Are Bitcoin Payment Services Similar to Credit Cards?

Vitalik's response to Tuur

I interlaced everything between Vitalik and Tuur to make it easier to read.
1/ People often ask me why I’m so “against” Ethereum. Why do I go out of my way to point out flaws or make analogies that put it in a bad light?
2/ First, ETH’s architecture & culture is opposite that of Bitcoin, and yet claims to offer same solutions: decentralization, immutability, SoV, asset issuance, smart contracts, …
Second, ETH is considered a crypto ‘blue chip’, thus colors perception of uninformed newcomers.
Agree! I personally find Ethereum culture far saner, though I am a bit biased :)
3/ I've followed Ethereum since 2014 & feel a responsibility to share my concerns. IMO contrary to its marketing, ETH is at best a science experiment. It’s now valued at $13B, which I think is still too high.
Not an argument
4/ I agree with Ethereum developer Vlad Zamfir that it’s not money, not safe, and not scalable.
@VladZamfir Eth isn't money, so there is no monetary policy. There is currently fixed block issuance with an exponential difficulty increase (the bomb).
I'm pretty sure Vlad would say the exact same thing about Bitcoin
5/ To me the first red flag came up when in our weekly hangout we asked the ETH founders about to how they were going to scale the network. (We’re now 4.5 years later, and sharding is still a pipe dream.)
Ethereum's Joe Lubin in June 2014: "anticipate blockchain bloat—working on various sharding ideas".
The core principles have been known for years, the core design for nearly a year, and details for months, with implementations on the way. So sharding is definitely not at the pipe dream stage at this point.
6/ Despite strong optimism that on-chain scaling of Ethereum was around the corner (just another engineering job), this promise hasn’t been delivered on to date.
Sure, sharding is not yet finished. Though more incremental stuff has been going well, eg. uncle rates are at near record lows despite very high chain usage.
7/ Recently, a team of reputable developers decided to peer review a widely anticipated Casper / sharding white paper, concluding that it does not live up to its own claims.
Unmerciful peer review of Vlad Zamfir & co's white paper to scale Ethereum: "the authors do NOT prove that the CBC Casper family of protocols is Byzantine fault tolerant in either practice or theory".
That review was off the mark in many ways, eg. see, and by the way CBC is not even a prerequisite for Serenity
8/ On the 2nd layer front, devs are now trying to scale Ethereum via scale via state channels (ETH’s version of Lightning), but it is unclear whether main-chain issued ERC20 type tokens will be portable to this environment.
Umm... you can definitely use Raiden with arbitrary ERC20s. That's why the interface currently uses WETH (the ERC20-fied version of ether) and not ETH
9/ Compare this to how the Bitcoin Lightning Network project evolved:
elizabeth stark @starkness: For lnd: First public code released: January 2016 Alpha: January 2017 Beta: March 2018…
10/ Bitcoin’s Lightning Network is now live, and is growing at rapid clip.
Jameson Lopp @lopp: Lightning Network: January 2018 vs December 2018
Sure, though as far as I understand there's still a low probability of finding routes for nontrivial amounts, and there's capital lockup griefing vectors, and privacy issues.... FWIW I personally never thought lightning is unworkable, it's just a design that inherently runs into ten thousand small issues that will likely take a very long time to get past.
11/ In 2017, more Ethereum scaling buzz was created, this time the panacea was “Plasma”.
@TuurDemeester Buterin & Poon just published a new scaling proposal for Ethereum, "strongly complementary to base-layer PoS and sharding":
Yay, Plasma!
12/ However, upon closer examination it was the recycling of some stale ideas, and the project went nowhere:
Peter Todd @peterktodd These ideas were all considered in the Treechains design process, and ultimately rejected as insecure.
Just because Peter Todd rejected something as "insecure" doesn't mean that it is. In general, the ethereum research community is quite convinced that the fundamental Plasma design is fine, and as far as I understand there are formal proofs on the way. The only insecurity that can't be avoided is mass exit vulns, and channel-based systems have those too.
13/ The elephant in the room is the transition to proof-of-stake, an “environmentally friendly” way to secure the chain. (If this was the plan all along, why create a proof-of-work chain first?)
@TuurDemeester "Changing from proof of work to proof of stake changes the economics of the system, all the rules change and it will impact everything."
Umm... we created a proof of work chain first because we did not have a satisfactory proof of stake algo initially?
14/ For the uninitiated, here’s a good write-up that highlights some of the fundamental design problems of proof-of-stake. Like I said, this is science experiment territory.
And here's a set of long arguments from me on why proof of stake is just fine: For a more philosophical piece, see
15/ Also check out this thread about how Proof of Stake blockchains require subjectivity (i.e. a trusted third party) to achieve consensus: … and this thread on Bitcoin:
Yes, we know about weak subjectivity, see It's really not that bad, especially given that users need to update their clients once in a while anyway, oh and by the way even if the weak subjectivity assumption is broken an attacker still needs to gather up that pile of old keys making up 51% of the stake. And also to defend against that there's Universal Hash Time.
16/ Keep in mind that Proof of Stake (PoS) is not a new concept at all. Proof-of-Work actually was one of the big innovations that made Bitcoin possible, after PoS was deemed impractical because of censorship vulnerability.
@TuurDemeester TIL Proof-of-stake based private currency designs date at least back to 1998.
Oh I definitely agree that proof of work was superior for bootstrap, and I liked it back then especially because it actually managed to be reasonably egalitarian around 2009-2012 before ASICs fully took over. But at the present time it doesn't really have that nice attribute.
17/ Over the years, this has become a pattern in Ethereum’s culture: recycling old ideas while not properly referring to past research and having poor peer review standards. This is not how science progresses.Tuur Demeester added,
[email protected] has been repeatedly accused of /criticised for not crediting prior art. Once again with plasma:
I try to credit people whenever I can; half my blog and posts have a "special thanks" section right at the top. Sometimes we end up re-inventing stuff, and sometimes we end up hearing about stuff, forgetting it, and later re-inventing it; that's life as an autodidact. And if you feel you've been unfairly not credited for something, always feel free to comment, people have done this and I've edited.
18/ One of my big concerns is that sophistry and marketing hype is a serious part of Ethereum’s success so far, and that overly inflated expectations have lead to an inflated market cap.
Ok, go on.
19/ Let’s illustrate with an example.
20/ A few days ago, I shared a critical tweet that made the argument that Ethereum’s value proposition is in essence utopian.
