Bitcoin mining software What is the best Bitcoin mining ...

Algorand announces $50M grant program to boost its blockchain

The Algorand Foundation has announced a new grants program worth $50 million.
A decentralized finance-focused blockchain platform, Algorand has earmarked a total of 250 million ALGO tokens for the multi-year initiative, designed “to provide funding to projects building apps to support infrastructure, end-user application, and research innovation on its blockchain.”
In addition, on April 14 the Algorand Foundation also announced a new developers portal, featuring tutorials, articles, and use-case solutions featuring code samples and explanations.
Three beneficiaries of the fund have already been announced, who will share six million ALGO (about $1.2 million) between them.
Multi-blockchain infrastructure provider Bloq delivers Algorand nodes and APIs, while PureStake is an open-source browser plug-in allowing developers to add the capacity for Algorand transactions into their applications. Lastly, the development platform Reach is “designed to remove the complexity of building DApps on the Algorand blockchain and to enable the future creation of DAOs, decentralized exchanges and many other DeFi applications on Algorand.”

The criteria

Projects that are selected to receive a grant are chosen based on the positive impact they could have on the Algorand community and on the ecosystem. Other factors include the quality of the application, the technical or academic strength of the proposal, and the concept’s opportunity for growth going forward.
Bloq, PureStake, and Reach are going to undergo an evaluation after receiving the funding. The Algorand Foundation says it plans to introduce an open grant program in the not-too-distant future—enabling the broader community to vote on which projects should receive grants.
“The grant program from the Algorand Foundation is one of the most focused programs out there, and we believe it will be instrumental in accelerating the adoption of Algorand’s platform,” Reach founder Chris Swenor said.
PureStake CEO Derek Yoo added that “easy and pragmatic developer tools are critical to further expanding the accessibility of the Algorand network.”

Cool tool

The Algorand blockchain is the brainchild of Silvio Micali, a Turing-award winning cryptographer and MIT professor who is also one of the minds behind zero-knowledge proofs, a cryptography method gaining a following in privacy-focused cryptocurrency circles. He is No. 81 on the Modern Consensus 100 most influential people in crypto 2020 list.
As reported by Modern Consensus, Algorand recently won plaudits for its energy-efficient blockchain protocol.
In January, French start-up PlanetWatch chose the firm as a partner to put global air quality test results on the blockchain.
Algorand was chosen because of how its platform requires “minimal processing power” to achieve consensus—a serious issue considering that some studies indicate that Bitcoin mining uses as much energy as Switzerland.
submitted by Superb_Recognition to algorand [link] [comments]

Top 10 Richest People in the World, in Bitcoin

Bitcoin has been given the nickname “digital gold”. This is because of its characteristic as a store of wealth. Many big investors are resorting to Bitcoin as a good place to put their money. The reason for this is not just because it can be sustained, but also because of the high tendency of appreciation in value. Here we shall be considering the top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin.
We will take a look at their net worth, and how much that amounts to in Bitcoin. We will also consider their primary business and a little bit of their history. How they started out in the Bitcoin ecosystem and what they have achieved so far will also enable us to understand more about them.
So, here is a list of the top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin.
10. Matthew Roszark
Matthew Roszark is the founder of Tally Capital, and co-founder of Bloq. Roszark is widely known as the man who gave Richard Branson and Bill Clinton their first Bitcoins. Roszark made it early into the Bitcoin space and participated in the very first ICO in 2013. Although that wasn’t what it was called at the time.
Roszark has investments in 20 startups in the cryptocurrency ecosystem, some of which have gone ahead to do great things. Some of the startups that he invested in include Coinbase, Kraken and BTCC.
Roszark’s net worth is $1 billion, which amounts to 102,712.94 BTC (at the time of writing).
  1. Anthony Di Iorio
Anthony Di lorio is the founder of Jaxx and Decentral, and co-founder at Ethereum. Having studied a bit of economics and trying to find out the true essence of money after the recession of early 2000, Di lorio discovered Bitcoin and decided to explore. He started a Toronto Bitcoin-meetup, where he met his eventual co-founder of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin.
Di lorio contributed his personal funds towards the coding of Ethereum, and has since been involved in a number of other crypto assets. Some of them include Qtum, VeChain and ZCash.
Di lorio is a serial investor who commits to projects at an early stage, then after levelling up, he pulls his funds and moves on to something new. His net worth of $1 billion is the equivalent of 102,712.93 BTC.
  1. Michael Novogratz
This CEO of Galaxy Digital is also popular in the field of macro hedge fund management. Novogratz started investing in cryptocurrencies in 2013 and two years later he left his position at Fortress Investment Group to focus on crypto.
In the cryptocurrency industry, Novogratz is known as a seasoned trader who believes that the crypto market as it is today is a bubble. According to him, his aim is to make as much money as possible from the bubble before it bursts.
Novogratz is worth $1 billion which is the equivalent of 102,712.92 BTC
  1. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss
The Winklevoss twins arrived in the face of the public through the controversial law suit against Facebook for intellectual property theft. They eventually won the case and were paid $11 million in compensation.
With many Silicon Valley startups not wanting to get into Facebook’s black book, the twins seemed to not have where to invest their money. They were introduced to Bitcoin by Brooklyn-based investor David Azar in 2012, and found their new investment ecosystem.
Over the years, the astronomic rise in Bitcoin price has turned their $11 million investment to a $1 billion portfolio of 102,712.91 BTC.
  1. Matthew Mellon
Matthew Mellon’s money started as old money which he inherited from family sources. However, through his “crazy” investment approach, he has been able to build a fortune out of his family inheritance.
Having bought into Bitcoin some years ago, Mellon abandoned his early investments and sold his Bitcoins at some point. His attachment with the banking industry and the XRP feasibility attracted him to the coin.
Mellon spent $2 million to acquire XRP tokens a few years back. That investment has grown to $1 billion, in the equivalence of 102,712.90 BTC.
  1. Zhao Chaopeng
Zhao Chaopeng popularly known as CZ, is the founder of cryptocurrency exchange, Binance. Within one year of its launch, Binance became the largest cryptocurrency exchange in terms of volume.
The platform’s tokens were sold at a price of 10 cents during its ICO. At the time of writing, the price of the coin has risen to over $27 and CZ owns a huge volume of the coins.
In 2014, CZ sold his house in Shanghai, which was practically all he had, to go all out into Bitcoin. Today, his net worth is $1.3 billion, which is equivalent to 133,523.65 BTC.
  1. Brian Armstrong
Brian Armstrong is the CEO of Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in America. Coinbase was founded in 2012, and is the most patronized cryptocurrency exchange in the US. The exchange has also expanded, and is now available in many countries of the world.
In 2018, the exchange embarked on a financing round that saw it raise $300 million, and the company is now valued at $8 billion.
Armstrong’s net worth stands at $1.3 billion, with equates to 133,523.64 BTC.
  1. Jihan Wu
Johan Wu is the co-founder of Bitmain, a China-based Bitcoin mining giant. Together with Micree Zhan Ketuan, they have grown Bitmain to become a household name in the industry, and the main supplier of ASIC-chip miners. Wu is also popular for his open support of Bitcoin Cash.
Wu is estimated to be worth up to $1.5 billion, which translates in Bitcoin to 154,065.75 BTC.
  1. Chris Larsen
Chris Larsen is the co-founder of Ripple, a company which was founded in 2012 with Jed McCaleb, the founder of Mt Gox.
Larsen is regarded as a self-made billionaire, with the bulk of his wealth coming from cryptocurrency enterprises. Ripple boasts many top end customers in its portfolio. Among the list includes Bank of America, Santander and Mitsubishi Financial.
Larsen’s net worth is estimated at $1.5 billion, which is equivalent to 154,065.74 BTC.
  1. Micree Zhan Ketuan
Zhan is the co-founder of Bitmain technologies. Bitmain is regarded as the biggest Bitcoin mining company in China. The company is also known to specialize in the sale of ASIC-chip miners.
Zhan is an electrical engineer by training and is the builder of the ASIC chips on the Bitmain hardware. He is an acclaimed self-made billionaire whose source of wealth is the manufacturing and sales of cryptocurrency mining chips.
Zhan’s net worth is estimated at $2.7 billion, which when converted to Bitcoin is 215,692.05 BTC.
Conclusion
The dominant investment industry concept is evolutionary. At different eras of existence, different industries have produced different money magnates. Serial investors at the same time have found ways of aligning with the prevailing markets as the times change.
With the advent of Bitcoin and blockchain technology, the digital assets ecosystem appears to be making a strong statement in the wealth sector. The number of self made billionaires within this sector is a testimony to the impact of this concept in today’s world.
The top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin, parades some names that can stand side-by-side with money magnates of traditional industries. With more developments likely to emerge in the crypto ecosystem, it will not be surprising to see the number of crypto-made billionaire skyrocket in the near future.
https://medium.com/@4kingsocials/top-10-richest-people-in-the-world-in-bitcoin-94183268189b
submitted by OliAustin101 to CryptoNewsandTalk [link] [comments]

My hat goes off to the NYA signers and their support for bigger blocks in the face of fanatical thugs who operate by threatening, lying, manipulating and censoring

The following companies and services have pledged to adopt bigger blocks by supporting SegWit2X. We should all in turn make sure to support these companies.
Wallets
Exchanges
Miners
Other
submitted by increaseblocks to btc [link] [comments]

These are the companies who still support the NY Agreement

These are the companies who still support the NY Agreement and believe they should rule Bitcoin protocol. The NYA was settled between some businesses, with no users (nodes) and not a single core developer. This one is the first step in the attack we where long time fearing. This is a serious threat to Bitcoin principles.
Source: http://segwit.party/nya/
submitted by jaumenuez to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Top 10 Richest People in the World, in Bitcoin

Bitcoin has been given the nickname “digital gold”. This is because of its characteristic as a store of wealth. Many big investors are resorting to Bitcoin as a good place to put their money. The reason for this is not just because it can be sustained, but also because of the high tendency of appreciation in value. Here we shall be considering the top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin.
We will take a look at their net worth, and how much that amounts to in Bitcoin. We will also consider their primary business and a little bit of their history. How they started out in the Bitcoin ecosystem and what they have achieved so far will also enable us to understand more about them.
So, here is a list of the top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin.
10. Matthew Roszark
Matthew Roszark is the founder of Tally Capital, and co-founder of Bloq. Roszark is widely known as the man who gave Richard Branson and Bill Clinton their first Bitcoins. Roszark made it early into the Bitcoin space and participated in the very first ICO in 2013. Although that wasn’t what it was called at the time.
Roszark has investments in 20 startups in the cryptocurrency ecosystem, some of which have gone ahead to do great things. Some of the startups that he invested in include Coinbase, Kraken and BTCC.
Roszark’s net worth is $1 billion, which amounts to 102,712.94 BTC (at the time of writing).
  1. Anthony Di Iorio
Anthony Di lorio is the founder of Jaxx and Decentral, and co-founder at Ethereum. Having studied a bit of economics and trying to find out the true essence of money after the recession of early 2000, Di lorio discovered Bitcoin and decided to explore. He started a Toronto Bitcoin-meetup, where he met his eventual co-founder of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin.
Di lorio contributed his personal funds towards the coding of Ethereum, and has since been involved in a number of other crypto assets. Some of them include Qtum, VeChain and ZCash.
Di lorio is a serial investor who commits to projects at an early stage, then after levelling up, he pulls his funds and moves on to something new. His net worth of $1 billion is the equivalent of 102,712.93 BTC.
  1. Michael Novogratz
This CEO of Galaxy Digital is also popular in the field of macro hedge fund management. Novogratz started investing in cryptocurrencies in 2013 and two years later he left his position at Fortress Investment Group to focus on crypto.
In the cryptocurrency industry, Novogratz is known as a seasoned trader who believes that the crypto market as it is today is a bubble. According to him, his aim is to make as much money as possible from the bubble before it bursts.
Novogratz is worth $1 billion which is the equivalent of 102,712.92 BTC
  1. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss
The Winklevoss twins arrived in the face of the public through the controversial law suit against Facebook for intellectual property theft. They eventually won the case and were paid $11 million in compensation.
With many Silicon Valley startups not wanting to get into Facebook’s black book, the twins seemed to not have where to invest their money. They were introduced to Bitcoin by Brooklyn-based investor David Azar in 2012, and found their new investment ecosystem.
Over the years, the astronomic rise in Bitcoin price has turned their $11 million investment to a $1 billion portfolio of 102,712.91 BTC.
  1. Matthew Mellon
Matthew Mellon’s money started as old money which he inherited from family sources. However, through his “crazy” investment approach, he has been able to build a fortune out of his family inheritance.
Having bought into Bitcoin some years ago, Mellon abandoned his early investments and sold his Bitcoins at some point. His attachment with the banking industry and the XRP feasibility attracted him to the coin.
Mellon spent $2 million to acquire XRP tokens a few years back. That investment has grown to $1 billion, in the equivalence of 102,712.90 BTC.
  1. Zhao Chaopeng
Zhao Chaopeng popularly known as CZ, is the founder of cryptocurrency exchange, Binance. Within one year of its launch, Binance became the largest cryptocurrency exchange in terms of volume.
The platform’s tokens were sold at a price of 10 cents during its ICO. At the time of writing, the price of the coin has risen to over $27 and CZ owns a huge volume of the coins.
In 2014, CZ sold his house in Shanghai, which was practically all he had, to go all out into Bitcoin. Today, his net worth is $1.3 billion, which is equivalent to 133,523.65 BTC.
  1. Brian Armstrong
Brian Armstrong is the CEO of Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in America. Coinbase was founded in 2012, and is the most patronized cryptocurrency exchange in the US. The exchange has also expanded, and is now available in many countries of the world.
In 2018, the exchange embarked on a financing round that saw it raise $300 million, and the company is now valued at $8 billion.
Armstrong’s net worth stands at $1.3 billion, with equates to 133,523.64 BTC.
  1. Jihan Wu
Johan Wu is the co-founder of Bitmain, a China-based Bitcoin mining giant. Together with Micree Zhan Ketuan, they have grown Bitmain to become a household name in the industry, and the main supplier of ASIC-chip miners. Wu is also popular for his open support of Bitcoin Cash.
Wu is estimated to be worth up to $1.5 billion, which translates in Bitcoin to 154,065.75 BTC.
  1. Chris Larsen
Chris Larsen is the co-founder of Ripple, a company which was founded in 2012 with Jed McCaleb, the founder of Mt Gox.
Larsen is regarded as a self-made billionaire, with the bulk of his wealth coming from cryptocurrency enterprises. Ripple boasts many top end customers in its portfolio. Among the list includes Bank of America, Santander and Mitsubishi Financial.
Larsen’s net worth is estimated at $1.5 billion, which is equivalent to 154,065.74 BTC.
  1. Micree Zhan Ketuan
Zhan is the co-founder of Bitmain technologies. Bitmain is regarded as the biggest Bitcoin mining company in China. The company is also known to specialize in the sale of ASIC-chip miners.
Zhan is an electrical engineer by training and is the builder of the ASIC chips on the Bitmain hardware. He is an acclaimed self-made billionaire whose source of wealth is the manufacturing and sales of cryptocurrency mining chips.
Zhan’s net worth is estimated at $2.7 billion, which when converted to Bitcoin is 215,692.05 BTC.
Conclusion
The dominant investment industry concept is evolutionary. At different eras of existence, different industries have produced different money magnates. Serial investors at the same time have found ways of aligning with the prevailing markets as the times change.
With the advent of Bitcoin and blockchain technology, the digital assets ecosystem appears to be making a strong statement in the wealth sector. The number of self made billionaires within this sector is a testimony to the impact of this concept in today’s world.
The top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin, parades some names that can stand side-by-side with money magnates of traditional industries. With more developments likely to emerge in the crypto ecosystem, it will not be surprising to see the number of crypto-made billionaire skyrocket in the near future.
https://medium.com/@4kingsocials/top-10-richest-people-in-the-world-in-bitcoin-94183268189b
submitted by OliAustin101 to CryptocurrencyToday [link] [comments]

