Bitcoin XT Block Size Increase: What is Proposed and How ...

Crypto Banking Wars: Will Coinbase or Binance Become The Bank of The Future?

Crypto Banking Wars: Will Coinbase or Binance Become The Bank of The Future?
Can the early success of major crypto exchanges propel them to winning the broader consumer finance market?
https://reddit.com/link/i48t4q/video/v4eo10gom7f51/player
This is the first part of Crypto Banking Wars — a new series that examines what crypto-native company is most likely to become the bank of the future. Who is best positioned to reach mainstream adoption in consumer finance?
While crypto allows the world to get rid of banks, a bank will still very much be necessary for this powerful technology to reach the masses. We believe a crypto-native company, like Genesis Block, will become the bank of the future.
In an earlier series, Crypto-Powered, we laid out arguments for why crypto-native companies have a huge edge in the market. When you consider both the broad spectrum of financial use-cases and the enormous value unlocked through these DeFi protocols, you can see just how big of an unfair advantage blockchain tech becomes for companies who truly understand and leverage it. Traditional banks and fintech unicorns simply won’t be able to keep up.
The power players of consumer finance in the 21st century will be crypto-native companies who build with blockchain technology at their core.
The crypto landscape is still nascent. We’re still very much in the fragmented, unbundled phase of the industry lifecycle. Beyond what Genesis Block is doing, there are signs of other companies slowly starting to bundle financial services into what could be an all-in-one bank replacement.
So the key question that this series hopes to answer:
Which crypto-native company will successfully become the bank of the future?
We obviously think Genesis Block is well-positioned to win. But we certainly aren’t the only game in town. In this series, we’ll be doing an analysis of who is most capable of thwarting our efforts. We’ll look at categories like crypto exchanges, crypto wallets, centralized lending & borrowing services, and crypto debit card companies. Each category will have its own dedicated post.
Today we’re analyzing big crypto exchanges. The two companies we’ll focus on today are Coinbase (biggest American exchange) and Binance (biggest global exchange). They are the top two exchanges in terms of Bitcoin trading volume. They are in pole position to winning this market — they have a huge existing userbase and strong financial resources.
Will Coinbase or Binance become the bank of the future? Can their early success propel them to winning the broader consumer finance market? Is their growth too far ahead for anyone else to catch up? Let’s dive in.
https://preview.redd.it/lau4hevpm7f51.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=2c5de1ba497199f36aa194e5809bd86e5ab533d8

Binance

The most formidable exchange on the global stage is Binance (Crunchbase). All signs suggest they have significantly more users and a stronger balance sheet than Coinbase. No other exchange is executing as aggressively and relentlessly as Binance is. The cadence at which they are shipping and launching new products is nothing short of impressive. As Tushar Jain from Multicoin argues, Binance is Blitzscaling.
Here are some of the products that they’ve launched in the last 18 months. Only a few are announced but still pre-launch.
Binance is well-positioned to become the crypto-powered, all-in-one, bundled solution for financial services. They already have so many of the pieces. But the key question is:
Can they create a cohesive & united product experience?