@TuurDemeester Ethereum-ism sounds a bit like Marxism to me:
  • What works today (PoW) is 'just a phase', the ideal & unproven future is to come: Proof-of-Stake.…
21/ I was very serious about my criticism. In fact, each one of the three points addressed what Vitalik Buterin has described as “unique value propositions of Ethereum proper”.
22/ My first point, about Ethereum developers rejecting Proof-of-Work, has been illustrated many times over By Vitalik and others. (See earlier in this tweetstorm for more about how PoS is unproven.)
Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin: I don't believe in proof of work!
See above for links as to why I think proof of stake is great.
23/ My second point addresses Ethereum’s romance with the vague and dangerous notion of ‘social consensus’, where disruptive hard-forks are used to ‘upgrade’ or ‘optimize’ the system, which inevitably leads to increased centralization. More here:
See my rebuttal to Tuur's rebuttal :)
24/ My third point addresses PoS’ promise of perpetual income to ETHizens. Vitalik is no stranger to embracing free lunch ideas, e.g. during his 2014 ETH announcement speech, where he described a coin with a 20% inflation tax as having “no cost” to users.
Yeah, I haven't really emphasized perpetual income to stakers as a selling point in years. I actually favor rewards being as low as possible while still being high enough for security.
25/ In his response to my tweet, Vitalik adopted my format to “play the same game” in criticizing Bitcoin. My criticisms weren't addressed, and his response was riddled with errors. Yet his followers gave it +1,000 upvotes!
Vitalik Non-giver of Ether @VitalikButerin: - What works today (L1) is just a phase, ideal and unproven future (usable L2) is to come - Utopian concept of progress: we're already so confident we're finished we ain't needin no hard forks…
Ok, let's hear about what the errors are...
26/ Rebuttal: - BTC layer 1 is not “just a phase”, it always will be its definitive bedrock for transaction settlement. - Soft forking digital protocols has been the norm for over 3 decades—hard-forks are the deviation! - Satoshi never suggested hyperbitcoinization as a goal.
Sure, but (i) the use of layer 1 for consumer payments is definitely, in bitcoin ideology, "just a phase", (ii) I don't think you can make analogies between consensus protocols and other kinds of protocols, and between soft forking consensus protocols and protocol changes in other protocols, that easily, (iii) plenty of people do believe that hyperbitcoinization as a goal. Oh by the way:
27/ This kind of sophistry is exhausting and completely counter-productive, but it can be very convincing for an uninformed retail public.
Ok, go on.
28/ Let me share a few more inconvenient truths.
29/ In order to “guarantee” the transition to PoS’ utopia of perpetual income (staking coins earns interest), a “difficulty bomb” was embedded in the protocol, which supposedly would force miners to accept the transition.
The intended goal of the difficulty bomb was to prevent the protocol from ossifying, by ensuring that it has to hard fork eventually to reset the difficulty bomb, at which point the status quo bias in favor of not changing other protocol rules at the same time would be weaker. Though forcing a switch to PoS was definitely a key goal.
30/ Of course, nothing came of this, because anything in the ETH protocol can be hard-forked away. Another broken promise.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Looks like another Ethereum hard-fork is going to remove the "Ice Age" (difficulty increase meant to incentivize transition to PoS).
How is that a broken promise? There was no social contract to only replace the difficulty-bombed protocol with a PoS chain.
31/ Another idea that was marketed heavily early on, was that with ETH you could program smart contract as easily as javascript applications.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: I forgot, but in 2014 Ethereum was quite literally described as "Javascript-on-the-blockchain"
Agree that was over-optimistic, though the part of the metaphor that's problematic is the "be done with complex apps in a couple hours" part, NOT the "general-purpose languages are great" part.
32/ This was criticized by P2P & OS developers as a reckless notion, given that every smart contracts is actually a “de novo cryptographic protocol”. In other words, it’s playing with fire.
See above
33/ The modular approach to Bitcoin seems to be much better at compartmentalizing risk, and thus reducing attack surfaces. I’ve written about modular scaling here...
To be fair, risk is reduced because Bitcoin does less.
34/ Another huge issue that Ethereum has is with scaling. By putting “everything on the blockchain” (which stores everything forever) and dubbing it “the world computer”, you are going to end up with a very slow and clogged up system.
Christopher Allen @ChristopherA: AWS cost: $0.000000066 for calc, Ethereum: $26.55. This is about 400 million times as expensive. World computer?
We never advocated "putting everything on the blockchain". The phrase "world computer" was never meant to be interpreted as "everyone's personal desktop", but rather as a common platform specifically for the parts of applications that require consensus on shared state. As evidence of this, notice how Whisper and Swarm were part of the vision as complements to Ethereum right from the start.
35/ By now the Ethereum bloat is so bad that cheaply running an individual node is practically impossible for a lay person. ETH developers are also imploring people to not deploy more smart contract apps on its blockchain.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: But... deploying d-apps on the "Ethereum Virtual Machine" is exactly what everyone was encouraged to do for the past 4 years. Looks like on-chain scaling wasn't such a great idea after all.
Umm.... I just spun up a node from scratch last week. On a consumer laptop.
36/ As a result, and despite the claims that running a node in “warp” mode is easy and as good as a full node, Ethereum is becoming increasingly centralized.
@TuurDemeester Finally a media article touching on the elephant in the room: Ethereum has become highly centralized. #infura
See above
37/ Another hollow claim: in 2016, Ethereum was promoted as being censorship resistant…
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Pre TheDAO #Ethereum presentation: "uncensorable, code is law, bottom up".
Yes, the DAO fork did violate the notion of absolute immutability. However, the "forking the DAO will lead to doom and gloom" crowd was very wrong in one key way: it did NOT work as a precedent justifying all sorts of further state interventions. The community clearly drew a line in the sand by firmly rejecting EIP 867, and EIP 999 seems to now also be going nowhere. So it seems like there's some evidence that the social contract of "moderately but not infinitely strong immutability" actually can be stable.
38/ Yet later that year, after only 6% of ETH holders had cast a vote, ETH core devs decided to endorse a hard-fork that clawed back the funds from a smart contract that held 4.5% of all ETH in circulation. More here: ...
See above
39/ Other potential signs of centralization: Vitalik Buterin signing a deal with a Russian government institution, and ETH core developers experimenting with semi-closed meetings: …,
Hudson Jameson @hudsonjameson: The "semi-closed" Ethereum 1.x meeting from last Friday was an experiment. The All Core Dev meeting this Friday will be recorded as usual.