Why NYA is an attack on Bitcoin and why it will fail (long)

I wrote a rather lengthy response to a reddit post that I think is worth sharing, especially for newcomers to dispell some false narratives about S2X and Barry Silberts' New-York Agreement aka hostile takeover attempt of Bitcoin that is doomed to fail.
big block hard-liners wanted block size only, no SegWit.
Which doesn't make any logical sense. A lot of fud was actively being spread about how segwit was unsafe (such as the ANYONECANSPEND fud) but segwit is ofcourse working as intended thanks to the world class engineering of the Bitcoin Core developers. This led to the suspicion that BitMain was behind the opposition of segwit. BitMain miners use "covert AsicBoost" which is a technique that allows their rigs to use less electricity than competing mining equipment. However, segwit introduced changes to Bitcoin that made using covert AsicBoost impossible, which would explain their fierce opposition to segwit. We're talking big money here - the AsicBoost advantage is worth US$ 100 million according to estimates of experts.
After segwit was finalized, the Bitcoin software was programmed to activate segwit but not before 95% of the hashpower signalled to be ready. After all, miners are tasked with creating valid blocks and should be given the opportunity to update their software for protocol changes such as segwit. As a courtesy to the miners, the Bitcoin software basically said: "ok, segwit is here, but I'll politely hold off its activation until 95% of you say that you're ready to deal with this protocol change".
Sadly, mining is heavily centralized, and segwit was never getting activated due to the opposition of a few or perhaps even a single person: Jihan Wu of BitMain. As an aside, the centralization of hash power is also a direct result of AsicBoost. How this works: since AsicBoosted rigs are able to mine more efficiently than their competitors, these rigs drive up the difficulty and with that the average amount of hashes required to find a block. This in turn causes less efficient rigs to mine at a loss because they need to expend more energy to find a block. As a result, BitMain competitors got pushed out and BitMain became the dominant self-mining ASIC manufacturer.
After segwit was finalized, it required 95% of the hashpower to activate but it never gained more than around 30%. So 70% of hash power abused the courtesy of the Bitcoin software to wait until they were ready for activation and refused to give the go ahead. This went on for months and worst case it would have taken until August 2018 before segwit would activate.
let's do a compromise- we do SegWit AND we hard fork
In March 2017 a pseudonymous user called Shaolin Fry created BIP148 which is a softfork that invalidates any block that wouldn't signal segwit readiness starting August 1st 2017. This also became known as the UASF (User-Activated Soft Fork, as opposed to the original miner-activated soft fork that didn't work as intended). This patch saw significant adoption and miners would soon be forced to signal segwit or else see their blocks being invalidated by the network, which would cause them significant financial losses.
In May 2017 so after BIP148, the backroom New-York Agreement (NYA) was created by the Digital Currency Group of Barry Silbert together with businesses in the Bitcoin space such as BitPay and almost all miners. The NYA was the beginning of an outright misinformation campaign.
The NYA was trumpeted to be a "compromise". Miners would finally agree to activate segwit. In return, Bitcoin would hardfork and double its capacity on top of the doubling already achieved by segwit. In reality, BIP148 was already going to force miners to signal the activation of segwit. Also, developers and most users were notably absent in this NYA. So, given that segwit was already unstoppable because of BIP148, the parties around the table had to "compromise" to do something that they all wanted: hardfork Bitcoin to increase its capacity.
Or, is it all in fact really about increasing capacity? After all, segwit already achieved this. Bcash was created which doubled block size as well but without segwit. And then there is good old Litecoin having four times the transaction capacity of Bitcoin and segwit. Plenty of working alternatives that obsolete the need for yet another altcoin. So, perhaps transaction capacity is used as an excuse to reach a different goal. Let's explore.
Apparently after not-so-careful study of the Bitcoin whitepaper, the NYA participants came up with an absurd redefinition of what is "Bitcoin". According to this bizarre definition, they started to claim that Bitcoin is being defined as:
  1. Any blockchain that has the most cumulative hashpower behind it (measured from the Genesis block at the inception of Bitcoin):
  2. Using the SHA256 hashing algorithm;
  3. Having the current difficulty adjustment algorithm (resetting difficulty every 2016 blocks).
Ad 1. Note that it starts with "any blockchain". This also includes blockchains that contain invalid blocks, in other words, blocks that Bitcoin nodes would reject.
This is ofcourse bizarre but it is exactly what the NYA participants claim. It effectively puts all power in the hand of miners. Instead of nodes validating blocks, according to this novel and absurd interpretation of Bitcoin it will be miners that call the shots. Whatever block a miner produces will be valid as long as they mine on top of their own block, because that chain will then have the most cumulative hash power. Nodes become mere distributors of blocks and lose all their authority as they can no longer decide over the validity of a block. MinerCoin is born.
The Bitcoin whitepaper actually mentions this scenario where a majority of the hashpower takes over the network and starts producing invalid blocks and refers to it as being an attack. It is worth quoting this section 8, second paragraph in its entirety:
"As such, the verification is reliable as long as honest nodes control the network, but is more vulnerable if the network is overpowered by an attacker. While network nodes can verify transactions for themselves, the simplified method can be fooled by an attacker's fabricated transactions for as long as the attacker can continue to overpower the network. One strategy to protect against this would be to accept alerts from network nodes when they detect an invalid block, prompting the user's software to download the full block and alerted transactions to confirm the inconsistency. Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification." (emphasises mine).
Any doubt left whether "most hashpower wins" is an attack should be removed by a telling remark in the release notes of 0.3.19:
"Safe mode can still be triggered by seeing a longer (greater total PoW) invalid block chain."
As mentioned, miners representing 95% of all hash power participate in the NYA. They are currently expressing their support for the NYA by putting "NYA" inside blocks. The NYA participants intend to remove their hash power from Bitcoin completely and point it towards their altcoin. To double down on their claim that Bitcoin is defined by hashpower, they show some serious audacity by referring to their altcoin as... "Bitcoin". Anyone not part of the NYA refers to their coin as segwit2x, S2X or sometimes 2x.
The NYA participants proceed to proclaim victory. They reason that with all hash power on their blockchain and hardly any left for Bitcoin, "legacy Bitcoin" will be stuck as blocks will be created so slowly that Bitcoin becomes unusable, forcing everyone to switch to the "real" Bitcoin (sic). In other words, it was part of the plan was to remove hash power from Bitcoin to disrupt and force users into their altcoin.
Ofcourse, Bitcoin Core would not just sit idle and let such an attack happen. There are several ways to defend against this attack. As a last resort, an emergency difficulty reset combined with a change in the PoW algorithm can be deployed to get Bitcoin going again.
This is not likely to be necessary however as miners simply can't afford to mine a coin that has a small fraction of the value of Bitcoin. They have large bills to pay which is impossible by mining a coin that has half or even less the value of Bitcoin. In other words, miners would bankrupt themselves unless their altcoin attains the same value as Bitcoin. Given the lack of user, community and developer support it is save to say that this is not going to happen. Their coin will have only a small fraction of the value of Bitcoin and miners have no choice but to continue mine Bitcoin in order to receive the income necessary to pay for their huge operational expenses.
A moment was set for the hardfork: block 494,784 a big block will be produced such that it is invalid for the current Bitcoin network and will discard it.
Ofcourse, some nodes must accept the new, bigger S2X blocks. Therefore, Jeff Garzik (co-founder of a company called Bloq) started out to create btc1 which is a fork of the Bitcoin node software and which is adapted such that it accepts blocks up to twice in size, so that the segwit2x altcoin can exist. Note the 1 in btc1 which refers to their version numbering. Bitcoin Core releases are still 0.x but btc1 is numbered 1.x. This is to send the message that they have released the real Bitcoin that is now no longer a beta 0.x release but a production ready 1.x. This nonwithstanding the fact that btc1 is a copy of Bitcoin 0.14 with some minor changes and without any significant development causing it to quickly fall behind Bitcoin.
The NYA participants go on to claim that when hash power is on the btc1 blockchain, and Bitcoin is dead as a result because no or hardly any new blocks are being created, then the Bitcoin Core developers have no choice but to start contributing to their btc1 github controlled by Jeff Garzik.
In the NYA end state, Bitcoin is a coin of which miners set the consensus rules, and the Core developers sheepishly contribute to software in a repository controlled by Jeff Garzik or whoever pays him.
Needless to say, this is never ever going to happen.
The small block hard-liners are now against 2x and want SegWit only.
There is no such thing as small block hardliners. As is probably clear by now, NYA is not about block size. It is about control over Bitcoin. As a matter of fact, Bitcoin Core has never closed the door on a block size increase. In the scaling roadmap published in December 2015, Bitcoin Core notes:
"Finally--at some point the capacity increases from the above may not be enough. Delivery on relay improvements, segwit fraud proofs, dynamic block size controls, and other advances in technology will reduce the risk and therefore controversy around moderate block size increase proposals (such as 2/4/8 rescaled to respect segwit's increase). Bitcoin will be able to move forward with these increases when improvements and understanding render their risks widely acceptable relative to the risks of not deploying them. In Bitcoin Core we should keep patches ready to implement them as the need and the will arises, to keep the basic software engineering from being the limiting factor."
Bitcoin Core literally says here very clearly that further increases of block size are on the table as an option in the future.
For my personal opinion-
I hope that your personal opinion has changed after taking notes of the above.
submitted by trilli0nn to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What is up with all these Bitcoin devs who think that their job includes HARD-CODING CERTAIN VALUES THAT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE USER-CONFIGURABLE (eg: "seed servers")?