Binance Weaknesses

Binance is strong, but they do have a few major weaknesses that could slow them down.
  1. Traders & Speculators Binance is currently very geared for speculators, traders, and financial professionals. Their bread-and-butter is trading (spot, margin, options, futures). Their UI is littered with depth charts, order books, candlesticks, and other financial concepts that are beyond the reach of most normal consumers. Their product today is not at all tailored for the broader consumer market. Given Binance’s popularity and strength among the pro audience, it’s unlikely that they will dumb down or simplify their product any time soon. That would jeopardize their core business. Binance will likely need an entirely new product/brand to go beyond the pro user crowd. That will take time (or an acquisition). So the question remains, is Binance even interested in the broader consumer market? Or will they continue to focus on their core product, the one-stop-shop for pro crypto traders?
  2. Controversies & Hot Water Binance has had a number of controversies. No one seems to know where they are based — so what regulatory agencies can hold them accountable? Last year, some sensitive, private user data got leaked. When they announced their debit card program, they had to remove mentions of Visa quickly after. And though the “police raid” story proved to be untrue, there are still a lot of questions about what happened with their Shanghai office shut down (where there is smoke, there is fire). If any company has had a “move fast and break things” attitude, it is Binance. That attitude has served them well so far but as they try to do business in more regulated countries like America, this will make their road much more difficult — especially in the consumer market where trust takes a long time to earn, but can be destroyed in an instant. This is perhaps why the Binance US product is an empty shell when compared to their main global product.
  3. Disjointed Product Experience Because Binance has so many different teams launching so many different services, their core product is increasingly feeling disjointed and disconnected. Many of the new features are sloppily integrated with each other. There’s no cohesive product experience. This is one of the downsides of executing and shipping at their relentless pace. For example, users don’t have a single wallet that shows their balances. Depending on if the user wants to do spot trading, margin, futures, or savings… the user needs to constantly be transferring their assets from one wallet to another. It’s not a unified, frictionless, simple user experience. This is one major downside of the “move fast and break things” approach.
  4. BNB token Binance raised $15M in a 2017 ICO by selling their $BNB token. The current market cap of $BNB is worth more than $2.6B. Financially this token has served them well. However, given how BNB works (for example, their token burn), there are a lot of open questions as to how BNB will be treated with US security laws. Their Binance US product so far is treading very lightly with its use of BNB. Their token could become a liability for Binance as it enters more regulated markets. Whether the crypto community likes it or not, until regulators get caught up and understand the power of decentralized technology, tokens will still be a regulatory burden — especially for anything that touches consumers.
  5. Binance Chain & Smart Contract Platform Binance is launching its own smart contract platform soon. Based on compatibility choices, they have their sights aimed at the Ethereum developer community. It’s unclear how easy it’ll be to convince developers to move to Binance chain. Most of the current developer energy and momentum around smart contracts is with Ethereum. Because Binance now has their own horse in the race, it’s unlikely they will ever decide to leverage Ethereum’s DeFi protocols. This could likely be a major strategic mistake — and hubris that goes a step too far. Binance will be pushing and promoting protocols on their own platform. The major risk of being all-in on their own platform is that they miss having a seat on the Ethereum rocket ship — specifically the growth of DeFi use-cases and the enormous value that can be unlocked. Integrating with Ethereum’s protocols would be either admitting defeat of their own platform or competing directly against themselves.

Binance Wrap Up

I don’t believe Binance is likely to succeed with a homegrown product aimed at the consumer finance market. Their current product — which is focused heavily on professional traders and speculators — is unlikely to become the bank of the future. If they wanted to enter the broader consumer market, I believe it’s much more likely that they will acquire a company that is getting early traction. They are not afraid to make acquisitions (Trust, JEX, WazirX, DappReview, BxB, CoinMarketCap, Swipe).
However, never count CZ out. He is a hustler. Binance is executing so aggressively and relentlessly that they will always be on the shortlist of major contenders.
https://preview.redd.it/mxmlg1zqm7f51.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=2d900dd5ff7f3b00df5fe5a48305d57ebeffaa9a

Coinbase

The crypto-native company that I believe is more likely to become the bank of the future is Coinbase (crunchbase). Their dominance in America could serve as a springboard to winning the West (Binance has a stronger foothold in Asia). Coinbase has more than 30M users. Their exchange business is a money-printing machine. They have a solid reputation as it relates to compliance and working with regulators. Their CEO is a longtime member of the crypto community. They are rumored to be going public soon.