Suppose I were to tomorrow sign up to work directly for Kim Jong Un. What concretely would happen to the Ethereum protocol? I suspect very little; I am mostly involved in the Serenity work, and the other researchers have proven very capable of both pushing the spec forward even without me and catching any mistakes with my work. So I don't think any argument involving me applies. And we ended up deciding not to do more semi-closed meetings.
40/ Another red flag to me is the apparent lack of relevant expertise in the ETH development community. (Check the responses…)
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Often heard: "but Ethereum also has world class engineers working on the protocol". Please name names and relevant pedigree so I can follow and learn.
I personally am confident in the talents of our core researchers, and our community of academic partners. Most recently the latter group includes people from Starkware, Stanford CBR, IC3, and other groups.
41/ For a while, Microsoft veteran Lucius Meredith was mentioned as playing an important role in ETH scaling, but now he is likely distracted by the failure of his ETH scaling company RChain.
I have no idea who described Lucius Meredith's work as being important for the Serenity roadmap.... oh and by the way, RChain is NOT an "Ethereum scaling company"
42/ Perhaps the recently added Gandalf of Ethereum, with his “Fellowship of Ethereum Magicians” [sic] can save the day, but imo that seems unlikely...
Honestly, I don't see why Ethereum Gandalf needs to save the day, because I don't see what is in danger and needs to be saved...
43/ This is becoming a long tweetstorm, so let’s wrap up with a few closing comments.
44/ Do I have a conflict of interest? ETH is a publicly available asset with no real barriers to entry, so I could easily get a stake. Also, having met Vitalik & other ETH founders several times in 2013-’14, it would have been doable for me to become part of the in-crowd.
Agree there. And BTW I generally think financial conflicts of interest are somewhat overrated; social conflicts/tribal biases are the bigger problem much of the time. Though those two kinds of misalignments do frequently overlap and reinforce each other so they're difficult to fully disentangle.
45/ Actually, I was initially excited about Ethereum’s smart contract work - this was before one of its many pivots.
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: Ethereum is probably the first programming language I will teach myself - who wouldn't want the ability to program smart BTC contracts?
Ethereum was never about "smart BTC contracts"..... even "Ethereum as a Mastercoin-style meta-protocol" was intended to be built on top of Primecoin.
46/ Also, I have done my share of soul searching about whether I could be suffering from survivor’s bias.
@TuurDemeester I just published “I’m not worried about Bitcoin Unlimited, but I am losing sleep over Ethereum”
Ok, good.
47/ Here’s why Ethereum is dubious to me: rather than creating an open source project & testnet to work on these interesting computer science problems, its founders instead did a securities offering, involving many thousands of clueless retail investors.
What do you mean "instead of"? We did create an open source project and testnet! Whether or not ETH is a security is a legal question; seems like SEC people agree it's not:
48/ Investing in the Ethereum ICO was akin to buying shares in a startup that had “invent time travel” as part of its business plan. Imo it was a reckless security offering, and it set the tone for the terrible capital misallocation of the 2017 ICO boom.
Nothing in the ethereum roadmap requires time-travel-like technical advancements or anything remotely close to that. Proof: we basically have all the fundamental technical advancements we need at this point.
49/ In my view, Ethereum is the Yahoo of our day - an unscalable “blue chip” cryptocurrency:
Tuur Demeester @TuurDemeester: 1/ The DotCom bubble shows that the market isn't very good at valuing early stage technology. I'll use Google vs. Yahoo to illustrate.
Got it.
50/ I’ll close with a few words from Gregory Maxwell from 2016,:
See my rebuttal to Greg from 2 years ago:
submitted by shouldbdan to ethtrader [link] [comments]

BitTorrent inventor Bram Cohen on argues *against* a "simplistic plan" for scaling Bitcoin with "popular support" among "people who don't know any better" and want a "simple fix". He favors "people doing actual development who aren’t particularly good at talking". Here's why he's wrong.

Sorry Bram, but part of "real engineering work" often involves actually interacting with real users to solve their real problems, as quickly and as simply as possible (or as you prefer to dismissively put it in your essay: "people who don’t know any better" who are looking for a "simple fix").
This is why Bitcoin Classic is rapidly gaining consensus among major Bitcoin stakeholders, who are rejecting the needlessly slow & complicated roadmap from Core / Blockstream devs - who, as you yourself admit in your essay, "aren’t particularly good at talking" (or listening, for that matter).
Experience on successful real projects in the real world has shown us (with Satoshi's initial release of Bitcoin being a case in point) that the fastest, simplest and most popular solutions are actually often the best.
In the above essay, Bram Cohen, inventor of BitTorrent, makes the following arguments:
Mike Hearn, Jeff Garzik, and Gavin Andresen ... are doing a good job of whipping up popular support ...
They have a simplistic plan which appeals to people who don’t know any better or want to be told that technical problems can be made to magically go away with a simple fix.
On the other side are the people doing actual development, who aren’t particularly good at talking to the press or whipping up support on reddit and have a plan which requires real engineering work moving forwards.
There are several things seriously wrong with the Bram Cohen's central argument above:
(1) The first part of his statement above is obsolete and hence irrelevant.
Mike and Gavin did indeed previously support BIP 101 (smoothly scaling from 8 MB to 8 GB max blocksize by doubling every 2 years for 20 years) - but in the past week, things have changed dramatically, and the community has moved on:
  • Mike is gone, and it's become clear that support for BIP 101 / XT has dried up;
  • Gavin and Jeff support Bitcoin Classic, which is not BIP 101.
So Bram's comparison of Core's current roadmap with a deprecated roadmap (BIP 101) is now irrelevant.
All the buzz is around a recent new competing repo: Bitcoin Classic.
(2) The second part of Bram's statement above is wrong because it is precisely the simplicity and "appealingness" of Bitcoin Classic which are its strengths.
He dismisses those factors as if they were bad things - but they're actually good things.
The main reason for the past year of impasse is that all previously proposed solutions weren't simple and appealing enough to gain any actual consensus (among the actual users themselves - I don't mean among the devs at a single, out-of-touch and ultimately replaceable team: Core / Blockstream).
Bitcoin Classic's only initial change is to do an immediate bump to merely 2 MB - while also providing, long-term, a more democratic, transparent means of governance - based not on Core / Blockstream devs ACKing and NACKing pull-requests on the GitHub repo - but rather on a much more inclusive and deliberative multi-phase process.