Recently, the developer of SegWit2x / BTC1, Jeff Garzik, caused some controversy by hard-coding the "seed servers" which Bitcoin uses to first start hunting for "peers".
Worse than that: apparently one of the "seeds" is a company he started, variously named Chainalysis / Skry / Bloq - which apparently specializes in de-anonymizing Bitcoin transactions and performing KYC/AML - and which also has apparently entered into agreements with Interpol.
Seriously, WTF???
This is what "Bitcoin devs" still consider to be part of their "job" - hard-coding parameters like this, which affect everyone else on the network - and which could easily be "exposed" to be made user-configurable - instead of being baked into the source code and requiring a friggin' recompile to change???
This recent event has refocused attention on the fact all these past years, most of these seed servers in "the" existing (legacy) client running on most of the network have _also been hard-coded - to domains under the control of "devs associated with Blockstream".
I don't like the list of seed servers in Bitcoin Core
Pieter Wuille - does not support BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Matt Corallo - does not support BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Luke Dashjr - supports BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Christian Decker - supports BIP148 - works for Blockstream
Jonas Schnelli - supports BIP148
Peter Todd - supports BIP148 - worked for Samson Mow who works for Blockstream
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6nd50h/i_dont_like_the_list_of_seed_servers_in_bitcoin/
The corporate takeover of bitcoin illustrated in 1 commit
In The corporate takeover of bitcoin illustrated in 1 commit a user complains that btc1 changing the seed servers to servers run by some companies (see commit) equals a "corporate takeover of bitcoin". I never really took much care who runs these seed server, although they do posses a certain power over the network as correctly pointed out by P. Todd in the same thread:
...and the key thing with that is being able to control what nodes a node connects to can be a very powerful tool to attack new nodes, as it lets you prevent a node from learning about the valid chain with the most work.
[...]
4 out of 5 people running the bitcoin networks seed servers are directly associated with Blockstream!
I don't even believe that Blockstream is actually plotting an evil, forceful takeover of bitcoin using the seed servers. However it beautifully counteracts Adam's "decentralization is everything" arguments. What is most troublesome to me, is that this simple information is not allowed to appear on r\bitcoin at all.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6n8vqc/the_corporate_takeover_of_bitcoin_illustrated_in/
Seriously?
Bitcoin is almost 9 years old - and most people are still running clients which use hard-coded values (which require an inconvenient recompile to reconfigure) for the "seed servers"??
Maybe this is, in some sense, part of the reason why people like BlueMatt and Luke-Jr and Pieter Wiulle think they can lord it over us and tell everyone else what to do? ...because they have quietly (and unfairly / incompetently) hard-coded their own friggin' server domain names directly into everyone else's client code, as our "seed servers"?
Is the low level of "quality" we - as a community - have become accustomed to from our devs?
Do other clients (Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited and Bitcoin ABC) also gratuitously hard-code their "seed servers" like this?
Here's a post from a year ago regarding "seed servers" in Classic:
How come "classic" uses the same alert keys/DNS seeds as Core?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/44atsp/how_come_classic_uses_the_same_alert_keysdns/
Meanwhile, here's the main question:
Why are any "serious" Bitcoin clients still "gratuitously" hard-coding any values like this?
Why has our "ecosystem" / "community" not naturally evolved to the point where we have some public "wiki" pages listing all the "good" (community-recognized, popular) seed servers - and every user configures their own client software by choosing who they want from this list?
(Maybe because we've been distracted by bullshit for these past few years, fighting with these very same devs because they've refused provide any support for users who want bigger blocks?)
What would users have to do if (God forbid) something were to happen to the servers of those 4-5 seed servers which are currently hard-coded into nearly everyone's clients?
In that situation (assuming some "new" seed servers quickly appeared) people would be have two options:
  • Edit their C++ source code and download/install a (trusted, verified) C++ compiler (if they don't already have one), and recompile the friggin' code; or
  • Wait until new binaries got posted online - and download them (and verify them).
Seriously?
This unnecessary "centralization point" (or major inconvenience / bottleneck) has been sitting in our code this entire time - while these supposedly knowledgeable devs keep beating us over their head with their mantra of "decentralization" - which they have actually been doing so little to maximize?
Psycho-Socio-Economic Side Bar
Serious (but delicate/senstive) question: How many of these "devs" have developed (possibly unconscious?) behaviors in life where they try to make users dependent on them?
"Vendor lock-in" is a thing - a very bad thing, which certain Bitcoin devs have exhibited a tendency to inflict on users - in many cases due to rather obvious (psychological, social, and/or economic) reasons.
We should gently (but firmly) reject these tendencies whenever any dev exhibits them.
Our community should expect and demand an accessible, user-friendly interface for all user-configurable parameters - to maximize decentralization and autonomy
  • In "command-line" versions of the client program, these kind of parameters should be:
    • in a separate config file - using some ultra-simple, standard format such as YAML or JSON
    • also configurable via options (eg, --seed-server) upon invocation on the command-line
  • In GUI versions version of the client program (using some popular cross-platform standard such as Qt, HTML, etc.) these kind of parameters should be exposed as user-configurable options.
Yes, these user-configurable values for things like "seed servers" (or "max blocksize") could come pre-configured to "sensible defaults - so that the software will work "out of the box" (immediately upon downloading and installing) - with no initial configuration required by the user.
Yes: Even the blocksize has always been user-configurable - but most users don't know this, because most devs have been hiding this fact from us.
Three recent posts by u/ForkiusMaximus explained how Adjustable-Blocksize-Cap (ABC) Bitcoin clients shatter this illusion:
Adjustable-blocksize-cap (ABC) clients give miners exactly zero additional power. BU, Classic, and other ABC clients are really just an argument in code form, shattering the illusion that devs are part of the governance structure.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/614su9/adjustableblocksizecap_abc_clients_give_miners/
Adjustable blocksize cap (ABC) is dangerous? The blocksize cap has always been user-adjustable. Core just has a really shitty inferface for it.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/617gf9/adjustable_blocksize_cap_abc_is_dangerous_the/
Clearing up Some Widespread Confusions about BU
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/602vsy/clearing_up_some_widespread_confusions_about_bu/
Note about Bitcoin ABC vs Bitcoin Unlimited:
There is a specific new Bitcoin client called Bitcoin ABC, which functions similar to Bitcoin Unlimited - with the important difference that Bitcoin ABC is _guaranteed to hard-fork to bigger blocks on August 1_.
(Please correct me if I'm wrong about this. Documentation for the behavior of these various hard-forks is currently still rather disorganized :-)
All serious devs should be expected to provide code which does not require a "recompile" to change these "initial, sensible" default parameters.
I mean - come on. Even back in the 80s people had "*.INI" files on DOS and Windows.
Nearly all users understand and know how to set user-configurable values - for decades.
How many people are familiar with using a program which has a "Preferences" screen? (Sometimes you may have to close and re-open the program in order for your new preferences to take effect.) This is really basic, basic functionality which nearly all software provides via a GUI (and or config file and/or command-line options).
And nearly all devs have been offering this kind of functionality - in either command-line parameters, config files, and/or graphic user interfaces (GUIs).
Except most Bitcoin devs.
The state of "software development" for Bitcoin clients seems really messed up in certain ways like this.
As users, we need to start demanding simple, standard features in our client software - such as accessible, user-friendly configurability of parameter values - without the massive inconvenience of a recompile.
What is a "Bitcoin client"?
After nearly 9 years in operation, our community should by now have a basic concept or definition of what a "Bitcoin client" is / does - probably something along the lines of:

A Bitcoin client is a device for reading (and optionally appending to) the immutable Bitcoin Blockchain.

Based on that general concept / definition, a program which does all of the above and also gratuitously "hard-codes" a bunch of domain names for "seed servers" is not quite the same thing as a "a Bitcoin client".
Such an "overspecialized" client actually provides merely a subset of the full functionality of a true "Bitcoin client", eg:
  • An "overspecialized" client only enables connecting to certain "seed servers" upon startup (in accordance with the "gratuitous opinion" of the dev who (mis)translated the community's conceptual specifications to C++ code)
  • An "overspecialized" client only enables mining blocks less that a certain size (in accordance with the "gratuitous opinion" of the dev who (mis)translated the community's conceptual specifications to C++ code)
One of the main problems with nearly all Bitcoin clients developed so far is that they are gratuitously opinionated: they "gratuitously" hard-code particular values (eg, "max blocksize", "seed servers") which are not part of the whitepaper, and not part of the generally accepted definition of a "Bitcoin client".
This failure on the part of devs to provide Bitcoin clients which behave in accordance with the community's specification of "Bitcoin clients" is seriously damaging Bitcoin - and needs to be fixed as soon as possible.
Right now is a good opportunity - with so many new Bitcoin clients popping up, as the community prepares to fork.
All devs working on various Bitcoin client software offerings need to wake up and realize that there is about to be a major battle to find out which Bitcoin client software offering performs "best" (in the user-interface sense - and ultimately in the economic sense) at:

reading (and optionally appending to) the immutable Bitcoin Blockchain

The Bitcoin client software offerings which can optimally (and most simply and securely :-) "satisfy" the above specification (and not merely some gratuitously overspecialized "subset" of it) will have the most success.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

PSA: Breadwallet users at risk of losing funds after the launch of segwit2x altcoin. REMOVE YOUR FUNDS.

Breadwallet users at risk losing funds after the launch of the segwit2x altcoin
Breadwallet may no longer act as Bitcoin wallet after the release of the segwit2x altcoin.
Proof
This statement by Aaron Voisine (aaronvoisine, CEO of breadwallet):
"Breadwallet follows the majority of hashing power on the original PoW algorithm, segwit2x or no, it follows the Nakamoto consensus."
This blog post published today confirms:
"if a fork were to happen it will automatically follow the longest chain with the most proof of work."
What this means
In short: after the launch of the segwit2x altcoin, breadwallet turns into a segwit2x wallet.
In November this year, an altcoin called segwit2x (aka S2X aka B2X) will be launched. This altcoin is being created by Bloq, a company of which Jeff Garzik is the co-founder and BitPay is a partner. Segwit2x-coin is differs from Bitcoin in that it has double the block size. Currently, 90% of all hash power is pledging that it will quit mining Bitcoin and start mining segwit2x-coin after its launch. This intention is signalled by writing "NYA" (New-York Agreement) into blocks as can be seen here.
This means that the majority of the hashpower will be mining segwit2x after its launch and that breadwallet will no longer be a Bitcoin wallet but changes into a segwit2x-coin wallet.
Consequences
Breadwallet funds will be at risk. After the launch of the segwit2x altcoin, the following serious issues exist while using breadwallet.
Scenario 1
Bitcoin permanently keeps the majority of the hash power. In that case, breadwallet continues to functions as a normal BTC wallet.
Scenario 2
The segwit2x altcoin permanently receives the majority of the SHA-256 hash power.
Scenario 3
The segwit2x altcoin initially receives the majority of the hash power. At some later point in time, the Bitcoin blockchain regains the majority of the hash power.
Scenario 4
The segwit2x altcoin and Bitcoin alternately receive the majority of the hash power.
Consequences are left as an exercise for the reader.
Additional notes
Breadwallet incorrectly believes that the chain with the most hashpower is Bitcoin. In reality, fully validating nodes define the Bitcoin blockchain. What constitutes "Bitcoin" is well established amongst the great majority of the cryptocurrency community. It is the coin as defined by the Bitcoin whitepaper (by Satoshi Nakamoto) and as implemented by the software published by a group of developers commonly referred to as "Bitcoin Core" and which is published on the bitcoin.org website. Within the cryptocurrency community, there can be no doubt about what Bitcoin is.
The claim that segwit2x is "Bitcoin" is therefore a fraudulent claim. Companies trying to sell segwit2x-coin as Bitcoin are likely to be committing fraud in many jurisdictions.
Recommended reading
Bitcoin Core: "Correcting misinformation on Segwit2x and btc1".
submitted by trilli0nn to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

What about the other NYA signatories?

The New York Agreement (NYA) was the official start of the SegWit2X project. It was signed by some 50 companies and individuals.
Some of those dropped off along the way. Six of them signed the "surrrender" message to the development list.
What about the other people and companies in the orginal list? Did they know/support the cancellation? What is their position now?
In particular, what about Barry Silbert and the Digital Currency Group, who seemed to be the locomotive of that train?
National Enquirer mind wants to know...
The NYA signatories as of 2017-05-25:
1Hash (China) Abra (United States) ANX (Hong Kong) Bitangel.com /Chandler Guo (China) BitClub Network (Hong Kong) Bitcoin.com (St. Kitts & Nevis) - Roger Ver's site, promised to support BCH on 2017-11-09. Bitex (Argentina) bitFlyer (Japan) Bitfury (United States) Bitmain (China) - Jihan Wu's company, signed "quit" message 2017-11-08. BitPay (United States) - CEO Stephen Pair asked S2X to give up on 2017-??-??. BitPesa (Kenya) BitOasis (United Arab Emirates) Bitso (Mexico) Bitwala (Germany) Bixin.com (China) Blockchain (UK) Bloq (United States) - Jeff Garzik's company, signed "quit" message 2017-11-08. btc.com (China) BTCC (China) BTC.TOP (China) BTER.com (China) Circle (United States) Civic (United States) Coinbase (United States) Coins.ph (Phillipines) CryptoFacilities (UK) Decentral (Canada) Digital Currency Group (United States) F2Pool (China) - withdrew from NYA on 2017-??-??. Filament (United States) Gavin Andresen (United States) Genesis Global Trading (United States) Genesis Mining (Hong Kong) GoCoin (Isle of Man) Grayscale Investments (United States) Guy Corem (Israel) Jaxx (Canada) - withdrew from NYA on 2017-??-??. Korbit (South Korea) Luno (Singapore) MONI (Finland) Netki (United States) OB1 (United States) Purse (United States) Ripio (Argentina) Safello (Sweden) SFOX (United States) ShapeShift (Switzerland) - Eric Vorhees company, signed "quit" message 2017-11-08. surBTC (Chile) - Added BCH trading on 2017-11-13 or so. Unocoin (India) Vaultoro (Germany) Veem (United States) ViaBTC (China) Wayniloans (Argentina) Xapo (United States) - Wences Casares's company, signed "quit" message 2017-11-08. Yours (United States) - Ryan X. Charles, Switched to Bitcoin Cash on 2017-??-?? 
submitted by jstolfi to btc [link] [comments]