Coinbase Strengths

Let’s look at what makes them strong and a likely contender for winning the broader consumer finance market.
  1. Different Audience, Different Experience Coinbase has been smart to create a unique product experience for each audience — the pro speculator crowd and the common retail user. Their simple consumer version is at Coinbase.com. That’s the default. Their product for the more sophisticated traders and speculators is at Coinbase Pro (formerly GDAX). Unlike Binance, Coinbase can slowly build out the bank of the future for the broad consumer market while still having a home for their hardcore crypto traders. They aren’t afraid to have different experiences for different audiences.
  2. Brand & Design Coinbase has a strong product design team. Their brand is capable of going beyond the male-dominated crypto audience. Their product is clean and simple — much more consumer-friendly than Binance. It’s clear they spend a lot of time thinking about their user experience. Interacting directly with crypto can sometimes be rough and raw (especially for n00bs). When I was at Mainframe we hosted a panel about Crypto UX challenges at the DevCon4 Dapp Awards. Connie Yang (Head of Design at Coinbase) was on the panel. She was impressive. Some of their design philosophies will bode well as they push to reach the broader consumer finance market.
  3. USDC Stablecoin Coinbase (along with Circle) launched USDC. We’ve shared some stats about its impressive growth when we discussed DeFi use-cases. USDC is quickly becoming integrated with most DeFi protocols. As a result, Coinbase is getting a front-row seat at some of the most exciting things happening in decentralized finance. As Coinbase builds its knowledge and networks around these protocols, it could put them in a favorable position to unlock incredible value for their users.
  4. Early Signs of Bundling Though Coinbase has nowhere near as many products & services as Binance, they are slowly starting to add more financial services that may appeal to the broader market. They are now letting depositors earn interest on USDC (also DAI & Tezos). In the UK they are piloting a debit card. Users can now invest in crypto with dollar-cost-averaging. It’s not much, but it’s a start. You can start to see hints of a more bundled solution around financial services.

Coinbase Weaknesses

Let’s now look at some things that could hold them back.
  1. Slow Cadence In the fast-paced world of crypto, and especially when compared to Binance, Coinbase does not ship very many new products very often. This is perhaps their greatest weakness. Smaller, more nimble startups may run circles around them. They were smart to launch Coinbase Ventures where tey invest in early-stage startups. They can now keep an ear to the ground on innovation. Perhaps their cadence is normal for a company of their size — but the Binance pace creates quite the contrast.
  2. Lack of Innovation When you consider the previous point (slow cadence), it’s unclear if Coinbase is capable of building and launching new products that are built internally. Most of their new products have come through acquisitions. Their Earn.com acquisition is what led to their Earn educational product. Their acquisition of Xapo helped bolster their institutional custody offering. They acqui-hired a team to help launch their staking infrastructure. Their acquisition of Cipher Browser became an important part of Coinbase Wallet. And recently, they acquired Tagomi — a crypto prime brokerage. Perhaps most of Coinbase’s team is just focused on improving their golden goose, their exchange business. It’s unclear. But the jury is still out on if they can successfully innovate internally and launch any homegrown products.
  3. Talent Exodus There have been numerous reports of executive turmoil at Coinbase. It raises a lot of questions about company culture and vision. Some of the executives who departed include COO Asiff Hirji, CTO Balaji Srinivasan, VP & GM Adam White, VP Eng Tim Wagner, VP Product Jeremy Henrickson, Sr Dir of Eng Namrata Ganatra, VP of Intl Biz Dan Romero, Dir of Inst Sales Christine Sandler, Head of Trading Hunter Merghart, Dir Data Science Soups Ranjan, Policy Lead Mike Lempres, Sr Compliance Vaishali Mehta. Many of these folks didn’t stay with Coinbase very long. We don’t know exactly why it’s happening —but when you consider a few of my first points (slow cadence, lack of innovation), you have to wonder if it’s all related.
  4. Institutional Focus As a company, we are a Coinbase client. We love their institutional offering. It’s clear they’ve been investing a lot in this area. A recent Coinbase blog post made it clear that this has been a focus: “Over the past 12 months, Coinbase has been laser-focused on building out the types of features and services that our institutional customers need.” Their Tagomi acquisition only re-enforced this focus. Perhaps this is why their consumer product has felt so neglected. They’ve been heavily investing in their institutional services since May 2018. For a company that’s getting very close to an IPO, it makes sense that they’d focus on areas that present strong revenue opportunities — as they do with institutional clients. Even for big companies like Coinbase, it’s hard to have a split focus. If they are “laser-focused” on the institutional audience, it’s unlikely they’ll be launching any major consumer products anytime soon.

Coinbase Wrap Up

At Genesis Block, we‘re proud to be working with Coinbase. They are a fantastic company. However, I don’t believe that they’ll succeed in building their own product for the broader consumer finance market. While they have incredible design, there are no signs that they are focused on or capable of internally building this type of product.
Similar to Binance, I think it’s far more likely that Coinbase acquires a promising young startup with strong growth.