The fact of being simple and inclusive (which Bram erroneously dismisses as being "simplistic" and "popular" by which he presumably means "populist") is precisely why Bitcoin Classic has been rapidly gaining consensus among all stakeholders in the Bitcoin community: miners, users, devs and businesses:
Bram can talk all he wants on about what might have been, and about how his favorite dev team knows better than actual users (who he insultingly dismisses as "people who don't know any better").
But figuring out how to safely and quickly and simply scale Bitcoin (which is the main issue right now) might not be the exclusive province of C/C++ devs who code in isolation all day.
In fact, as we are now seeing, it turns out that there are other stakeholders in the Bitcoin space who might actually have better ideas on how to do this kind of scaling.
So it's wrong (as well as being elitist) for Bram to dismissively insult such stakeholders as "people who don't know any better" - particularly because in many cases, what we're actually talking about here are major companies with annual revenues in the millions of dollars, with qualified dev teams of their own.
To take just one obvious example: look at Coinbase. They were banned from /Bitcoin and by Theymos for daring to announce that they were testing XT - in order to serve better serve their users under all possible scenarios in the future.
Coinbase, as we know, also happens to be one of the major on-ramps for many new Bitcoin users, since they're a major US-registered financial institution.
And Coinbase also happens to have the technical and engineering expertise to have written their own open-source fully-validating Bitcoin node from scratch based on Ruby and PostgreSQL.
This is kind of Bitcoin stakeholders that Bram is insulting and dismissing when he talks about "people who don't know any better": a company which basically produced a clone of the full-node part of Core. And note that Coinbase wrote this from scratch in different langauges (Ruby and PostgreSQL), instead of inheriting (some would say "hijacking") Satoshi's orignal C/C++ codebase.
So Bram is simply being rude and mean when he dismisses a major company like Coinbase as being merely "people who don't know any better". Bitcoin expertise is not confined to Core / Blockstream devs.
In fact, there is new breed of Bitcoin experts emerging now - people who know more about the challenges Bitcoin faces today (eg, scaling and network topology) rather than the challenges Bitcoin faced in the past (eg, hasing and crypto).
Two names are worth mentioning among this new wave of experts:
  • Dr Peter R. Rizun - who has also joined Bitcoin Classic now - and who has been terribly maligned and censored by Core / Blockstream:
Dr Peter R. Rizun, managing editor of the first peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal, is an important Bitcoin researcher. He has also been attacked and censored for months by Core / Blockstream / Theymos. Now, he has now been suspended (from all subreddits) by some Reddit admin(s). Why?
  • Cornell researcher Emin Gün Sirer
Miners produce a generic COMMODITY: transactions included in blocks on the chain. If certain miners refuse to produce ENOUGH of this commodity, then they CAN and WILL be REPLACED. (Important reminders from Cornell researcher Emin Gün Sirer)
Look, I really like the stuff that Pieter Wuille is doing with SegWit - and I also really like the stuff that Greg Maxwell could contribute with Confidential Transactions (but please just ignore the few posters in this search-link who worry that CT is "dangerous" because quantum computing might come along someday.). (Although I think that any such major upgrades should be done as a hard-fork, which is more explicit and thus safer than a soft-fork).
So there is room for many types of devs in Bitcoin, and there is exciting work to be done long-term.
But Bram's essay is really about scaling now. And Core / Blockstream has not provided any solutions available now, nor have they researched what users really want and need now.
Thus it's understandable that users are gravitating towards a new dev team which can deliver a "simple fix" - in this case, Bitcoin Classic. And that's normal and healthy.
(3) Finally, there's plenty of owners of major multi-million-dollar mining operations who Bram also dismisses as "people who don’t know any better", people who believe in "magic" or a "simple fix".
At the same time, Bram inexplicably praises a bunch of devs who - as he himself admits - "aren't particularly good at talking" or "whipping up support" - while ignoring the fact that it is is precisely this lack of communication skills which got us into this whole mess. Core / Blockstream are screwing up the short-term and long-term project management of Bitcoin, because they have shown that they are totally incapable of coming up with a realistic roadmap which the community could actually support. (They may have their own reasons for the strange way they prioritized their roadmap, but we don't really know - there's lots of theories out there.)
On the other hand, the people behind Bitcoin Classic (not mentioned by Bram here, as he focuses instead on the obsolete strawman of Mike Hearn / BIP 101), have proven themselves to be "particularly good at talking" (and more important: listening) to actual users and major businesses, in order figure out a a safe, reasonable and practical "simple fix" to satisfy users' needs and requirements now.
Specifically, jtoomim (founder of Bitcoin Classic) has done extensive research, interacting with miners all over the world - on both sides of the Great Firewall of China.
As it turns out (and as stated by Gavin, another lead dev on Bitcoin Classic) the Great Firewall of China, and the concentration of so much mining on the "other" side of it, is one of the main obstacles to simple "blocksize-based" scaling solutions.
So Gavin previously experimented with 20 MB blocks, and more recently jtoomim experimented with 2-3 MB - in the field - producing empirical evidence that 2-3 MB blocks are feasible and acceptable to miners now.
This is the very definition of a "simple fix", with massive "support" from the people who matter: the miners themselves.
And this kind of research with users in the field is exactly what Bitcoin needs now - despite the fact that it might not a sexy enough engineering-based solution to satisfy Bram Cohen and the out-of-touch devs at Core / Blockstream, who have proven themselves time and time again to be unable and/or unwilling to do deliver a simple, popular scaling solution.
So by isolating themselves in their bubble of censorship to focus on elegant engineering, and avoiding the messy public forums where open debate actually occurs - and openly scorning their users (Greg Maxwell calling /btc a "cesspool" and more recently supporting Luke-Jr's attempt to sabotage Bitcoin Classic by injecting a poison-pill pull request to change the PoW and kick all miners off the network, Peter Todd releasing RBF over massive protests and recently doing a gray-hat double-spend against major US-registered Bitcoin financial processor Coinbase) - Core / Blockstream have shown themselves to be arrogant and out of touch, and have alienated the Bitcoin community by being willing jeopardize the network as they chant their mantra that "there's no emergency yet".
This is people are rejecting Core / Blockstream's so-called "scaling" roadmap (which unfortunately includes no "simple fix" - ie a minimal blocksize-based solution acceptable to the community - and instead relies on complicated, untested, fancy code such as SegWit and LN - which be might good later but which aren't ready now).