Released List of Satoshi Roundtable Attendees Gathering this Weekend

Satoshi Roundtable II
This weekend a group of blockchain and bitcoin industry leaders gather again for the Satoshi Roundtable (satoshiroundtable.org) retreat. Participants in the second Satoshi Roundtable include developers, CEOs, investors, adopters and influencers from the blockchain and bitcoin world.
The retreat is limited to approximately 75 attendees and designed to encourage organic, participant-driven discussion free of the distractions of a conference.
Sessions include several topics of overall blockchain interest and a roundtable discussion on bitcoin capacity.
Please provide any suggestions you have for areas of discussion/ focus.
Partial list of confirmed participants:
Gabriel Abed, CEO, Bitt Charles Allen, CEO, BTCS Gavin Andresen, MIT / Bitcoin Foundation Adam Back, President, Blockstream David Bailey, CEO, yBitcoins Mike Belshe, CEO, BitGo Patrick Byrne, CEO, Overstock / T0 Michael Cao, CEO, zoomhash Dave Carlson, CEO, Mega Big Power Daniel Castagnoli, CCO Exodus Sam Cole, CEO, KNC Miner Matt Corallo, Core Developer Luke Dashjr, Core Developer Anthony Di Iorio, CDO-Toronto Stock Exchange, Founder-Ethereum/Decentral/Kryptokit Joe Disorbo, CEO, Webgistix Jason Dorsett, Early Adopter Evan Duffield, FoundeLead Scientist, Dash Andrew “Flip” Filipowski, Partne Co-Founder, Tally Capital Thomas France, Founder, Ledger Jeff Garzik, Founder, Bloq Yifo Guo, Tech Develope Early Adopter David Johnston, Chairman, Factom Samy Kamkar, Super Hacker Alyse Killeen, Partner, Venture Capital Investor Jason King, Founder, Unsung Mike Komaransky, Cumberland Mining Peter Kroll, Founder, bitaddress.org Bobby Lee, CEO, BTC China, Vice-Chairman of the Board, Bitcoin Foundation Charlie Lee, Director of Engineering, Coinbase/Founder of Litecoin Eric Lombrozo, Founder, Ciphrex Corp / Developer Marshall Long, CTO, Final Hash Matt Luongo, CEO, Fold Jake Mazulewicz, Ph.D. JMA Associates (guest speaker) Human performance researcher Halsey Minor, CEO, Uphold / Founder of CNet Alex Morcos, Hudson Trading/ Core Developer Neha Narula, MIT, Director of DCI – Digital Currency Initiative Dawn Newton, Co-Founder, COO, Netki Justin Newton, Founder CEO, Netki Stephen Pair, Co-FoundeCEO, BitPay Inc. Michael Perklin, President, C4 – CryptoCurrency Certification Consortium / Board Member, Bitcoin Foundation Alex Petrov, CIO, BitFury Phil Potter, CFA, Bitfinex Francis Pouliot, Director, Bitcoin Embassy, Board Member, Bitcoin Foundation JP Richardson, Chief Technical Officer, Exodus Jamie Robinson, QuickBt Jez San, Angel Investor Marco Santori, Partner, Pillsbury Scott Scalf, EVP/Head of Tech Team, Alpha Point Craig Sellars, CTO, Tether Ryan Shea, Co-Founder, One Name Greg Simon, CEO & Co-Founder Ribbit! Me / President, Bitcoin Association Paul Snow, CEO Factom, Texas Bitcoin Conference Riccardo Spagni, Monero Nick Spanos, Founder, Bitcoin Center NYC Elizabeth Stark, Co-Founder & CEO, Lightning Marco Streng, CEO, Genesis Mining Nick Sullivan, CEO, ChangeTip Paul Sztorc, Truthcoin Michael Terpin, CEO, Transform Group Peter Todd, Core Developer Joseph Vaughn Perling, New Liberty Dollar Roger Ver, CEO, Memory Dealers / Bitcoin.com Aaron Voisine, CEO, Breadwallet Zooko Wilcox, CEO, Z Cash Shawn Wilkinson, Founder, Storj Micah Winkelspecht, CEO, Gem
Also, representatives from Blockchain, Bain Capital Ventures, Mycelium, Fidelity Investments and others.
submitted by bruce_fenton to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Again: The complete list of NYA/Segwit2x signers in case YOU want to back out as well. Avoid these AND ALSO their services!

If you don't want to support Segwit2x, avoid all of these companies AND their services at least until the end of December!
Those who already backed out may be usable and are marked below. (---)
Definitely avoid those written in bold if you want to shout out NOB2X! emphatically.
1Hash (China) Abra (United States) ANX (Hong Kong) Bitangel.com /Chandler Guo (China) BitClub Network (Hong Kong) Bitcoin.com (St. Kitts & Nevis) Bitex (Argentina) bitFlyer (Japan) Bitfury (United States) Bitmain (China) BitPay (United States) BitPesa (Kenya) BitOasis (United Arab Emirates) Bitso (Mexico) ---Bitwala (Germany) BACKED OUT! Bixin.com (China) Blockchain (UK) Bloq (United States) btc.com (China) BTCC (China) BTC.TOP (China) BTER.com (China) Circle (United States) Civic (United States) Coinbase (United States) Coins.ph (Phillipines) CryptoFacilities (UK) Decentral (Canada) Digital Currency Group (United States) ---F2Pool (China) BACKED OUT! Filament (United States) Gavin Andresen (United States) Genesis Global Trading (United States) Genesis Mining (Hong Kong) GoCoin (Isle of Man) Grayscale Investments (United States) Guy Corem (Israel) Jaxx (Canada) Korbit (South Korea) Luno (Singapore) MONI (Finland) Netki (United States) OB1 (United States) Purse (United States) Ripio (Argentina) Safello (Sweden) SFOX (United States) ShapeShift (Switzerland) surBTC (Chile) Unocoin (India) ---Vaultoro (Germany) BACKED OUT! Veem (United States) ViaBTC (China) ---Wayniloans (Argentina) BACKED OUT! Xapo (United States) Yours (United States)
Corrections are welcome!
submitted by castorfromtheva to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Full English Transcript of Gavin's AMA on 8BTC, April 21st. (Part 1)