Honorable Mentions

Other US-based exchanges worth mentioning are Kraken, Gemini, and Bittrex. So far we’ve seen very few signs that any of them will aggressively attack broader consumer finance. Most are going in the way of Binance — listing more assets and adding more pro tools like margin and futures trading. And many, like Coinbase, are trying to attract more institutional customers. For example, Gemini with their custody product.

Wrap Up

Coinbase and Binance have huge war chests and massive reach. For that alone, they should always be considered threats to Genesis Block. However, their products are very, very different than the product we’re building. And their approach is very different as well. They are trying to educate and onboard people into crypto. At Genesis Block, we believe the masses shouldn’t need to know or care about it. We did an entire series about this, Spreading Crypto.
Most everyone needs banking — whether it be to borrow, spend, invest, earn interest, etc. Not everyone needs a crypto exchange. For non-crypto consumers (the mass market), the differences between a bank and a crypto exchange are immense. Companies like Binance and Coinbase make a lot of money on their crypto exchange business. It would be really difficult, gutsy, and risky for any of them to completely change their narrative, messaging, and product to focus on the broader consumer market. I don’t believe they would ever risk biting the hand that feeds them.
In summary, as it relates to a digital bank aimed at the mass market, I believe both Coinbase and Binance are much more likely to acquire a startup in this space than they are to build it themselves. And I think they would want to keep the brand/product distinct and separate from their core crypto exchange business.
So back to the original question, is Coinbase and Binance a threat to Genesis Block? Not really. Not today. But they could be, and for that, we want to stay close to them.
------
Other Ways to Consume Today's Episode:
Follow our social channels: https://genesisblock.com/follow/
Download the app. We're a digital bank that's powered by crypto: https://genesisblock.com/download
submitted by mickhagen to genesisblockhq [link] [comments]