It's too little and too late, too slow and too complicated (and possibly vaporware).
Instead, people want the simpler, faster and field-tested solutions researched and developed by the devs over at the new repo: Bitcoin Classic.
Bram Cohen is needlessly focusing in his essay on what used-to-be and what might-have-been and what could-be-someday.
Meanwhile the researchers and developers at Bitcoin Classic, like Gavin and JToomim, have been focusing on the here-and-now.
In this sense, the Bitcoin Classic researchers and developers are closer to Satoshi, with his preference for practical solutions which work "good enough" to be implemented now, instead of "perfect" solutions which are so complicated that they might never get implemented at all.
Also recall that several major Core / Blockstream devs didn't believe Bitcoin would work:
  • Gregory Maxwell "mathematically proved" that Bitcoin would be "impossible" (ignoring a little thing like "complexity" - which shows that he might not be that well-rounded, since many mathematicians are indeed familiar with "complexity theory", involving termination, NP, and all that fun stuff).
  • Adam Back missed out on being an earlier adopter of Bitcoin even when tipped off by Satoshi (Adam had invented an earlier prototype called HashCash, but in his case he ignored how inflation might work - which shows that he also might not be that well-rounded, since many economists in the real world do indeed know how currency inflation works).
  • Peter Todd is an odd case, focusing on breaking things that aren't broken in order to petulantly prove a point (so he might be good in Testing or Threat Assessment, but he's probably not the kind of guy you want in Project Management).
These are the kinds of people Bram is arguing we should to support - people whose track record of being right on Bitcoin has been spotty at best, often because they're more interested in spending ages solving complicated engineering problems rather than in providing "simple fixes" for real users in the real world.
Meanwhile, guys like Gavin, JGarzik, and JToomim - all of whom are involved with Bitcoin Classic - are operating more in the spirit of Satoshi - they've been working closely with real users in the real world, figuring out what they really need and want and getting ready to actually deliver it, soon - which is why consensus among users, miners, devs and businesses has been rapidly coalescing around the new competing repo Bitcoin Classic.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Tonal Quantum Network - new decentralized own platform for instant information transfer which include
Visit our WEBSITE
The Tonal Quantum Network platform (TOQ) – seeks to become world single currency for instant information transfer. The stable and predicted cryptocurrency with quarterly increase in obligations. An opportunity to carry out safe transactions with use of popular cryptocurrency, such as: Bitcoin, Ethereum, Ripple, Monero, ZEC and other cryptocurrency.
The initial purpose of Tonal Quantum – instant payment of mobile network operator through a uniform purse from any point of the world with the minimum commission and also a conclusion and exchange of cryptocurrency without intermediaries and an additional fee.
Main goal of Tonal Quantum – creation of the decentralized own platform for instant information transfer which include:
  1. Confirmation of identity and value (without intermediaries).
  2. Crediting
  3. Sponsorship and investments
  4. Insurance of value and risk management
  5. Accounting of value
We will sort in more detail
1.Confirmation of identity and value. Now we rely on large intermediaries to establish the confidential relations and to confirm identity of other party in financial transaction. These intermediaries act as arbitrators in access to basic financial services, such as bank accounts and loans. Tonal Quantum Network will lower and will even eliminate need for trust for certain transactions. Our service will also allow participants to support confirmed, full-function and cryptographic the protected electronic profiles and to establish the confidential relations, when necessary.
2.Crediting. From a mortgage to short-term bills of Tonal Quantum Network will simplify issuance of credits: the credit cards, mortgage loans, corporate, municipal and state bonds, securities provided with assets. Now crediting has generated a number of additional branches for check of solvency, maintaining credit history, purpose of credit ratings. For individuals the credit history, for the organizations – credit rating, from "an investment class" to "garbage" is the most important here. In Tonal Quantum Network any will be able to release, exchange and settle traditional debt obligations directly, thereby reducing expenses and risk, and increasing the speed and transparency. Consumers will be able to obtain loans directly the same consumers. It is especially important for users not covered bank service and for businessmen worldwide.
3.Sponsorship and investments. Investment into an asset, the company or the new enterprise gives to the person the chance to receive on it profitability in the form of increase in cost of the capital, dividends, percent, a rent and their various combinations. The branch creates the markets, bringing together investors with businessmen and owners of the companies at all stages of development. Attraction of financial resources usually demands intermediaries: for example, investment banks, venture investors, lawyers. Tonal Quantum Network automates their many functions, will make possible use of new models for direct peer-to-peer financing and also will make record of dividends and payment of coupons more effective, transparent and reliable.
4.Insurance of value and risk management. Risk management and its special case, insurance, is intended for protection of individuals and the companies against unforeseen losses or accident. In a broader sense risk management in the financial markets has generated assemblies of derivatives, difficult structured financial products and other financial instruments for hedging against unpredictable or uncontrollable events. By the last calculations, the par value of all large publicly available derivative securities is 600 trillion dollars. Tonal Quantum Network will support the decentralized insurance models that does use of derivative securities for risk management by much more transparent. The system of reputation based on the social and economic capital of the person, his actions and other reputation parameters will allow insurers to understand much more clearly actuarial risk and to make decisions is more informed.
5.Accounting of values. Accounting is a measurement, processing and transfer of financial information on participants of economic processes. This multi-billion branch is controlled by four giants of audit: Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu, PricewaterhouseCoopers, Ernst & Young and KPMG. Traditional practicians of accounting won't cope with the speed and complexity of modern finance. New methods, the applying distributed register Tonal Quantum Network, will make audit and financial statements transparent, and will allow conducting them in real time. Also Tonal Quantum Network considerably will expand a possibility of regulators and other interested persons to keep track of financial activity in corporation.
The new platform allows uniting in real time digital data practically on everything on light. "The register of all" is necessary. Business, trade and economy need digital notation.
How does it concern personally you? We are convinced that the truth is capable to release us and that the distributed trust will exert considerable impact on the person in all spheres of life. Perhaps, you the responsible consumer who wants to learn from where actually meat for his beefsteak has arrived. The immigrant to who has bothered to overpay for money transfers to family on the far homeland. The humanitarian worker who needs to define owners of land possession to restore the houses destroyed by an earthquake. The citizen who wants that activity of politicians became transparent and accountable. To have an opportunity to unmistakably identify the identity of other person to translate and exchange money without confirmation of the third party, for example bank which also demands some percent from the transaction. Thanks to our Tonal Quantum Network through the smart contract the businessman will be able to automate many aspects of activity of the company: purchases, compensation, percent on the credit, financial audit in real time.