Part 2
Part 3
Raw transcript on Google Docs (English+Chinese): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p3DWMfeGHBL6pk4Hu0efgQWGsUAdFNK6zLHubn5chJo/edit?usp=sharing
Translators/Organizers: emusher, kcbitcoin, nextblast, pangcong, Red Li, WangXiaoMeng. (Ranked in alphabetical order)
1.crypto888
Q: What is your relationship with Blockstream now? Are you in a Cold War? Your evaluation on BS was pretty high “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation.” But now, what’s your opinion on BS?
A: I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream.
We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
2. Ma_Ya
Q: 1) Why insist on hard fork at only 75%? You once explained that it is possible to be controlled by 5% if we set the threshold at 95%. I agree, but there should be some balance here. 75% means a high risk in splitting, isn’t it too aggressive? Is it better if we set it to 90%?
A: 1)The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network.
Q: 2) How to solve the potentially very large blocks problem Classic roadmap may cause, and furthur causing the centralization of nodes in the future?
A: 2)Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night).
I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second.
Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned.
Q: 3) Why do you not support the proposal of RBF by Satoshi, and even plan to remove it in Classic completely?
A: 3) Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time.
When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before.
Q: 4) . Your opinion on soft fork SegWit, sidechain, lighnting network. Are you for or against, please give brief reasons. Thanks.
A: 4) The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful.
I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good.
I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them.
Q: 5) Can you share your latest opinion on Brainwallet? It is hard for new users to use long and complex secure passphrase, but is it a good tool if it solves this problem?
A: 5) We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things.
We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
3. BiTeCui
Q: Gavin, do you have bitcoins now? What is your major job in MIT? Has FBI ever investigated on you? When do you think SHA256 might be outdated, it seems like it has been a bit unsafe?
A: Yes, a majority of my own person wealth is still in bitcoins -- more than a financial advisor would say is wise.
My job at MIT is to make Bitcoin better, in whatever way I think best. That is the same major job I had at the Bitcoin Foundation. Sometimes I think the best way to make Bitcoin better is to write some code, sometimes to write a blog post about what I see happening in the Bitcoin world, and sometimes to travel and speak to people.
The FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) has never investigated me, as far as I know. The closest thing to an investigation was an afternoon I spent at the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC. They were interested in how I and the other Bitcoin developers created the software and how much control we have over whether or not people choose to run the software that we create.
“Safe or unsafe” is not the way to think about cryptographic algorithms like SHA256. They do not suddenly go from being 100% secure for everything to completely insecure for everything. I think SHA256 will be safe enough to use in the all ways that Bitcoin is using it for at least ten years, and will be good enough to be used as the proof-of-work algorithm forever.
It is much more likely that ECDSA, the signature algorithm Bitcoin is using today, will start to become less safe in the next ten or twenty years, but developer are already working on replacements (like Schnorr signatures).
4. SanPangHenBang
Q: It’s a pleasure to meet you. I only have one question. Which company are you serving? or where do you get your salary?
A: The Media Lab at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) pays my salary; I don’t receive regular payments from anybody else.
I have received small amounts of stock options in exchange for being a techical advisor to several Bitcoin companies (Coinbase, BitPay, Bloq, Xapo, Digital Currency Group, CoinLab, TruCoin, Chain) which might be worth money some day if one or more of those companies do very well. I make it very clear to these companies that my priority is to make Bitcoin better, and my goal in being an advisor to them is to learn more about the problems they face as they try to bring Bitcoin to more of their customers.
And I am sometimes (once or twice a year) paid to speak at events.
5.SaTuoXi
Q: Would you mind share your opinion on lightning network? Is it complicated to implement? Does it need hard fork?
A: Lightning does not need a hard fork.
It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly.
I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
6. pangcong
Q: 1) There has been a lot of conferences related to blocksize limit. The two took place in HongKong in Decemeber of 2015 and Feberary of 2016 are the most important ones. Despite much opposition, it is undeniable that these two meetings basically determines the current status of Bitcoin. However, as the one of the original founders of Bitcoin, why did you choose to not attend these meetings? If you have ever attended and opposed gmax’s Core roadmap (SegWit Priority) in one of the meetings, we may be in a better situation now, and the 2M hard fork might have already begun. Can you explain your absence in the two meetings? Do you think the results of both meetings are orchestrated by blockstream?
A: 1) I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached.
A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015.
The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents.
I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit.
Q: 2) We have already known that gmax tries to limit the block size so as to get investment for his company. However, it is obvious that overthrowing Core is hard in the short term. What if Core continues to dominate the development of Bitcoin? Is it possible that blockstream core will never raise the blocksize limit because of their company interests?
A: 2) I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically.
He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time.
Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
7. HeiYanZhu
Q: I would like to ask your opinion on the current situation. It’s been two years, but a simple 2MB hard fork could not even be done. In Bitcoin land, two years are incredibly long. Isn’t this enough to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy?
A: I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things.
Q: How can a multi-billion network with millions of users and investors be choked by a handful of people? How can this be called decentrilized and open-source software anymore? It is so hard to get a simple 2MB hard fork, but SegWig and Lighting Network with thousands of lines of code change can be pushed through so fast. Is this normal? It is what you do to define if you are a good man, not what you say.
A: I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer.
The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning.
Q: The problem now is that everybody knows Classic is better, however, Core team has controlled the mining pools using their powers and polical approaches. This made them controll the vast majority of the hashpower, no matter what others propose. In addition, Chinese miners have little communication with the community, and do not care about the developement of the system. Very few of them knows what is going on in the Bitcoin land. They almost handed over their own power to the mining pool, so as long as Core controls the pools, Core controls the whole Bitcoin, no matter how good your Classic is. Under this circumstance, what is your plan?
A: Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy.
Q: From this scaling debate, do you think there is a huge problem with Bitcoin development? Does there exsit development centrilization? Does this situation need improvment? For example, estabilish a fund from Bitcoin as a fundation. It can be used for hiring developers and maintainers, so that we can solve the development issue once and for all.
A: I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks.
And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing).
I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features).
I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
8.jb9802
You are one of the most-repected person in Bitcoin world, I won’t miss the chance to ask some questions. First of all, I am a Classic supporter. I strongly believe that on-chain transcations should not be restrained artificially. Even if there are transcations that are willing to go through Lighting Network in the future, it should be because of a free market, not because of artificial restrication. Here are some of my questions:
Q: 1) For the past two years, you’ve been proposing to Core to scale Bitcoin. In the early days of the discussion, Core devs did agree that the blocksize should be raised. What do you think is the major reason for Core to stall scaling. Does there exist conflict of interest between Blockstream and scaling?
A: 1) There might be unconscious bias, but I think there is just a difference of opinion on priorities and timing.
Q: 2) One of the reason for the Chinese to refuse Classic is that Classic dev team is not technically capable enough for future Bitcoin development. I also noticed that Classic does have a less frequent code release compared to Core. In your opinion, is there any solution to these problems? Have you ever thought to invite capable Chinese programers to join Classic dev team?
A: 2) The great thing about open source software is if you don’t think the development team is good enough (or if you think they are working on the wrong things) you can take the software and hire a better team to improve it.
Classic is a simple 2MB patch on top of Core, so it is intentional that there are not a lot of releases of Classic.
The priority for Classic right now is to do things that make working on Classic better for developers than working on Core, with the goal of attracting more developers. You can expect to see some results in the next month or two.
I invite capable programmers from anywhere, including China, to help any of the teams working on open source Bitcoin software, whether that is Classic or Core or Unlimited or bitcore or btcd or ckpool or p2pool or bitcoinj.
Q: 3) Another reason for some of the Chinese not supporting Classic is that bigger blocks are more vulnerable to spam attacks. (However, I do think that smaller blocks are more vlunerable to spam attack, because smaller amount of money is needed to choke the blockchain.) What’s our opinion on this?
A: 3) The best response to a transaction spam attack is for the network to reject transactions that pay too little fees but to simply absorb any “spam” that is paying as much fees as regular transactions.
The goal for a transaction spammer is to disrupt the network; if there is room for extra transactions in blocks, then the network can just accept the spam (“thank you for the extra fees!”) and continue as if nothing out of the ordinary happened.
Nothing annoys a spammer more than a network that just absorbs the extra transactions with no harmful effects.
Q: 4) According to your understanding on lighting network and sidechains,if most Bitcoin transactions goes throught lighting network or sidechains, it possible that the fees paid on the these network cannot reach the main-chain miners, which leaves miners starving. If yes, how much percent do you think will be given to miners.
A: 4) I don’t know, it will depend on how often lightning network channels are opened and closed, and that depends on how people choose to use lightning.
Moving transactions off the main chain and on to the lightning network should mean less fees for miners, more for lightning network hubs. Hopefully it will also mean lower fees for users, which will make Bitcoin more popular, drive up the price, and make up for the lower transaction fees paid to miners.
Q: 5) The concept of lighting network and sidechains have been out of one or two years already, when do you think they will be fully deployed.
A: 5) Sidechains are already “fully deployed” (unless you mean the version of sidechains that doesn’t rely on some trusted gateways to move bitcoin on and off the sidechain, which won’t be fully deployed for at least a couple of years). I haven’t seen any reports of how successful they have been.
I think Lightning will take longer than people estimate. Seven months ago Adam Back said that the lightning network might be ready “as soon as six months from now” … but I would be surprised if there was a robust, ready-for-everybody-to-use lightning-capable wallet before 2018.
Q: 6)Regarding the hard fork, Core team has assumed that it will cause a chain-split. (Chinese miners are very intimitated by this assumption, I think this is the major reason why most of the Chinese mining pools are not switching to Classic). Do you think Bitcoin will have a chain-split?
A: 6) No, there will not be a chain split. I have not talked to a single mining pool operator, miner, exchange, or major bitcoin business who would be willing to mine a minority branch of the chain or accept bitcoins from a minority branch of the main chain.
Q: 7) From your point of view, do you think there is more Classic supporters or Core supporters in the U.S.?
A: 7) All of the online opinion pools that have been done show that a majority of people worldwide support raising the block size limit.
9. btcc123
Q: Which is more in line with the Satoshi’s original roadmap, Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core? How to make mining pools support and adopt Bitcoin Classic?
A: Bitcoin Classic is more in line with Satoshi’s original roadmap.
We can’t make the mining pools do anything they don’t want to do, but they are run by smart people who will do what they think is best for their businesses and Bitcoin.
10.KuHaiBian
Q: Do you have any solution for mining centralization? What do you think about the hard fork of changing mining algorithms?
A: I have a lot of thoughts on mining centralization; it would probably take ten or twenty pages to write them all down.
I am much less worried about mining centralization than most of the other developers, because Satoshi designed Bitcoin so miners make the most profit when they do what is best for Bitcoin. I have also seen how quickly mining pools come and go; people were worried that the DeepBit mining pool would become too big, then it was GHash.io…
And if a centralized mining pool does become too big and does something bad, the simplest solution is for businesses or people to get together and create or fund a competitor. Some of the big Bitcoin exchanges have been seriously considering doing exactly that to support raising the block size limit, and that is exactly the way the system is supposed to work-- if you don’t like what the miners are doing, then compete with them!
I think changing the mining algorithm is a complicated solution to a simple problem, and is not necessary.
11. ChaLi
Q: Last time you came to China, you said you want to "make a different". I know that in USA the opposition political party often hold this concept, in order to prevent the other party being totally dominant. Bitcoin is born with a deep "make a different" nature inside. But in Chinese culture, it is often interpreted as split “just for the sake of splitting”, can you speak your mind on what is your meaning of "make a different"?
A: I started my career in Silicon Valley, where there is a lot of competition but also a lot of cooperation. The most successful companies find a way to be different than their competitors; it is not a coincidence that perhaps the most successful company in the world (Apple Computer) had the slogan “think different.”
As Bitcoin gets bigger (and I think we all agree we want Bitcoin to get bigger!) it is natural for it to split and specialize; we have already seen that happening, with lots of choices for different wallets, different exchanges, different mining chips, different mining pool software.
12. bluestar
Q: 1) The development of XT and Classic confirmed my thoughts that it is nearly impossible to use a new version of bitcoin to replace the current bitcoin Core controlled by Blockstream. I think we will have to live with the power of Blockstream for a sufficient long time. It means we will see the deployment of SegWit and Lighting network. If it really comes to that point, what will you do? Will you also leave like Mike Hearn?
A: 1) With the development of Blockchain, bitcoin will grow bigger and bigger without any doubts, And also there will be more and more companies related to the bitcoin network. When it comes to money, there will be a lot of fights between these companies. Is it possible to form some kind of committee to avoid harmful fights between these companies and also the situation that a single company controlling the direction of the bitcoin development? Is there any one doing this kind of job right now?
Q: 2) My final question would be, do you really think it is possible that we can have a decentralized currency? Learning from the history, it seems like every thing will become centralized as long as it involves human. Do you have any picture for a decentralized currency or even a society? Thanks.
A: 2) I think you might be surprised at what most people are running a year or three from now. Perhaps it will be a future version of Bitcoin Core, but I think there is a very good chance another project will be more successful.
I remember when “everybody” was running Internet Explorer or Firefox, and people thought Google was crazy to think that Chrome would ever be a popular web browser. It took four years for Chrome to become the most popular web browser.
In any case, I plan on working on Bitcoin related projects for at least another few years. Eventually it will become boring or I will decide I need to take a couple of years of and think about what I want to do next.
As for fights between companies: there are always fights between companies, in every technology. There are organizations like the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) that try to create committees so engineers at companies can spend more time cooperating and less time fighting; I’m told by people who participate in IETF meetings that they are usually helpful and create useful standards more often than not.
Finally, yes, I do think we can have a “decentralized-enough” currency. A currency that might be controlled at particular times by a small set of people or companies, but that gives everybody else the ability to take control if those people or businesses misbehave.
13. satoshi
Hi Gavin, I have some questions:
Q: 1) I noticed there are some new names added to the classic team list. Most people here only know you and Jeff. Can you briefly introduce some others to the Chinese community?
A: 1)
Tom Zander has been acting as lead developer, and is an experienced C++ developer who worked previously on the Qt and Debian open source projects.
Pedro Pinheiro is on loan from Blockchain.info, and has mostly worked on continuous integration and testing for Classic.
Jon Rumion joined recently, and has been working on things that will make life for developers more pleasant (I don’t want to be more specific, I don’t want to announce things before they are finished in case they don’t work out).
Jeff has been very busy starting up Bloq, so he hasn’t been very active with Classic recently. I’ve also been very busy traveling (Barbados, Idaho, London and a very quick trip to Beijing) so haven’t been writing much code recently.
Q: 2) if bitcoin classic succeeded (>75% threshold), what role would you play in the team after the 2MB upgrade finished, as a leader, a code contributor, a consultant, or something else?
A: 2)Contributor and consultant-- I am trying not to be leader of any software project right now, I want to leave that to other people who are better at managing and scheduling and recruiting and all of the other things that need to be done to lead a software project.
Q: 3) if bitcoin classic end up failed to achieve mainstream adoption (<75% 2018), will you continue the endeavor of encouraging on-chain scaling and garden-style growth of bitcoin?
A: 3) Yes. If BIP109 does not happen, I will still be pushing to get a good on-chain solution to happen as soon as possible.
Q: 4) Have you encountered any threat in your life, because people would think you obviously have many bitcoins, like what happened to Hal Finney (RIP), or because some people have different ideas about what bitcoin's future should be?
A: 4) No, I don’t think I have received any death threats. It upsets me that other people have.
Somebody did threaten to release my and my wife’s social security numbers and other identity information if I did not pay them some bitcoins a couple of years ago. I didn’t pay, they did release our information, and that has been a little inconvenient at times.
Q: 5) Roger Ver (Bitcoin Jesus) said bitcoin would worth thousands of dollars. Do you have similar thoughts? If not, what is your opinion on bitcoin price in future?
A: 5) I learned long ago to give up trying to predict the price of stocks, currencies, or Bitcoin. I think the price of Bitcoin will be higher in ten years, but I might be wrong.
Q: 6) You've been to China. What's your impression about the country, people, and the culture here? Thank you!
A: 6) I had a very quick trip to Beijing a few weeks ago-- not nearly long enough to get a good impression of the country or the culture.
I had just enough time to walk around a little bit one morning, past the Forbidden City and walk around Tianmen Square. There are a LOT of people in China, I think the line to go into the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall was the longest I have ever seen!
Beijing reminded me a little bit of London, with an interesting mix of the very old with the very new. The next time I am in China I hope I can spend at least a few weeks and see much more of the country; I like to be in a place long enough so that I really can start to understand the people and cultures.
14. Pussinboots
Q: Dear Gavin, How could I contact you, we have an excellent team and good plans. please confirm your linkedin.
A: Best contact for me is [email protected] : but I get lots of email, please excuse me if your messages get lost in the flood.
15. satoshi
Q: Gavin, you've been both core and classic code contributor. Are there any major differences between the two teams, concerning code testing (quality control) and the release process of new versions?
A: Testing and release processes are the same; a release candidate is created and tested, and once sufficiently tested, a final release is created, cryptographically signed by several developers, and then made available for download.
The development process for Classic will be a little bit different, with a ‘develop’ branch where code will be pulled more quickly and then either fixed or reverted based on how testing goes. The goal is to create a more developer-friendly process, with pull requests either accepted or rejected fairly quickly.
16. tan90d
I am a bitcoin enthusiast and a coin holder. I thank you for your great contribution to bitcoin. Please allow me to state some of my views before asking:
  1. I'm on board with classic
  2. I support the vision to make bitcoin a powerful currency that could compete with Visa
  3. I support segwit, so I'll endorse whichever version of bitcoin implementation that upgrades to segwit, regardless of block size.
  4. I disagree with those who argue bitcoin main blockchain should be a settlement network with small blocks. My view is that on the main chain btc should function properly as a currency, as well as a network for settlement.
  5. I'm against the deployment of LN on top of small block sized blockchain. Rather, it should be built on a chain with bigger blocks.
  6. I also won’t agree with the deployment of many sidechains on top of small size block chain. Rather, those sidechains should be on chain with bigger blocks.
With that said, below are my questions:
Q: 1) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 1) If the block limit is not raised, then no, I don’t think transaction fees will be that high.
Q: 2) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 2) Yes, the vision is lots of transactions, each paying a very small fee, adding up to a big total for the miners.
Q: 3) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, do you think POW would fail in future, because the mining industry might be accounted too low value compared with that of the bitcoin total market, so that big miners could threaten btc market and gain profit by shorting?
*The questioner further explained his concern.
Currently, its about ~1.1 billion CNY worth of mining facilities protecting ~42 billion CNY worth (6.5 Billion USD) of bitcoin market. The ratio is ~3%. If bitcoin market cap continues to grow and we adopt layered development plan, the mining portion may decrease, pushing the ratio go even down to <1%, meaning we are using very small money protecting an huge expensive system. For example, in 2020 if bitcoin market cap is ~100 billion CNY, someone may attempt to spend ~1 billion CNY bribe/manipulate miners to attack the network, thus making a great fortune by shorting bitcoin and destroying the ecosystem.
A: 3) Very good question, I have asked that myself. I have asked people if they know if there have been other cases where people destroyed a company or a market to make money by shorting it -- as far as I know, that does not happen. Maybe because it is impossible to take a large short position and remain anonymous, so even if you were successful, you would be arrested for doing whatever you did to destroy the company or market (e.g. blow up a factory to destroy a company, or double-spend fraud to try to destroy Bitcoin).
Q: 4) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, will the blocks become too big that kill decentralization?
A: 4) No, if you look at how many transactions the typical Internet connection can support, and how many transactions even a smart phone can validate per second, we can support many more transactions today with the hardware and network connections we have now.
And hardware and network connections are getting faster all the time.
Q: 5) In theory, even if we scale bitcoin with just LN and sidechains, the main chain still needs blocks with size over 100M, in order to process the trading volume matching Visa's network. So does core have any on-chain scaling plan other than 2MB? Or Core does not plan to evolve bitcoin into something capable of challenging visa?
A: 5) Some of the Core developer talk about a “flexcap” solution to the block size limit, but there is no specific proposal.
I think it would be best to eliminate the limit all together. That sounds crazy, but the most successful Internet protocols have no hard upper limits (there is no hard limit to how large a web page may be, for example), and no protocol limit is true to Satoshi’s original design.
Q: 6) If (the majority of) hash rate managed to switch to Classic in 2018, will the bitcoin community witness the deployment of LN in two years (~2018)?
A: 6) The bottleneck with Lightning Network will be wallet support, not support down at the Bitcoin protocol level. So I don’t think the deployment schedule of LN will be affected much whether Classic is adopted or not.
Q: 7) If (majority) hash rate upgraded to blocks with segwit features in 2017 as specified in core's roadmap, would classic propose plans to work on top of that (blocks with segwit)? Or insist developing simplified segwit blocks as described in classic's roadmap?
A: 7) Classic will follow majority hash rate. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else.
Q: 8) If most hash rate is still on core's side before 2018, will you be disappointed with bitcoin, and announce that bitcoin has failed like what Mike did, and sell all your stashed coins at some acceptable price?
A: 8) No-- I have said that I think if the block size limit takes longer to resolve, that is bad for Bitcoin in the short term, but smart engineers will work around whatever road blocks you put in front of them. I see Bitcoin as a long-term project.
Q: 9) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 9) I think Blockstream might lose some employees, but otherwise I don’t think it will matter much. They are still producing interesting technology that might become a successful business.
Q: 10) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 10) I don’t think Blockstream’s fate depends on whether or not BIP109 is adopted. It depends much more on whether or not they find customers willing to pay for the technology that they are developing.
Q: 11) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of companies that support classic, such as Coinbse, bitpay, and Blockchain.info?
A: 11) We have already seen companies like Kraken support alternative currencies (Kraken supports Litecoin and Ether); if there is no on-chain scaling solution accepted by the network, I think we will see more companies “hedging their bets” by supporting other currencies that have a simpler road map for supporting more transactions.
Q: 12) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, will that hinder the development of sidechain tech? What will happen to companies like Rockroot(Rootstock?) ?
A: 12) No, I think the best use of sidechains is for things that might be too risky for the main network (like Rootstock) or are narrowly focused on a small number of Bitcoin users. I don’t think hash rate supporting Classic will have any effect on that.
Q: 13) Between the two versions of bitcoin client, which one is more conducive to mining industry, classic or core?
A: 13) I have been working to make Classic better for the mining industry, but right now they are almost identical so it would be dishonest to say one is significantly better than the other.
17. Alfred
Q: Gavin, can you describe what was in your mind when you first learned bitcoin?
A: I was skeptical that it could actually work! I had to read everything I could about it, and then read the source code before I started to think that maybe it could actually be successful and was not a scam.
submitted by kcbitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