Epic Cash AMA Recap with CryptoDiffer Community

CryptoDiffer team Hello, everyone! We are glad to meet here: Max Freeman (@maxfreeman4), Project Lead at Epic Cash Yoga Dude (@Yogadude), PR&Marketing at Epic Cash Xenolink (@Xenolink), Advisor at Epic Cash
Max Freeman Project Lead at Epic Cash Thanks Max, we are excited to be here!
Yoga Dude PR&Marketing at Epic Cash Hello Everyone! Thank you for having us here!
Xenolink Advisor at Epic Cash Thank you to the CryptoDiffer team and CryptoDiffer community for hosting us!
CryptoDiffer team Let`s start from the first introduction question: Q1: Can you introduce yourself to the community? What is your background and how did you join Epic Cash?
Yoga Dude PR&Marketing at Epic Cash
Hello! My background is Marketing and Business Development, I’ve been in crypto since 2011 started with Bitcoin, then Monero in 2014, Ethereum in 2015 and at some point Doge for fun and profit. I joined Epic Cash team in September 2019 handling PR and Marketing.
I saw in Epic Cash what was missing in my previous cryptos — things that were missing in Bitcoin and Monero especially.
Xenolink Advisor at Epic Cash
Hello Cryptodiffer Community, I am not an original co-founder nor am I a developer for the Epic Cash project. I am however a community member that is involved in helping scale this project to higher levels. One of the many beauties of Epic Cash is that every single member in the community has the opportunity to be part of EPIC’s team, it can be from development all the way to content producing. Epic Cash is a community driven project. The true Core Team of Epic Cash is our community. I believe a community that is the Core Team is truly powerful. EPIC Cash has one of the freshest and strongest communities I have seen in quite a while. Which is one of the reasons why I became involved in this project. Epic displayed some of the most self community produced content I have seen in a project. I’m actually a doctor of medicine but in terms of my experience in crypto, I have been involved in the industry since 2012 beginning with mining Litecoin. Since then I have been doing deep dive analysis on different projects, investing, and building a network in crypto that I will utilize to help connect and scale Epic in every way I can. To give some credit to those people in my network that have been a part of helping give Epic exposure, I would like to give a special thanks to u/Tetsugan and u/Saurabhblr. Tetsugan has been doing a lot of work for the Japanese community to penetrate the Japanese market, and Japan has already developed a growing interest in Epic. Daku Sarabh the owner and creator of Crypto Daku Robinhooders, I would like to thank him and his community for giving us one of our first large AMA’s, which he has supported our project early and given us a free AMA. Many more to thank but can’t be disclosed. Also thank you to all the Epic Community leaders, developers, and Content producers!
Max Freeman Project Lead at Epic Cash
I’m Max Freeman, which stands for “Maximum Freedom for Mankind”. I started working on the ideas that would become Epic in 2018. I fell in love with Bitcoin in 2017 but realized that it needs privacy at the base layer, fungibility, better scalability in order to go to the next level.
CryptoDiffer team
Really interesting backgrounds I must admit, pleasure to see the team that clearly has one vision of the project by being completely decentralized:)
Q2: Can you briefly describe what is Epic Cash in 3–5 sentences? What technology stands behind Epic Cash and why it’s better than the existing one?
Max Freeman Project Lead at Epic Cash
I’d like to highlight the differences between Epic and the two highest-valued privacy coin projects, Monero and Zcash. XMR has always-on privacy like Epic does, but at a cost: Its blockchain is over 20x more data intensive than Epic, which limits its possibilities for scalability. Epic’s blockchain is small and light enough to run a full node on cell phones, something that is in our product road map. ZEC by comparison can’t run on low end devices because of its zero knowledge based approach, and only 1% of transactions are fully private. Epic is simply newer, more advanced technology than prior networks thanks to Mimblewimble
We will also add more algorithms to widen the range of hardware that can participate in mining. For example, cell phones and tablets based around ARM chips. Millions of people can mine Epic that can’t mine Bitcoin, and that will help grow the network rapidly.
There are some great short videos on our YouTube channel https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCQBFfksJlM97rgrplLRwNUg/videos
that explain why we believe we have created something truly special here.
Our core architecture derives from Grin, so we are fortunate to benefit on an ongoing basis from their considerable development efforts. We are focused on making our currency truly usable and widely available, beyond a store of value and becoming a true medium of exchange.
Yoga Dude PR&Marketing at Epic Cash
Well we all have our views, but in a nutshell, we offer things that were missing in the previous cryptos. We have sound fiscal emission schedule matching Bitcoin, but we are vastly more private and faster. Our blockchain is lighter than Bitcoin or Monero and our tech is more scalable. Also, we are unique in that we are mineable with CPUs and GPUs as well as ASICs, giving the broadest population the ability to mine Epic Cash. Plus, you can’t forget FUNGIBILITY 🙂 we are big on that — since you can’t have true privacy without fungibility.
Also, please understand, we have HUGE respect to all the cryptos that came before us, we learned a lot from them, and thanks to their mistakes we evolved.
Xenolink Advisor at Epic Cash