«PEER-TO-PEER» or "without intermediaries"
Now there are many huge companies which help to connect the consumer with the supplier. But change of the centralized company the distributed P2P Tonal Quantum application (Peer-to-Peer Tonal Quantum) will come.
For example:
When the tenant looks for the room, the software of P2P Tonal Quantum looks through contents of our blockchain network, finds all offers and shows to the user what corresponds to the set filter. As the network writes down information on transaction in blockchain, the positive review of the user strengthens reputation both the tenant and the lessor and identifies their personality – but now without intermediary.
For the first time in the history of the party will be able, without knowing each other and without trusting each other, to conclude bargains and to run business. Confirmation of the personality and establishment of trust have stopped being the right and the privilege of the financial intermediary. Moreover, in the context of financial services the protocol of trust will gain new value. Tonal Quantum Network will be able to establish the confidential relations when they are necessary, having confirmed identity and solvency of each party by means of history of transactions (in blockchain), values of reputation (on the basis of the aggregated responses) and other socioeconomic indicators.
Our system at the moment works at Blockchain Ethereum, and will pass to the new Blockchain platform soon – Tonal Quantum Network with use of Quantum and computing technologies. On him the Tonal Quantum Network will also be built. Work with quantum – logical elements which are at the same time in superposition of states "0" and "1" is the cornerstone of quantum calculators. At measurement of qubit there is a destruction of superposition and with some probability one of these two states drops out. Operations over qubits change probability of loss of this or that value. In usual computer tasks (for example, additions of numbers), the quantum system won't be able to bypass classical, but the situation changes when in a task search of a huge number of options and optimization of multicomponent system is required. Specialized tests of the calculator, according to the company, have shown his superiority over classical processors by 1000 – 10 000 times. In the world there are no universal quantum computers capable to cope with any tasks yet, however there are worked methods and the principles of calculations and already now will allow our Tonal Quantum Network to solve super difficult tasks. Our investors are interested in our project and at present negotiations with the company on gaining access to Quantum and computing technologies for support of our Tonal Quantum Network are conducted. Classical schemes of blockchain are used generally only for cryptocurrency, and our Tonal Quantum Network will be applied to drawing up smart contracts, storage of information on intellectual property rights and other data. A task of quantum network Tonal Quantum Network to secure classical schemes against unauthorized signing up in network. Besides, in the new concept there is no classical paradigm of Blockchain that any participant of network can form blocks. Instead generation of blocks will happen is decentralized. Our system is capable to support functioning even if a third of knots will "unfair" behave.
The TOQ cryptocurrency will be written on a new algorithm, for our platform. The main power will be allocated for support of Tonal Quantum Network, and other power will use the PoS mode (Proof-of-stake) for this TOQ cryptocurrency.
Power Quantum Netowrk
65% of capacity allocated to support Blockchain network
20% capacities for support of transactions in network
15% capacities for production of cryptocurrency of network to users
Advantages our system
  1. All network Tonal Quantum will be decentralized, and all operations will be supported by Tonal Quantum Network that gives advantages to users to pay the minimum transaction commission.
  2. This commission will go for ensuring maintenance and development of the platform.
  3. Transactions will take place for only a few seconds.
  4. The system will also work in two modes: PoS (Proof-of-Stake) and PoW (Proof-of-Work).
  5. For miners of PoW the separate pool which will reward miners without the commission of a pool will be started.
  6. For holders of coins of PoS all coins got by system will be automatically charged to users (holders of coins). Charge will be calculated based on the ratio of 40000:1.
All coins got in the PoS mode will be distributed equally, depending on quantity of the coins which are stored in the user's purse.
From these transfers you at any time can pay the bill of mobile network operator or exchange them for any other cryptocurrency without the commission.
After start of the Tonal Quantum Network blockchain-platform anyone will be able to participate in a procedure of migration of a token from the Ethereum platform, on the Tonal Quantum Network blockchain-platform at a course 1 to 1 at which the holder of TOQ will have all stated additional opportunities.
Also the Tonal Quantum Network Cryptocurrency exchange where there will be auction not only to TOQ coin, but also to tokens, created on the Tonal Quantum Network platform will be started.
Service offers instant exchange at this rate of cryptocurrency and without the commission to make exchange for a coin of TOQ or for other cryptocurrency and to make payment.
Our service on a straight line contacts bank and sends money to the mobile operator with converting in different currencies (USD, EURO, RUR).
The operator in turn sends transaction to the user and deducts 2% of amount of transfer in our bank and these bonuses will be included in money transfers.
The initial Tonal Quantum Network platform will allow users to make online translations, payments for the mobile operator and trade in cryptocurrency through our service. Payment will happen both to a token (TOQ), and to any other token, also service gives an opportunity to users instantly to exchange any cryptocurrency for TOQ without the commission.
Likely many faced a problem of exchange of cryptocurrency. It is a lot of companies and various services (websites) give this opportunity and respectively take the decent commission for these manipulations.
We, offer you a conclusion of cryptocurrency through our uniform service which will work for a straight line with bank.
We seek to simplify daily actions and to reduce losses which meet in our life absolutely everywhere.
We won't entice investors beautiful pictures and advertising.
Those purposes which we have told you above and those financial means which we could spend for advertising, Are important for us will go specifically for creation of the Tonal Quantum Network platform.
We undertake to submit the report on each our done work to our investors!
Symbol of crypto currency TOQ
Soft Cap $4 500 000
Hard Cap $25 000 000
We accept payment ETH
Distribution of Tokens April 2018
Emission TOQ 300 000 000 generation in
Smart Contract 700 000 000 TOQ Total Quantity
Number of tokens TOQ 1 000 000 000 TOQ
The development team 8 % (80 000 000 TOQ)
Available to distribution 92 % (920 000 000 TOQ)
submitted by TonaQuantumNetwork to u/TonaQuantumNetwork [link] [comments]

Ethereum Research Directions

Hello potential research collaborator! Rumour has it that you, a researcher or manager of researchers, are interested in joint research with the Ethereum Foundation. Below are the primary topics the Foundation will be thinking about for the next 2-3 years. If you, like us, enjoy the prospect of thinking about one or more of these topics for the majority of your waking hours, do get in touch. The Foundation does have money to pay the salaries/stipend of those undertaking high-value research.