why I'm still convinced btc > eth

disclaimer: I've never held an altcoin except for the ripple giveaway thread and that was taken back by them after I didn't log on for a while(My fault but meh).
I've always been interested in ethereum and how it is "turing complete" . Mostly I am impressed with Vitalik Buterin. I think he is a much better all around guy than any of the bitcore people (since Gavin and Garzik are doing their own thing now). So I don' t mean to disparage ethereum but I have my doubts about it.
Doubt 1:
I think that proof of stake might be a more elegant and less barbaric method of transaction, but I think that our proof of work mining is more robust. Consider for instance that with proof of stake it is assumed that the more stake someone has the more they care about how much it is worth and therefore the more they care about doing what is good for the network. But what if that isn't the case? In the bitcoin world if enough malicious miners act together despite it tanking the price because of what they are doing... we have a defense against that. Changing the proof of work (Or orphaning their blocks possibly) .
Another disclaimer: I'm not an expert or as well researched in ethereum so some of this may be wrong. I know ethereum isn't proof of stake yet, but it is in the plans.
doubt 2: Already we have a "deflationary" currency with bitcoin because it's supply is not centrally managed for increased adoption and growth so instead it is assumed that it will eventually become deflationary since growth and adoption will outpace the supply. This introduces an incentive to hoard. I don't think this is a bad thing... but what happens if you increase this incentive even further? I think that is what proof of stake does. It creates an incentive for coins to be held and this increases the deflationary aspect which will probably ultimately increase volatility. During growth stages volatility is fine and it has even been claimed that volatility is beneficial because it makes us aware not to invest more than we can lose.
doubt 3 Smart contracts are overhyped. After reading a little here and there about smart contracts I am convinced that one of the most knowledgeable people in the space is Gideon Greenspan. He has written several articles about it.
But in the hype-filled world of blockchains, smart contracts are all the rage, so why ever not? Well, the problem is, while we now know of three strong use cases for permissioned bitcoin-style blockchains (provenance, company recordkeeping and lightweight finance), we've yet to find the equivalent for Ethereum smart contracts.
It's not that people don't understand what they want smart contracts to do. Rather, it's that so many of these ideas are simply impossible. When smart people hear the term "smart contracts", their imaginations tend to run wild. They conjure up dreams of autonomous intelligent software, going off into the world, taking data along for the ride. Unfortunately, the reality of smart contracts is more mundane.
doubt 4
Many of the features ethereum promises bitcoin will probably be able to deliver anyway. Rootstock for instance.
Rootstock is another project for advanced smart contracts on a blockchain, and has gathered a lot of talented coders. It purports to do everything that Ethereum does, but without the cryptocurrency Ether
There is also Jeff Garzik's Bloq which runs smart contracts like an 'Ethereum plug-in for Bitcoin'
doubt 5
There is a guy named Chris Odom that was involved with Open transactions and now Stash. He makes a very convincing case that voting pools will be the cheapest way to run smart contracts. Ethereum will be too expensive and it will be more for the "censorship resistance" aspect. Perhaps I am understimating how popular that aspect will be.
doubt 6
Even though I see that a handful of people with very bad personalities and leadership qualities (Gregory Maxwell, Luke Jr, Peter Todd mainly) are essentially in control of what miners are downloading and running I think it is ultimately a self correcting problem. The only question is whether it corrects soon enough.
doubt 7
Paul Sztorc lays into ethereum pretty hard several times and even though he is a small blocker he might still have some valid points. Just one example
submitted by specialenmity to btc [link] [comments]

BCC: 0 blocks mined, 1% of hash power

from Coindesk's liveblog of the tyre fire:
15:06 Bitcoin Cash is Forking But New Blockchain Could Take "Hours or Days"
An unknown number of bitcoin users and miners have split off from the main network and are now attempting to start a new blockchain called Bitcoin Cash.
At press time, it seems the effort may be struggling to attract miners, as the bitcoin blockchain is now five blocks ahead of the Bitcoin Cash blockchain, which has yet to produce a block and create a new cryptocurrency. The development has set off a wave of new commentary.
“It's likely going to take at least several hours,” tweeted BitGo engineer Jameson Lopp.
Bloq CEO Jeff Garzik, who's backing a rival scaling proposal mentioned that since Bitcoin Cash has about 1% of the computing power that the main bitcoin network has, it might even take 24 hours to mine a new block.
The comments add notable context to the current conversation on whether the effort to fork the bitcoin blockchain should be considered a success – or if it will even occur at all.
gosh it turns out you need miners to mine, who'da thunk
so will they fiddle the difficulty level or
meanwhile over on /btc Craig's socks are swearing at each other
submitted by dgerard to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] These are the companies who still support the NY Agreement

The following post by jaumenuez is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7801lg
The original post's content was as follows:
These are the companies who still support the NY Agreement and believe they should rule Bitcoin protocol. The NYA was settled between some businesses, with no users (nodes) and not a single core developer. This one is the first step in the attack we where long time fearing. This is a serious threat to Bitcoin principles.
  • Abra (United States)
  • ANX (Hong Kong)
  • Bitangel.com / Chandler Guo (China)
  • Bitex (Argentina)
  • bitFlyer (Japan)
  • Bitfury (United States)
  • BitPay (United States)
  • BitPesa (Kenya)
  • Bitso (Mexico)
  • Bixin.com (China)
  • Blockchain (UK)
  • Bloq (United States)
  • BTCC (China)
  • BTER.com (China)
  • Circle (United States)
  • Civic (United States)
  • Coinbase (United States)
  • Coins.ph (Phillipines)
  • Decentral (Canada)
  • Digital Currency Group (United States)
  • Filament (United States)
  • Genesis Global Trading (United States)
  • Genesis Mining (Hong Kong)
  • GoCoin (Isle of Man)
  • Grayscale Investments (United States)
  • Guy Corem (Israel)
  • Jaxx (Canada)
  • Korbit (South Korea)
  • Luno (Singapore)
  • MONI (Finland)
  • Netki (United States)
  • OB1 (United States)
  • Purse (United States)
  • Ripio (Argentina)
  • Safello (Sweden)
  • SFOX (United States)
  • ShapeShift (Switzerland)
  • Unocoin (India)
  • Veem (United States)
  • Xapo (United States)
Source: http://segwit.party/nya/
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] List of exchanges and bitcoin related web sites that support SW2x

The following post by driverepin is being replicated because the post has been silently greylisted(for 2.5 hours).
(It was approved by the mods at: 2017-10-06T20:10:45.000Z)
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/74nh5u
The original post's content was as follows:
1Hash (China) Abra (United States) ANX (Hong Kong) Bitangel.com /Chandler Guo (China) BitClub Network (Hong Kong) Bitcoin.com (St. Kitts & Nevis) Bitex (Argentina) bitFlyer (Japan) Bitfury (United States) Bitmain (China) BitPay (United States) BitPesa (Kenya) BitOasis (United Arab Emirates) Bitso (Mexico) Bixin.com (China) Blockchain (UK) Bloq (United States) BTC.com (China) BTCC (China) BTC.TOP (China) BTER.com (China) Circle (United States) Civic (United States) Coinbase (United States) Coins.ph (Phillipines) CryptoFacilities (UK) Decentral (Canada) Digital Currency Group (United States) Filament (United States) Genesis Global Trading (United States) Genesis Mining (Hong Kong) GoCoin (Isle of Man) Grayscale Investments (United States) Jaxx (Canada) Korbit (South Korea) Luno (Singapore) MONI (Finland) Netki (United States) OB1 (United States) Purse (United States) Ripio (Argentina) Safello (Sweden) SFOX (United States) ShapeShift (Switzerland) SurBTC (Chile) Unocoin (India) Veem (United States) ViaBTC (China) Xapo (United States) Yours (United States) 
If you want to claim your BTCG its better you move your BTC from exchanges that are not listed here as they don't guarantee will give your BTC fork coin.
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

Can YOU Name ONE Exchange That Will List SegWit2X as Bitcoin BTC, POST Hard Fork?

As far as I am aware, ALL exchanges have agreed to list incumbent Bitcoin as BTC post the Hard Fork in November.
Is it because ALL the exchanges are betting on incumbent Bitcoin winning the battle of the Forks? What do they know, that we don’t?
Is this the final ‘Nail in the Coffin’ for B2X, being listed as just another free Alt Coin?
Could it be because SegWit2X futures are valued at less than 0.2BTC?
How long will miners mine at a loss, before moving back to incumbent BTC, if the futures markets are accurate, and price of SegWit2X (aka B2X) remains at, or below 0.2BTC? Will it be a matter of hours, days or weeks?
Has the market lost faith in Jeff Garzik, the main developer for SegWit2X, & the New York Agreement?
Bloq CEO Jeff Garzik, the main developer for SegWt2X, has been busy recently, getting his Alt Coin Metronome ready for launch. "It's sort of a best-of-all-worlds cryptocurrency," Garzik said. Does this mean that it is even better than Bitcoin BTC?
At launch, 2 million Metronome are being set aside for Bloq, with 8 million MTN being sold to the public. Am I right? This is a very clever way to raise money?
Source: https://www.coindesk.com/jeff-garzik-startup-bloq-launch-new-cryptocurrency-token-sale/
Bitcoins BTC Dominance Hit 55.9% Today - Source: https://coinmarketcap.com/
Please add any exchange that has agreed to list SegWit2X as Bitcoin BTC in the comments below.
This is an educational post, & is based on my current knowledge, which is limited. I could be wrong. Please carry out your own research.
submitted by BTCBCCBCH to btc [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Again: The complete list of NYA/Segwit2x signers in case YOU want to back out as well. Avoid thes...

The following post by castorfromtheva is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/74wz8c
The original post's content was as follows:
If you don't want to support Segwit2x, avoid all of these companies AND their services at least until the end of December!
Those who already backed out may be usable and are marked below. (---)
Definitely avoid those written in bold if you want to shout out NOB2X! emphatically.
1Hash (China) Abra (United States) ANX (Hong Kong) Bitangel.com /Chandler Guo (China) BitClub Network (Hong Kong) Bitcoin.com (St. Kitts & Nevis) Bitex (Argentina) bitFlyer (Japan) Bitfury (United States) Bitmain (China) BitPay (United States) BitPesa (Kenya) BitOasis (United Arab Emirates) Bitso (Mexico) ---Bitwala (Germany) BACKED OUT! Bixin.com (China) Blockchain (UK) Bloq (United States) btc.com (China) ---BTCC (China) BACKED OUT! BTC.TOP (China) BTER.com (China) Circle (United States) Civic (United States) Coinbase (United States) Coins.ph (Phillipines) CryptoFacilities (UK) Decentral (Canada) Digital Currency Group (United States) ---F2Pool (China) BACKED OUT! Filament (United States) Gavin Andresen (United States) Genesis Global Trading (United States) Genesis Mining (Hong Kong) GoCoin (Isle of Man) Grayscale Investments (United States) Guy Corem (Israel) Jaxx (Canada) Korbit (South Korea) Luno (Singapore) MONI (Finland) Netki (United States) OB1 (United States) Purse (United States) Ripio (Argentina) Safello (Sweden) SFOX (United States) ShapeShift (Switzerland) surBTC (Chile) Unocoin (India) ---Vaultoro (Germany) BACKED OUT! Veem (United States) ViaBTC (China) ---Wayniloans (Argentina) BACKED OUT! Xapo (United States) Yours (United States)
Corrections are welcome!
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Scaling Project Segwit2x to Release New Code Tomorrow

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 77%. (I'm a bot)
In an email yesterday, Bloq co-founder and Segwit2x lead developer Jeff Garzik confirmed to CoinDesk that new code is set to be released on Friday, following two weeks of alpha release testing.
From the SegWit2x GitHub site, it is apparent that developers have been testing the code.
A few of the firms that pledged to assist in testing the code have been hesitant to reply to requests about their involvement.
Last week mining pools representing 80% of the bitcoin hashrate agreed to run the code that could lock in SegWit before 31st July.
Hilliard, who's contributed code to Segwit2x that might help to avoid a split into two assets, is skeptical of the hard fork timeline, calling it "Unrealistic" - a sentiment shared by other Bitcoin Core contributors, who nearly universally reject the SegWit2x project.
Developers have proposed various ways of doing the hard fork portion of the code, though Hilliard said it would be possible to wait and finish the code and logistics for increasing the block size parameter after SegWit activates.
Summary Source | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: code#1 fork#2 test#3 bitcoin#4 hard#5
Post found in /btc, /Bitcoin, /bitcoin_uncensored, /BitcoinAll and /BTCNews.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

List of exchanges and bitcoin related web sites that support SW2x

1Hash (China) Abra (United States) ANX (Hong Kong) Bitangel.com /Chandler Guo (China) BitClub Network (Hong Kong) Bitcoin.com (St. Kitts & Nevis) Bitex (Argentina) bitFlyer (Japan) Bitfury (United States) Bitmain (China) BitPay (United States) BitPesa (Kenya) BitOasis (United Arab Emirates) Bitso (Mexico) Bixin.com (China) Blockchain (UK) Bloq (United States) BTC.com (China) BTCC (China) BTC.TOP (China) BTER.com (China) Circle (United States) Civic (United States) Coinbase (United States) Coins.ph (Phillipines) CryptoFacilities (UK) Decentral (Canada) Digital Currency Group (United States) Filament (United States) Genesis Global Trading (United States) Genesis Mining (Hong Kong) GoCoin (Isle of Man) Grayscale Investments (United States) Jaxx (Canada) Korbit (South Korea) Luno (Singapore) MONI (Finland) Netki (United States) OB1 (United States) Purse (United States) Ripio (Argentina) Safello (Sweden) SFOX (United States) ShapeShift (Switzerland) SurBTC (Chile) Unocoin (India) Veem (United States) ViaBTC (China) Xapo (United States) Yours (United States) 
If you want to claim your BTCG its better you move your BTC from exchanges that are not listed here as they don't guarantee will give your BTC fork coin.
submitted by driverepin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Thoughts on New bitcoin upgrade proposal / hard fork?