To add on, what also makes Epic Cash unique is the ability to decentralize the mining using a tri-algo model of Random X (CPU), Progpow (GPU), and Cuckoo (ASIC) for an ability to do hybrid mining. I believe this is an issue we can see today in Bitcoin having centralized mining and the average user has a costly barrier of entry.
To follow up on this one in my opinion one of the things we adopted that we have seen success for , in example Bitcoin and Monero, is a strong community driven coin. I believe having a community driven coin will provide a more organic atmosphere especially when starting with No ICO, or Premine with a fair distribution model for everyone.
CryptoDiffer team
Q3: What are the major milestones Epic Cash has achieved so far? Maybe you can share with us some exciting plans for future weeks/months?
Yoga Dude PR&Marketing at Epic Cash
Since we went live in September of 2019, we attracted a very large community of users, miners, investors and contributors from across the world. Epic Cash is a very international project with white papers translated into over 30 languages. We are very much a community driven project; this is very evident from our content and the amount of translations in our white papers and in our social media content.
We are constantly working on improving our usability, security and privacy, as well as getting our message and philosophy out into the world to achieve mass adoption. We have a lot of exciting plans for our project, the plan is to make Epic Cash into something that is More than Money.
You can tell I am the Marketing guy since my message is less about the actual tech and more about the usability and use cases for Epic Cash, I think our Team and Community have a great mix of technical, practical, social and fiscal experiences. Since we opened our YouTube channels content for community submissions, we have seen our content translated into Spanish, French, German, Polish, Chinese, Japanese, Arabic, Russian, and other languages
Max Freeman Project Lead at Epic Cash
Our future development roadmap will be published soon and includes 4 tracks:
Usability
Mining
Core Protocol
Ecosystem Development
Core Protocol
Epic Server 2.9.0 — this release improves the difficulty adjustment and is aimed at making block emission closer to the target 60 seconds, particularly reducing the incidence of extremely short and long blocks — Status: In Development (Testing) Anticipated Release: June 2020
Epic Server 3.0.0 — this completes the rebase to Grin 3.0.0 and serves as the prerequisite to some important functional building blocks for the future of the ecosystem. Specifically, sending via Tor (which eliminates the need to open ports), proof of payment (useful for certain dex applications e.g. Bisq), and our native mobile app. Status: In Development (Testing) Anticipated Release: Fall 2020
Non-Interactive Transactions — this will enhance usability by enabling “fire and forget” send-to-address functionality that users are accustomed to from most cryptocurrencies. Status: Drawing Board Anticipated Release: n/a
Scaling Options — when blocks start becoming full, how will we increase capacity? Two obvious options are increasing the block size, as well as a Lightning Network-style Layer 2 structure. Status: Drawing Board Anticipated Release: n/a
Confidential Assets — Similar to Raven, Tari, and Beam, the ability to create independently tradable assets that ride on the Epic Blockchain. Status: Drawing Board Anticipated Release: n/a
Usability
GUI Wallet 2.0 — Restore from seed words and various usability enhancements — Status: Needs Assessment Anticipated Release: Fall 2020
Mobile App — Native mobile experience for iOS and Android. Status: In Development (Testing) Anticipated Release: Winter 2020
Telegram Integration — Anonymous payments over the Telegram network, bot functionality for groups. Status: Drawing Board Anticipated Release: n/a
Mining
RandomX on ARM — Our 4th PoW algorithm, this will enable tablets, cell phones, and low power devices such as Raspberry Pi to participate in mining. Status: Needs Assessment Anticipated Release: n/a
The economics of mining Epic are extremely compelling for countries that have free or extremely cheap electricity, since anyone with an ordinary PC can mine. Individual people around the world can simply run the miner and earn meaningful money (imagine Venezuela for example), something that has not been possible since the very early days of Bitcoin.
Ecosystem Development
Atomic Swaps — Connecting Epic to other blockchains in a trustless way, starting with ETH so that Epic can trade on DeFi infrastructure such as Uniswap, Kyber, etc. Status: Drawing Board Anticipated Release: n/a
Xenolink Advisor at Epic Cash
From the Community aspect, we have been further developing our community international reach. We have been seeing an increase in interest from South America, China, Russia, Japan, Italy, and the Philippines. We are working on targeting more countries. We truly aim to be a decentralized project that is open to everyone worldwide.
CryptoDiffer team
Great, thank you for your answers, we now can move to community questions part!
Cryptodiffer Community
You have 3 mining algorithms, the question is: how do they not compete with each other? Is there any benefit of mining on the GPU and CPU if someone is mining on the ASIC?
Max Freeman Project Lead at Epic Cash
The block selection is deterministic, so that every 100 blocks, 60% are for RandomX (CPU), 38% for ProgPow (GPU), and 2% for Cuckoo (ASIC) — the policy is flexible so that we can have as many algorithms with any percentages we want. The goal is to make the most decentralized and resilient network possible, and with that in mind we are excited to work on enabling tablets and cell phones to mine, since that opens it up to millions of people that otherwise can’t take part.
Cryptodiffer Community
To Run a project smoothly, Funding is very important, From where does the Funding/revenue come from?
Xenolink Advisor at Epic Cash