We have topics in both pure research and applied research. The Foundation as well as the larger Ethereum community seek help on both. Typical outputs from researchers are: peer-reviewed academic papers, technical reports, and/or implementations (prototypes as well as production-ready).
Questions in Fundamental Research Q1: Can we create a theory of cryptoeconomic mechanisms? There are certain patterns that are often used in cryptoeconomic mechanisms. These can be studied in the abstract independently of any specific use case. Security deposits (see also proof of stake) How do we model capital lockup costs? Dual-use of security deposits Challenge-response games (one group of actors is given the opportunity to submit evidence that fact X is false, and if no one submits evidence within some period of time, then X is assumed to be true). See also challenge-response authentication. Channels State channels How do we minimize the vulnerability of challenge-response games and channels to liveness or censorship faults of the underlying blockchain? Escalation games Cross-chain interoperability (see the R3 interoperability paper ) Relays Hash timelock atomic swaps Q2: What is the role of cryptoeconomics in distributed systems? What is the role of economics in cryptography? Can we formalize how algorithmic incentives (“cryptoeconomics”) can enhance information security?
Modeling behavior of participants in mechanisms
Simple (crash) faults Byzantine faults (arbitrary) Byzantine-Altruistic-Rational (BAR) model Uncoordinated majority (e.g., as in selfish mining) Coordinated choice Bribing attacker (as in P+epsilon attacks or iceman) Behavioral economics models (prospect theory, endowment effect, loss aversion, morality, etc.) Complex game-theoretic interactions
Blackmail Quantifying cooperative interactions among agents (e.g. dynamic coalition formation) Evolution and enforcements of group norms Q3: How do distributed systems influence current economics? On net, when and how much does decentralization lower transaction costs? No obvious answer. Decentralization _decreases_transaction costs because of: Reduced number of counterparties and reduced need for building trust Yet decentralization increases transaction costs because of: increased technical overhead, Decreased usability, increased responsibility. Are Transaction costs = transaction fees + coordination costs? Q4: Within game-theory, can we quantify coordination costs? for players running a particular protocol for players executing a particular strategy Q5: What are ways we can manipulate (e.g., guarantee/minimize) coordination costs? For example, we can reduce risk by increasing coordination costs. Coordination costs are costs from multiple-agents coordinating. For example: Discovering potential peers, agreeing on computing coalition strategies, synchronization required for execution, costs of proving to the coalition that players followed coalition strategies, cost of getting rid of individual incentives to deviate Q6: What protocols have better fault attribution? A protocol fault is uniquely attributable if there is evidence that could be used to umambiguously convince any observer which actor caused the protocol fault. If a fault is non-uniquely-attributable, the blame for the fault can often at least be narrowed down to within N specific actors.
Fault attributability in various consensus algorithms
Chain-based (synchronous) consensus Partially synchronous consensus (see minimal slashing conditions) Common coins in asynchronous consensus Attributability of censorship or liveness faults.
Translating fault attributions into penalties
Shapley values Q7: What are decentralization’s fundamental limits? Building on hundreds of impossibility results. E.g., 1 and 2, or even fundamental limits from other areas of computer science.
What centralized protocols can be decentralized (while preserving guarantees)? At what cost in protocol overhead? Are there limits to scalability? For Bitcoin: On Scaling Decentralized Blockchains Only because of the requirement for shared state? At what cost in incentivization? What are the limits to incentivization? Limits to attribution Limits to mechanism budgets With how much security (against coordinated choice, trusted majority required)? Limits to fault tolerance e.g. in objective protocols and subjective protocols Objectives in Applied Research Also knows as Pasteur’s Quadrant.
Right now our primary topics in applied research are: plasma, sharding, and Casper.
  1. Base Layer (core protocols) 1.1 Plasma and Sharding [49%] Goal: Allow Ethereum transaction capacity to scale to better than linear with computational capacity of the n nodes.
Sharding FAQ
Stateless clients
State channels
Plasma implementation
Data availability proofs [65%]
A note on data availability and erasure coding Effective state-space partitioning / Cross-shard communication [15%]
Vitalik’s R3 paper, particularly Section “scalability” (p20-30). The whole paper also has a three-page executive summary. High-Level-Languages [20%]
Topic: Developing a language that knows to send the cross-shard asynchronous messages whenever contracts are located on different shards. Topic: Applying prior theory from multicore CPUs/parallel threading to sharding.
1.2 Proof of Stake [70% complete] Goal: Fully transition Ethereum from Proof-of-work to Proof-of-stake.
Casper the Friendly Finality Gadget
Cryptocurrencies without Proof of Work
Proof of stake FAQ
Economic Incentive analysis [49%]
Ouroboros: A Provably Secure Proof-of-Stake Blockchain Protocol Minimum Slashing Conditions Slasher Ghost, and Other Developments in Proof of Stake Least Authority Performs Incentive Analysis For Ethereum Demystifying incentives in the consensus computer On Stake Safety Under Dynamic Validator Sets Delegation protocols (or Voting Pool for PoS) [20%]
Using trusted hardware Formal Verification [45%]
Formal methods on some PoS stuff A mechanized safety proof with dynamic validators Formal methods on another Casper Testing and Implementation [20%]
History of Casper: Chapters 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 Stage 1 CASPER contract and JSON RPC demo 1.3 Protocol Economics [50%] Goal: Increase economic incentive confluence in all aspects of the Ethereum protocol.
Gas Limit Policy / state-resource pricing
A theory of Blockchain Resoure Pricing [not ready for release; ask Virgil for link to pre-release] Topic: Validatominer economic policy—how much should we pay out?
1.4 Stategies for efficaciously hardforking for upgrades [40%] Goal: Smart-contracts are new territory and the best ideas in the space remain undiscovered. When we discover them, we must be able to roll them out gracefully.
Hard Forks, Soft Forks, Defaults and Coercion
The beautiful Vlad Zamfir on Soft forks, hard forks, and the Ethereum Social Contract
Topic: Hardforking the EVM
1.5 Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM) upgrades and optimization [100%] Goal: Have a fast, efficient virtual machine optimized for processing cryptographic operations and smart-contracts. Update: Solved! We’re moving to eWASM!
  1. Layer 2 2.1 On-chain Random Number Generation [63%] Goal: This is an important special-case necessary for many applications. We wish to solve it.