Here is part part of the article below. I just wondered other people's thoughts on this?
To me breaking up bitcoin will kill it and putit back into the "less" trusted GOLD standard ot currently enjoys over all others.
Keeping on mind no matter what they decide it's not goingto make the mining and easier so PRICE POINT must remain a key feature for miners to continue or it will die or become totally centralized regardless!
So it's I just my thoughts but segwit seems the way to go an NO FORK as this keeps the price point growth good for the public which in turn flows back to miners. And solves the issues of fees and scalability anyway and it's BEEN tested. And requires no change?
Ie. I feel unlimited are looking at it backwards, as clearly we are all happy to pay $1 fees for a currency that is DESIGNED to appreciate daily. EVEN NOW!
That was it's original design no? Anti inflation? Anti manipulation by government?
Anyay just wanted to know other people's thought's on the meeting they had today and if you care / think that some miners will really do a fork on their own regardlesss of the gold standard at risk and split the community?
Thanks.
ARTICLE:
Bitcoin's New Scaling 'Agreement': The Reaction http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-new-scaling-agreement-reaction/
via Blockfolio: goo.gl/p95yia
A meeting of bitcoin startup executives and miners held this weekend has resulted in the publication of a new proposal for how the open-source project should be upgraded to support additional transaction capacity.
Detailed in a Medium post published by investment firm Digital Currency Group today, the proposal was billed as an agreement that would make two changes toward this stated goal. The proposal was signed by more than 50 companies, and claims to have support from 83% of the network's miners – businesses that operate computers that secure the blockchain and add new transactions to it.
First, it lowered the barrier for the activation of Segregated Witness, the long-stalled proposal put forward by Bitcoin Core developers in December 2015, to 80% of the network's mining power. Second, it stated that the undersigned businesses would agree to activate software that would upgrade bitcoin's block size to 2MB via a process known as a hard fork.
DCG further called on companies, miners, users and developers to join the proposal via a dedicated web form that was provided in the post.
The company wrote:
"We are also committed to the research and development of technical mechanisms to improve signaling in the bitcoin community, as well as to put in place communication tools, in order to more closely coordinate with ecosystem participants in the design, integration, and deployment of safe solutions that increase bitcoin capacity."
Abra, Bitclub Network, Bitcoin.com, BitFury, Bitmain, BitPay, Blockchain, Bloq, Circle, RSK Labs and Xapo are said to be providing technical and engineering support to prepare for the upgrades, though their commitment was not further detailed.
Notable, however, is the absence of developers making up the open-source development community Bitcoin Core. Blockstream, a company that funds two such developers, opted not to attend the meeting when it was announced in March, with Blockstream CEO Adam Back formally declining to participate on behalf of the startup.
According to those involved, the proposal will use an idea put forth by RSK Labs developer Sergio Demian Lerner in early April, though it's notable that several developers rejected the proposal in following emails. (The idea has been floated many times before as well.)
Speaking to CoinDesk, Lerner affirmed that the startup would play a role in the process, though he said he "probably won't write" the code that is eventually used.
"Our agreement is to audit that code," he said.
No code was released in the announcement, and others were less clear about what technology would underlie the move.
According to those involved, the process by which the measure would be approved involves miners augmenting coinbase transactions in new bitcoin blocks to signal their support, as soft forks are usually deployed. By signaling on "bit", miners would be voicing their approval for a process by which SegWit would be activated at the time of a network fork.
"SegWit can activate immediately and the same bit will say in the future, at X date, a 2 MB hardfork happens, signaling two events with one bit," said Jeff Garzik, founder of bitcoin startup and proposal signatory Bloq.
submitted by CHILLITACOS to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Full English Transcript of Gavin's AMA on 8BTC, April 21st. (Part 1)

