold every blockchain up to the same standards, and I am grateful that this was shown in regard to the GNU General Public License.

Now that the issue is resolved, and since Waltonchain is currently a hot topic, I implore all the coders and devs out there to delve deep into the code to see exactly what Waltonchain have released. Not just the modification to the eth codebase, but the additional code. What does the code allow?

What we've been told as a community is that the Waltonchain source code has changes that allows for:

Also to note is that the code has been audited by Knownsec, the same company that audited projects like HPB and NANO.

Lets have an open dialogue and talk about these features of the code - but firstly, do they exist? Hopefully people will approach this with the same enthusiasm as they did yesterday.

For reference:
Block explorer: www.Waltonchain.pro (all wallets, mining wallet, documentation etc is available via that link)
submitted by Yayowam to waltonchain [link] [comments]

[repost] a reminder on how r/btc and Bitcoin Cash came to be

I realized that many people in this sub still don't have the full history of how Bitcoin Cash came to be.
It goes back to all of the blocked attempts at onchain scaling that were made since 2014. Bitcoin was always supposed to get larger blocks: on that the record is very, very clear. (Edit: correct link here)
Blockstream employees working on the Bitcoin Core project blocked original Bitcoin team members from upgrading Bitcoin Core to support larger blocks, so the original devs created Bitcoin XT, Classic, and Bitcoin Unlimited. By spring/summer 2017, miner support for large blocks had exceeded 50%. Meanwhile, support for Segwit was stuck at around 30%, despite a massive, organized campaign to rid the Bitcoin ecosystem of "up to 90%" of us big block early adopters. Thus, rbtc was born.
When the small block community realized that Segwit was stuck at 30% signaling and big blocks were above 50% they launched UASF / BIP148 and then the subsequent New York bait-and-switch to get Segwit activated anyway. You will note that I and many others realized the NYA was a bait-and-switch from the start.
Activation of Segwit required us to preemptively fork BCH in order to preserve a Segwit-free fork of Bitcoin with full onchain scaling capability which Segwit degrades.
Unfortunately the mining majority went along with the fraudulent New York bait-and-switch and followed the 1MB4EVA chain, expecting that it would lead to the promised 2MB hardfork upgrade. By the time the majority realized that 2MB was never going to happen it was far too late.
Learn more about the tragic attack on Bitcoin scaling here.
submitted by jessquit to btc [link] [comments]

Magic Money: The Bitcoin Revolution  Full Documentary ... Cryptonauts - YouTube What is Bitcoin ?  How Bitcoin Work in Details (HINDI ... What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin Explained Simply for Dummies ... Bitcoins Erklärung: In nur 12 Min. Bitcoin verstehen ...

Transaction fees are fees that Bitcoin users may include in any Bitcoin Transactions. The fees may be collected by the miner who includes the transaction in a Block. Transaction fees are a service charge paid to the miners who record the Bitcoin ledger. The services provided by miners are transaction validation, storage of the ledger and the construction and security of the Bitcoin network ... NAVcoin is X13 POW/POS cryptocurrency that uses subchains and Community’s Foundation. When a transaction takes place, it is recorded on a decentralized public ledger called a block chain. These transactions are peer verified by other users of NAV Coin through a process called mining. A complete list of opcodes can be found on the Bitcoin Wiki Script Page, ... (SHA256()) hash a redeem script serialized in the format used in raw transactions (described in a following sub-section). Taking the resulting hash: Add an address version byte in front of the hash. The version bytes commonly used by Bitcoin are: 0x00 for P2PKH addresses on the main Bitcoin network (mainnet) 0x6f for ... But the chains can contain each other’s transactions. Calculation of the wallet balance will be made immediately for all the tokens. CPU optimized mining (PoW). The complexity of forming each new block is adjusted on the basis of the total hash of capacities so that the generation of each new block takes the same time. For golden blocks, this time is extremely high - 10,000 sec. The golden ... From Bitcoin Wiki. Jump to: navigation, search. Most commonly, units of bitcoin are expressed in decimal exponents such as BTC ("bitcoins"), mBTC ("millibitcoins") and μBTC ("bits"). Contents. 1 Decimal metric units. 1.1 Bits; 2 Table of all units; 3 See also; 4 References; Decimal metric units. The BTC unit was chosen to represent a value of 10 8 so as to give sub-unit precision rather than ...

[index] [2850] [15202] [34243] [40933] [49706] [34129] [51463] [2958] [19199] [28666]

Magic Money: The Bitcoin Revolution Full Documentary ...

Bitcoin für Anfänger einfach erklärt! [auf Deutsch] Bitcoin-Börse (erhalte 10€ in BTC) https://finanzfluss.de/go/bitcoin-boerse *📱 Sicheres Bitcoin-Wallet... Hey Guys, This video will explain you what is Bitcoin, How to Mine Bitcoin in India to earn free Bitcoins (BTC). Who decide Bitcoin Price, How it goes up & d... We dive into on-chain analysis of Bitcoin and look at various metrics plotted against the BTC price. This gives us fundamental insight into real-world adoption of Bitcoin and cryptocurrency. Join ... Start trading Bitcoin and cryptocurrency here: http://bit.ly/2Vptr2X Bitcoin mining is the process of updating the ledger of Bitcoin transactions known as th... The Bitcoin Gold Fork is coming up. We break down the top 3 things to know about this new coin. We break down the top 3 things to know about this new coin. We welcome any and all feedback, and ...

#