Implementation Ethereum’s RANDAO A candidate alternative design from Vitalik Bitcoin Beacon On Bitcoin as a public randomness source NIST Randomness Beacon Bitcoin Beacon — Princeton Bitcoin seminar final project Tor project’s attempt at the same. 2.2 Privacy [40%] Goal: Allow apps to benefit from the transparency of blockchain-execution while preserving author privacy and the confidentiality of zer data. One solution, among several, is homomorphic encryption.
General: Privacy on the Blockchain
Mixers [30%] Bitcoin mixing remains an unsolved problem. As what’s possible in Ethereum is a strict superset of Bitcoin, solving for either case is sufficient. Incentivized Mixing?
Princeton Bitcoin course: Anonymity (Lecture 6) An Empirical Analysis of Linkability in the Monero Blockchain CoinParty: Secure Multi-Party Mixing of Bitcoins Secure and Anonymous Decentralized Bitcoin Mixing Decentralized Mixer based on RingSignature Laundromat: Mixing via ring signatures Voting [10%]
A Smart Contract for Boardroom Voting with Maximum Voter Privacy Zero knowlege proofs [30%]
ZK-Snarks Other
Confidential assets 2.3 Decentralized exchanges [50%] Goal: We wish to minimize the necessity of trusted third parties in currency exchanges.
Atomic swap on-chain decentralized exchanges mkr market etherdelta 2.4 High-level-languages (HLLs) [40%] Goal: Coding contracts (especially secure ones!) is hard. It should be easier. Please help us.
Our packet for recruiting PLT researchers.
Solidity Viper Pact Composing contrats: an adventure in finanial engineering Ivy Bamboo functional-solidity-language Pax Codex Hammurabi Project in Wolfram Language Formal Verification of HLLs [15%]
Formal Certification of a Compiler Back-end or: Programming a Compiler with a Proof Assistant Short Paper: Formal Verification of Smart Contracts Other programming language techniques to analyse smart contracts
Oyente, a symbolic execution based analyser for smart contracts Using Oyente to optimize smart contracts Defensive programming [30%]
Step by Step Towards Creating a Safe Smart Contract: Lessons and Insights from a Cryptocurrency Lab A Programmer’s Guide to Ethereum and Serpent A survey of attacks on Ethereum smart contracts Thinking About Smart Contract Security Ethereum Contract Security Techniques and Tips 2.5 Better Tokens, better token sales Goal: Understand how to design and manipulate tokens for specific properties, particularly paying attention to better ICOs
Vitalik on his Interactive Coin Offering The MiniMe/ERC223 talk from DEVCON3 An Optimal ICO mechanism Better ICOs category on All about DAICOs Appendix Ethereum’s old list of open problems. Relevant Conferences Research communities whose interests intersect with Ethereum’s research include (in alphabetical order, non-exhaustive):
Algorithmic Game Theory. ACM Conference on Economics and Computation, Conference on Web and Internet Economics, Symposium on Algorithmic Game Theory, International Conference on Game Theory Blockchain. Annual Blockchain Summit, Coinfest, Consensus, Internet of Things World, Workshop on Bitcoin and Blockchain Research Computer Security. ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security, IEEE Computer Security Foundations Symposium, USENIX Security Symposium Cryptography. CRYPTO (International Association for Cryptologic Research), EUROCRYPT (Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques) Distributed Computation. ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing, ACM Symposium on Parallelism in Algorithms and Architectures Multi-Agent Systems. International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Sytems, AAAI Conference on Artificial Intelligence, International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence
submitted by gwood333 to stellar1 [link] [comments]

HOW TO EARN 10BTC IN ONE DAY ✅ BITCOIN MINER 2020✅ FEBRUARY LEGIT FOR MAC OS / WINDOWS Blockchain Hack Script 2020✌️ GENERATES✌️ Unlimited Bitcoin FREE 100% WORKING✌️ Free Blockchain Hack 2020 GENERATES Unlimited Bitcoin ... BITCOIN GENERATOR 2020. FREE BITCOIN MINER 2020. 100% LEGIT BITCOIN MONEY GENERATOR. Blockchain Hack 2020 GENERATES Unlimited Bitcoin 100% WORKING bitcoin hacked

Thus, a POS miner is seen to be limited to mining transactions that are directly proportional to the stake of his ownership stake. Another potential risk of POW is that in the years to come, there will be very few miners left due to the unavailability of reward from mining. Why POS coins? As we saw earlier, POW based mining activities require a lot of energy and high-performance computers ... Economy – Applications, Bitcoin economy; Cryptocurrency mining – Mining basics, Mining types – (solo/pool/cloud), Bitcoin Pool mining, Bitcoin mining hardware, Bitcoin mining software, Ethereum mining, Setting up GUI miner for mining with slushpool; Swapping currencies – changelly, shapeshift Bitcoin and mining.. What is blockcypher! Rupee crashed! COS info. Internet security technologies. Anthony watson md. How is currency made in america. Crypto currencys. How do you get 208 volts. Human therapeutics. Replacement unlimited china. Browden. Edward choi. Okex platform wikipedia. What is cryptocurrency xmr wallet how to creatw a favicon. Zebpay altcoin. review. Bitcoin and ... Miners, who verify and add the transactions to the blockchain, receive a bitcoin miner fee. This fee does not go to the payment service but is given to reward the miners for their work done for ... New data showing that Bitcoin miners are beginning to hoard the cryptocurrency rather than sending it to BTC exchanges for a quick sale. ... One possibility is the miner community might be expecting a big price rally at some point down the road. Another is miners might be worried the market is looking weak or thin: If they transferred their bitcoins to an exchange en route to cashing out, the ...

[index] [42863] [24931] [32658] [30879] [3778] [9905] [47316] [23211] [34163] [38498]


Onecoin promised the world, but only proved to be a trail of destruction. --- About ColdFusion --- ColdFusion is an Australian based online media company ind... bitcoin mining, bitcoin, btc, bitcoin miner, free bitcoin mining, cryptocurrency, voskcoin, mining, how to mine bitcoin, btc mining, best bitcoin miner, blockchain, crypto mining, mining bitcoin ... 야상곡 20번 This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Also I will make videos about soft for Steam, Origin and UPlay. Stay in touch.⚡ -----🏷️tags: free bitcoin, bitcoin, bitcoin mining, btc generator download, free eth adder, soft to get ...