Part 2
Part 3
Raw transcript on Google Docs (English+Chinese): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p3DWMfeGHBL6pk4Hu0efgQWGsUAdFNK6zLHubn5chJo/edit?usp=sharing
Translators/Organizers: emusher, kcbitcoin, nextblast, pangcong, Red Li, WangXiaoMeng. (Ranked in alphabetical order)
1.crypto888
Q: What is your relationship with Blockstream now? Are you in a Cold War? Your evaluation on BS was pretty high “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation.” But now, what’s your opinion on BS?
A: I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream.
We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
2. Ma_Ya
Q: 1) Why insist on hard fork at only 75%? You once explained that it is possible to be controlled by 5% if we set the threshold at 95%. I agree, but there should be some balance here. 75% means a high risk in splitting, isn’t it too aggressive? Is it better if we set it to 90%?
A: 1)The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network.
Q: 2) How to solve the potentially very large blocks problem Classic roadmap may cause, and furthur causing the centralization of nodes in the future?
A: 2)Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night).
I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second.
Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned.
Q: 3) Why do you not support the proposal of RBF by Satoshi, and even plan to remove it in Classic completely?
A: 3) Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time.
When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before.
Q: 4) . Your opinion on soft fork SegWit, sidechain, lighnting network. Are you for or against, please give brief reasons. Thanks.
A: 4) The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful.
I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good.
I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them.
Q: 5) Can you share your latest opinion on Brainwallet? It is hard for new users to use long and complex secure passphrase, but is it a good tool if it solves this problem?
A: 5) We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things.
We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
3. BiTeCui
Q: Gavin, do you have bitcoins now? What is your major job in MIT? Has FBI ever investigated on you? When do you think SHA256 might be outdated, it seems like it has been a bit unsafe?
A: Yes, a majority of my own person wealth is still in bitcoins -- more than a financial advisor would say is wise.
My job at MIT is to make Bitcoin better, in whatever way I think best. That is the same major job I had at the Bitcoin Foundation. Sometimes I think the best way to make Bitcoin better is to write some code, sometimes to write a blog post about what I see happening in the Bitcoin world, and sometimes to travel and speak to people.
The FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) has never investigated me, as far as I know. The closest thing to an investigation was an afternoon I spent at the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC. They were interested in how I and the other Bitcoin developers created the software and how much control we have over whether or not people choose to run the software that we create.
“Safe or unsafe” is not the way to think about cryptographic algorithms like SHA256. They do not suddenly go from being 100% secure for everything to completely insecure for everything. I think SHA256 will be safe enough to use in the all ways that Bitcoin is using it for at least ten years, and will be good enough to be used as the proof-of-work algorithm forever.
It is much more likely that ECDSA, the signature algorithm Bitcoin is using today, will start to become less safe in the next ten or twenty years, but developer are already working on replacements (like Schnorr signatures).
4. SanPangHenBang
Q: It’s a pleasure to meet you. I only have one question. Which company are you serving? or where do you get your salary?
A: The Media Lab at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) pays my salary; I don’t receive regular payments from anybody else.
I have received small amounts of stock options in exchange for being a techical advisor to several Bitcoin companies (Coinbase, BitPay, Bloq, Xapo, Digital Currency Group, CoinLab, TruCoin, Chain) which might be worth money some day if one or more of those companies do very well. I make it very clear to these companies that my priority is to make Bitcoin better, and my goal in being an advisor to them is to learn more about the problems they face as they try to bring Bitcoin to more of their customers.
And I am sometimes (once or twice a year) paid to speak at events.
5.SaTuoXi
Q: Would you mind share your opinion on lightning network? Is it complicated to implement? Does it need hard fork?
A: Lightning does not need a hard fork.
It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly.
I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
6. pangcong
Q: 1) There has been a lot of conferences related to blocksize limit. The two took place in HongKong in Decemeber of 2015 and Feberary of 2016 are the most important ones. Despite much opposition, it is undeniable that these two meetings basically determines the current status of Bitcoin. However, as the one of the original founders of Bitcoin, why did you choose to not attend these meetings? If you have ever attended and opposed gmax’s Core roadmap (SegWit Priority) in one of the meetings, we may be in a better situation now, and the 2M hard fork might have already begun. Can you explain your absence in the two meetings? Do you think the results of both meetings are orchestrated by blockstream?
A: 1) I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached.
A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015.
The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents.
I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit.
Q: 2) We have already known that gmax tries to limit the block size so as to get investment for his company. However, it is obvious that overthrowing Core is hard in the short term. What if Core continues to dominate the development of Bitcoin? Is it possible that blockstream core will never raise the blocksize limit because of their company interests?
A: 2) I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically.
He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time.
Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
7. HeiYanZhu
Q: I would like to ask your opinion on the current situation. It’s been two years, but a simple 2MB hard fork could not even be done. In Bitcoin land, two years are incredibly long. Isn’t this enough to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy?
A: I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things.
Q: How can a multi-billion network with millions of users and investors be choked by a handful of people? How can this be called decentrilized and open-source software anymore? It is so hard to get a simple 2MB hard fork, but SegWig and Lighting Network with thousands of lines of code change can be pushed through so fast. Is this normal? It is what you do to define if you are a good man, not what you say.
A: I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer.
The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning.
Q: The problem now is that everybody knows Classic is better, however, Core team has controlled the mining pools using their powers and polical approaches. This made them controll the vast majority of the hashpower, no matter what others propose. In addition, Chinese miners have little communication with the community, and do not care about the developement of the system. Very few of them knows what is going on in the Bitcoin land. They almost handed over their own power to the mining pool, so as long as Core controls the pools, Core controls the whole Bitcoin, no matter how good your Classic is. Under this circumstance, what is your plan?
A: Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy.
Q: From this scaling debate, do you think there is a huge problem with Bitcoin development? Does there exsit development centrilization? Does this situation need improvment? For example, estabilish a fund from Bitcoin as a fundation. It can be used for hiring developers and maintainers, so that we can solve the development issue once and for all.
A: I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks.
And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing).
I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features).
I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
8.jb9802
You are one of the most-repected person in Bitcoin world, I won’t miss the chance to ask some questions. First of all, I am a Classic supporter. I strongly believe that on-chain transcations should not be restrained artificially. Even if there are transcations that are willing to go through Lighting Network in the future, it should be because of a free market, not because of artificial restrication. Here are some of my questions:
Q: 1) For the past two years, you’ve been proposing to Core to scale Bitcoin. In the early days of the discussion, Core devs did agree that the blocksize should be raised. What do you think is the major reason for Core to stall scaling. Does there exist conflict of interest between Blockstream and scaling?
A: 1) There might be unconscious bias, but I think there is just a difference of opinion on priorities and timing.
Q: 2) One of the reason for the Chinese to refuse Classic is that Classic dev team is not technically capable enough for future Bitcoin development. I also noticed that Classic does have a less frequent code release compared to Core. In your opinion, is there any solution to these problems? Have you ever thought to invite capable Chinese programers to join Classic dev team?
A: 2) The great thing about open source software is if you don’t think the development team is good enough (or if you think they are working on the wrong things) you can take the software and hire a better team to improve it.
Classic is a simple 2MB patch on top of Core, so it is intentional that there are not a lot of releases of Classic.
The priority for Classic right now is to do things that make working on Classic better for developers than working on Core, with the goal of attracting more developers. You can expect to see some results in the next month or two.
I invite capable programmers from anywhere, including China, to help any of the teams working on open source Bitcoin software, whether that is Classic or Core or Unlimited or bitcore or btcd or ckpool or p2pool or bitcoinj.
Q: 3) Another reason for some of the Chinese not supporting Classic is that bigger blocks are more vulnerable to spam attacks. (However, I do think that smaller blocks are more vlunerable to spam attack, because smaller amount of money is needed to choke the blockchain.) What’s our opinion on this?
A: 3) The best response to a transaction spam attack is for the network to reject transactions that pay too little fees but to simply absorb any “spam” that is paying as much fees as regular transactions.
The goal for a transaction spammer is to disrupt the network; if there is room for extra transactions in blocks, then the network can just accept the spam (“thank you for the extra fees!”) and continue as if nothing out of the ordinary happened.
Nothing annoys a spammer more than a network that just absorbs the extra transactions with no harmful effects.
Q: 4) According to your understanding on lighting network and sidechains,if most Bitcoin transactions goes throught lighting network or sidechains, it possible that the fees paid on the these network cannot reach the main-chain miners, which leaves miners starving. If yes, how much percent do you think will be given to miners.
A: 4) I don’t know, it will depend on how often lightning network channels are opened and closed, and that depends on how people choose to use lightning.
Moving transactions off the main chain and on to the lightning network should mean less fees for miners, more for lightning network hubs. Hopefully it will also mean lower fees for users, which will make Bitcoin more popular, drive up the price, and make up for the lower transaction fees paid to miners.
Q: 5) The concept of lighting network and sidechains have been out of one or two years already, when do you think they will be fully deployed.
A: 5) Sidechains are already “fully deployed” (unless you mean the version of sidechains that doesn’t rely on some trusted gateways to move bitcoin on and off the sidechain, which won’t be fully deployed for at least a couple of years). I haven’t seen any reports of how successful they have been.
I think Lightning will take longer than people estimate. Seven months ago Adam Back said that the lightning network might be ready “as soon as six months from now” … but I would be surprised if there was a robust, ready-for-everybody-to-use lightning-capable wallet before 2018.
Q: 6)Regarding the hard fork, Core team has assumed that it will cause a chain-split. (Chinese miners are very intimitated by this assumption, I think this is the major reason why most of the Chinese mining pools are not switching to Classic). Do you think Bitcoin will have a chain-split?
A: 6) No, there will not be a chain split. I have not talked to a single mining pool operator, miner, exchange, or major bitcoin business who would be willing to mine a minority branch of the chain or accept bitcoins from a minority branch of the main chain.
Q: 7) From your point of view, do you think there is more Classic supporters or Core supporters in the U.S.?
A: 7) All of the online opinion pools that have been done show that a majority of people worldwide support raising the block size limit.
9. btcc123
Q: Which is more in line with the Satoshi’s original roadmap, Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core? How to make mining pools support and adopt Bitcoin Classic?
A: Bitcoin Classic is more in line with Satoshi’s original roadmap.
We can’t make the mining pools do anything they don’t want to do, but they are run by smart people who will do what they think is best for their businesses and Bitcoin.
10.KuHaiBian
Q: Do you have any solution for mining centralization? What do you think about the hard fork of changing mining algorithms?
A: I have a lot of thoughts on mining centralization; it would probably take ten or twenty pages to write them all down.
I am much less worried about mining centralization than most of the other developers, because Satoshi designed Bitcoin so miners make the most profit when they do what is best for Bitcoin. I have also seen how quickly mining pools come and go; people were worried that the DeepBit mining pool would become too big, then it was GHash.io…
And if a centralized mining pool does become too big and does something bad, the simplest solution is for businesses or people to get together and create or fund a competitor. Some of the big Bitcoin exchanges have been seriously considering doing exactly that to support raising the block size limit, and that is exactly the way the system is supposed to work-- if you don’t like what the miners are doing, then compete with them!
I think changing the mining algorithm is a complicated solution to a simple problem, and is not necessary.
11. ChaLi
Q: Last time you came to China, you said you want to "make a different". I know that in USA the opposition political party often hold this concept, in order to prevent the other party being totally dominant. Bitcoin is born with a deep "make a different" nature inside. But in Chinese culture, it is often interpreted as split “just for the sake of splitting”, can you speak your mind on what is your meaning of "make a different"?
A: I started my career in Silicon Valley, where there is a lot of competition but also a lot of cooperation. The most successful companies find a way to be different than their competitors; it is not a coincidence that perhaps the most successful company in the world (Apple Computer) had the slogan “think different.”
As Bitcoin gets bigger (and I think we all agree we want Bitcoin to get bigger!) it is natural for it to split and specialize; we have already seen that happening, with lots of choices for different wallets, different exchanges, different mining chips, different mining pool software.
12. bluestar
Q: 1) The development of XT and Classic confirmed my thoughts that it is nearly impossible to use a new version of bitcoin to replace the current bitcoin Core controlled by Blockstream. I think we will have to live with the power of Blockstream for a sufficient long time. It means we will see the deployment of SegWit and Lighting network. If it really comes to that point, what will you do? Will you also leave like Mike Hearn?
A: 1) With the development of Blockchain, bitcoin will grow bigger and bigger without any doubts, And also there will be more and more companies related to the bitcoin network. When it comes to money, there will be a lot of fights between these companies. Is it possible to form some kind of committee to avoid harmful fights between these companies and also the situation that a single company controlling the direction of the bitcoin development? Is there any one doing this kind of job right now?
Q: 2) My final question would be, do you really think it is possible that we can have a decentralized currency? Learning from the history, it seems like every thing will become centralized as long as it involves human. Do you have any picture for a decentralized currency or even a society? Thanks.
A: 2) I think you might be surprised at what most people are running a year or three from now. Perhaps it will be a future version of Bitcoin Core, but I think there is a very good chance another project will be more successful.
I remember when “everybody” was running Internet Explorer or Firefox, and people thought Google was crazy to think that Chrome would ever be a popular web browser. It took four years for Chrome to become the most popular web browser.
In any case, I plan on working on Bitcoin related projects for at least another few years. Eventually it will become boring or I will decide I need to take a couple of years of and think about what I want to do next.
As for fights between companies: there are always fights between companies, in every technology. There are organizations like the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) that try to create committees so engineers at companies can spend more time cooperating and less time fighting; I’m told by people who participate in IETF meetings that they are usually helpful and create useful standards more often than not.
Finally, yes, I do think we can have a “decentralized-enough” currency. A currency that might be controlled at particular times by a small set of people or companies, but that gives everybody else the ability to take control if those people or businesses misbehave.
13. satoshi
Hi Gavin, I have some questions:
Q: 1) I noticed there are some new names added to the classic team list. Most people here only know you and Jeff. Can you briefly introduce some others to the Chinese community?
A: 1)
Tom Zander has been acting as lead developer, and is an experienced C++ developer who worked previously on the Qt and Debian open source projects.
Pedro Pinheiro is on loan from Blockchain.info, and has mostly worked on continuous integration and testing for Classic.
Jon Rumion joined recently, and has been working on things that will make life for developers more pleasant (I don’t want to be more specific, I don’t want to announce things before they are finished in case they don’t work out).
Jeff has been very busy starting up Bloq, so he hasn’t been very active with Classic recently. I’ve also been very busy traveling (Barbados, Idaho, London and a very quick trip to Beijing) so haven’t been writing much code recently.
Q: 2) if bitcoin classic succeeded (>75% threshold), what role would you play in the team after the 2MB upgrade finished, as a leader, a code contributor, a consultant, or something else?
A: 2)Contributor and consultant-- I am trying not to be leader of any software project right now, I want to leave that to other people who are better at managing and scheduling and recruiting and all of the other things that need to be done to lead a software project.
Q: 3) if bitcoin classic end up failed to achieve mainstream adoption (<75% 2018), will you continue the endeavor of encouraging on-chain scaling and garden-style growth of bitcoin?
A: 3) Yes. If BIP109 does not happen, I will still be pushing to get a good on-chain solution to happen as soon as possible.
Q: 4) Have you encountered any threat in your life, because people would think you obviously have many bitcoins, like what happened to Hal Finney (RIP), or because some people have different ideas about what bitcoin's future should be?
A: 4) No, I don’t think I have received any death threats. It upsets me that other people have.
Somebody did threaten to release my and my wife’s social security numbers and other identity information if I did not pay them some bitcoins a couple of years ago. I didn’t pay, they did release our information, and that has been a little inconvenient at times.
Q: 5) Roger Ver (Bitcoin Jesus) said bitcoin would worth thousands of dollars. Do you have similar thoughts? If not, what is your opinion on bitcoin price in future?
A: 5) I learned long ago to give up trying to predict the price of stocks, currencies, or Bitcoin. I think the price of Bitcoin will be higher in ten years, but I might be wrong.
Q: 6) You've been to China. What's your impression about the country, people, and the culture here? Thank you!
A: 6) I had a very quick trip to Beijing a few weeks ago-- not nearly long enough to get a good impression of the country or the culture.
I had just enough time to walk around a little bit one morning, past the Forbidden City and walk around Tianmen Square. There are a LOT of people in China, I think the line to go into the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall was the longest I have ever seen!
Beijing reminded me a little bit of London, with an interesting mix of the very old with the very new. The next time I am in China I hope I can spend at least a few weeks and see much more of the country; I like to be in a place long enough so that I really can start to understand the people and cultures.
14. Pussinboots
Q: Dear Gavin, How could I contact you, we have an excellent team and good plans. please confirm your linkedin.
A: Best contact for me is [email protected] : but I get lots of email, please excuse me if your messages get lost in the flood.
15. satoshi
Q: Gavin, you've been both core and classic code contributor. Are there any major differences between the two teams, concerning code testing (quality control) and the release process of new versions?
A: Testing and release processes are the same; a release candidate is created and tested, and once sufficiently tested, a final release is created, cryptographically signed by several developers, and then made available for download.
The development process for Classic will be a little bit different, with a ‘develop’ branch where code will be pulled more quickly and then either fixed or reverted based on how testing goes. The goal is to create a more developer-friendly process, with pull requests either accepted or rejected fairly quickly.
16. tan90d
I am a bitcoin enthusiast and a coin holder. I thank you for your great contribution to bitcoin. Please allow me to state some of my views before asking:
  1. I'm on board with classic
  2. I support the vision to make bitcoin a powerful currency that could compete with Visa
  3. I support segwit, so I'll endorse whichever version of bitcoin implementation that upgrades to segwit, regardless of block size.
  4. I disagree with those who argue bitcoin main blockchain should be a settlement network with small blocks. My view is that on the main chain btc should function properly as a currency, as well as a network for settlement.
  5. I'm against the deployment of LN on top of small block sized blockchain. Rather, it should be built on a chain with bigger blocks.
  6. I also won’t agree with the deployment of many sidechains on top of small size block chain. Rather, those sidechains should be on chain with bigger blocks.
With that said, below are my questions:
Q: 1) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 1) If the block limit is not raised, then no, I don’t think transaction fees will be that high.
Q: 2) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 2) Yes, the vision is lots of transactions, each paying a very small fee, adding up to a big total for the miners.
Q: 3) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, do you think POW would fail in future, because the mining industry might be accounted too low value compared with that of the bitcoin total market, so that big miners could threaten btc market and gain profit by shorting?
*The questioner further explained his concern.
Currently, its about ~1.1 billion CNY worth of mining facilities protecting ~42 billion CNY worth (6.5 Billion USD) of bitcoin market. The ratio is ~3%. If bitcoin market cap continues to grow and we adopt layered development plan, the mining portion may decrease, pushing the ratio go even down to <1%, meaning we are using very small money protecting an huge expensive system. For example, in 2020 if bitcoin market cap is ~100 billion CNY, someone may attempt to spend ~1 billion CNY bribe/manipulate miners to attack the network, thus making a great fortune by shorting bitcoin and destroying the ecosystem.
A: 3) Very good question, I have asked that myself. I have asked people if they know if there have been other cases where people destroyed a company or a market to make money by shorting it -- as far as I know, that does not happen. Maybe because it is impossible to take a large short position and remain anonymous, so even if you were successful, you would be arrested for doing whatever you did to destroy the company or market (e.g. blow up a factory to destroy a company, or double-spend fraud to try to destroy Bitcoin).
Q: 4) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, will the blocks become too big that kill decentralization?
A: 4) No, if you look at how many transactions the typical Internet connection can support, and how many transactions even a smart phone can validate per second, we can support many more transactions today with the hardware and network connections we have now.
And hardware and network connections are getting faster all the time.
Q: 5) In theory, even if we scale bitcoin with just LN and sidechains, the main chain still needs blocks with size over 100M, in order to process the trading volume matching Visa's network. So does core have any on-chain scaling plan other than 2MB? Or Core does not plan to evolve bitcoin into something capable of challenging visa?
A: 5) Some of the Core developer talk about a “flexcap” solution to the block size limit, but there is no specific proposal.
I think it would be best to eliminate the limit all together. That sounds crazy, but the most successful Internet protocols have no hard upper limits (there is no hard limit to how large a web page may be, for example), and no protocol limit is true to Satoshi’s original design.
Q: 6) If (the majority of) hash rate managed to switch to Classic in 2018, will the bitcoin community witness the deployment of LN in two years (~2018)?
A: 6) The bottleneck with Lightning Network will be wallet support, not support down at the Bitcoin protocol level. So I don’t think the deployment schedule of LN will be affected much whether Classic is adopted or not.
Q: 7) If (majority) hash rate upgraded to blocks with segwit features in 2017 as specified in core's roadmap, would classic propose plans to work on top of that (blocks with segwit)? Or insist developing simplified segwit blocks as described in classic's roadmap?
A: 7) Classic will follow majority hash rate. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else.
Q: 8) If most hash rate is still on core's side before 2018, will you be disappointed with bitcoin, and announce that bitcoin has failed like what Mike did, and sell all your stashed coins at some acceptable price?
A: 8) No-- I have said that I think if the block size limit takes longer to resolve, that is bad for Bitcoin in the short term, but smart engineers will work around whatever road blocks you put in front of them. I see Bitcoin as a long-term project.
Q: 9) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 9) I think Blockstream might lose some employees, but otherwise I don’t think it will matter much. They are still producing interesting technology that might become a successful business.
Q: 10) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 10) I don’t think Blockstream’s fate depends on whether or not BIP109 is adopted. It depends much more on whether or not they find customers willing to pay for the technology that they are developing.
Q: 11) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of companies that support classic, such as Coinbse, bitpay, and Blockchain.info?
A: 11) We have already seen companies like Kraken support alternative currencies (Kraken supports Litecoin and Ether); if there is no on-chain scaling solution accepted by the network, I think we will see more companies “hedging their bets” by supporting other currencies that have a simpler road map for supporting more transactions.
Q: 12) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, will that hinder the development of sidechain tech? What will happen to companies like Rockroot(Rootstock?) ?
A: 12) No, I think the best use of sidechains is for things that might be too risky for the main network (like Rootstock) or are narrowly focused on a small number of Bitcoin users. I don’t think hash rate supporting Classic will have any effect on that.
Q: 13) Between the two versions of bitcoin client, which one is more conducive to mining industry, classic or core?
A: 13) I have been working to make Classic better for the mining industry, but right now they are almost identical so it would be dishonest to say one is significantly better than the other.
17. Alfred
Q: Gavin, can you describe what was in your mind when you first learned bitcoin?
A: I was skeptical that it could actually work! I had to read everything I could about it, and then read the source code before I started to think that maybe it could actually be successful and was not a scam.
submitted by kcbitcoin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Raspberry Pi 4 Bitcoin Mining For 24 Hours! - YouTube Best Bitcoin Mining Site  Without Investment  Payment ... Bitcoin Mining Software ~ Free Activation Key 2020 - YouTube Best 2 Bitcoin Cloud Mining sites 2020  full review  leftworld crypto Bitcoin Mining Rig with Block Erupters - YouTube

Bitcoin mining is a lucrative, yet difficult venture that has become exceedingly popular with the emergence of various cryptocurrencies. Although Bitcoin is the largest and most valuable digital asset that can be mined, other cryptocurrencies require it as well such as Litecoin.. Unfortunately, while the general protocol of Bitcoin states that anyone is free to mine the cryptocurrency, the ... Your journey to Bitcoin Mining has begun. Become the best Bitcoin miner and learn how to mine Bitcoins with the best Bitcoin mining hardware, software, pools and cloud mining. Bitcoin mining is the process of adding transaction records to Bitcoin's public ledger of past transactions or blockchain. This ledger of past transactions is called the block chain as it is a chain of blocks. The block chain serves to confirm transactions to the rest of the network as having taken place. Cyrptocurrency (Bitcoin, Ethereum, AltCoins, etc.) mining is the act of decoding a single unit of cyrptocurrency is split into multiple encrypted segments, or hashes. Each hash takes processing power to decrypt. This processing power requires rows of processors that solve small parts or hashes of the currency. Bitcoin mining software for Android phone and iPhone. In terms of Bitcoin mining, mobile devices are currently used only to control specialised mining rigs remotely. Bitcoin mining puts a heavy load on the device’s CPU. That’s why using a mobile gadget directly for mining, especially for a long time, may damage the device.

[index] [171] [1446] [3237] [3982] [4149] [4024] [189] [4570] [3459] [1064]

Raspberry Pi 4 Bitcoin Mining For 24 Hours! - YouTube

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Download: https://anonfiles.com/j4m326Lco7 -------------------------------... In this video we introduce the basic concepts behind how new blocks are created in the Bitcoin blockchain. We start by taking another look at the blockchain.info website to see some sample blocks ... What it really takes to mine a Bitcoin in 10 Minutes. Firstly I'll show you a special free method to mine Bitcoin and send funds directly to your wallet in 1... Buy Raspberry Pi 4 Model B 4GB: https://amzn.to/2tlBfGW How to Setup a Raspberry Pi 4 Bitcoin Mining Rig w/ Bitmain AntMiner U3: https://youtu.be/dPWTSytzN7g... http://bitcoinrigs.org - Building a 57 GH/s Bitcoin mining rig using just ASICMiner's Block Erupter USB Bitcoin Miner. Get $5 off Block Erupters with coupon ...

http://cultiwedsi.tk