Yes, early on this was realized and in order to scale a project funds are indeed needed. Epic Cash did not start with any funding and no ICO and was organically genesis mined with no pre-mine. Epic cash is also a nonprofit community driven project similar to Monero. There is no profit-driven entity in the picture. To overcome the revenue issue Epic Cash setup a development fund tax that decreases 1% every year until 2028 when Epic Cash reaches singularity with Bitcoin emissions. Currently it is at 7.77%. This will help support the scaling of the project.
Cryptodiffer Community
Hi! In your experience working also with MONERO can you please clarify which are those identified problems that EPIC CASH aims to develop and resolve? What’s the main advantage that EPIC CASH has over MONERO? Thank you!
Yoga Dude PR&Marketing at Epic Cash
First, I must admit that I am still a huge fan and HODLer of Monero. That said:
✅ our blockchain is MUCH lighter than Monero’s
✅ our transaction processing speed is much faster
✅ our address-less blockchain is more private
✅ Epic Cash can be mined with CPU (RandomX) GPU (ProgPow) and Cuckoo, whereas Monero migrated to RandomX and currently only mineable with CPU
Cryptodiffer Community
  1. the feature ‘Cut Through’ deletes old data, how is it decided which data will be deletes, and what are the consequences of it for the platform and therefore the users?
  2. On your website I see links to download Epic wallet and mining software for Linux,Windows and MacOs, I am a user of android, is there a version for me, or does it have a release date?
Max Freeman Project Lead at Epic Cash
  1. This is one of the most exciting features of Mimblewimble, which is its extraordinary ability to compress blockchain data. In Bitcoin, the entire history of a coin must be replayed every time it is spent, and comprehensive details are permanently stored in the blockchain. Epic discards spent transaction inputs and consolidates outputs, storing neither addresses or amounts, only a tiny kernel to allow sender and receiver to prove their transaction.
  2. The Vitex mobile app is great for today, and we have a native mobile app for iOS and Android in the works as well.
Cryptodiffer Community
$EPIC Have total Supply of 21,000,000 EPIC , is there any burning plan? Or Buyback program to maintain $EPIC price in the future?
Who is Epic Biggest competitors?
And what’s makes epic better than competitors?
Xenolink Advisor at Epic Cash
We respect the older generation coins like Bitcoin. But we have learned that the supply economics of Bitcoin is very sound. Until today we can witness how the Bitcoin is being adopted institutionally and by retail. We match the 21 million BTC supply economics because it is an inelastic fixed model which makes the long-term economics very sound. To have an elastic model of burning tokens or printing tokens will not have a solid economic future. Take for example the USD which is an inflating supply. In terms of competitors we look at everyone in crypto with respect and also learn from everyone. If we had to compare to other Mimblewimble tech coins, Grin is an inelastic forever inflating supply which in the long term is not sound economics. Beam however is an inelastic model but is formed as a corporation. The fair distribution is not there because of the permanent revenue model setup for them. Epic Cash a non-profit development tax fund model for scaling purposes that will disappear by 2028’s singularity.
Cryptodiffer Community
What your plans in place for global expansion, are you focusing on only market at this time? Or focus on building and developing or getting customers and users, or partnerships?
Yoga Dude PR&Marketing at Epic Cash
Since we are a community project, we have many developers, in addition to the core team.
Our plans for Global expansion are simple — we have advocates in different regions addressing their audiences in their native languages. We are growing organically, by explaining our ideology and usability. The idea is to grow beyond needing a fiat bridge for crypto use, but to rather replace fiat with our borderless, private and fungible crypto so people can use it to get goods and services without using banks.
We are not limiting ourselves to one particular demographic — Epic Cash is a valid solution for the gamers, investors, techie and non techie people, and the unbanked.
Cryptodiffer Community
EPIC confidential coin! Did you have any problems with the regulators? And there will be no problems with listing on centralized exchanges?
Xenolink Advisor at Epic Cash
In terms of structure, we are carefully set up to minimize these concerns. Without a company or investors in the picture, and having raised no funds, there is little scope to attack in terms of securities laws. Bitcoin and Ethereum are widely acknowledged as acceptable, and we follow in their well-established footprints in that respect. Centralized exchanges already trade other privacy coins, so we don’t see this as much of an issue either. In general, decentralized p2p exchange options are more interesting than today’s centralized platforms. They are more censorship resistant, secure, and privacy-protecting. As the technology gets better, they should continue to gain market share and that’s why we’re proud to be partnered with Vitex, whose exchange and mobile app work very well.
Cryptodiffer Community
What are the main utility and real-life usage of the #EPIC As an investor, why should we invest in the #EPIC project as a long-term investment?
Max Freeman Project Lead at Epic Cash
Because our blockchain is so light (only 1.16gb currently, and grows very slowly) it is naturally well suited to become a decentralized mobile money standard because people can run a full node on their phone, guaranteeing the security of their funds. Scalability in Bitcoin requires complicated and compromised workarounds such as Lightning Network and light clients, and these problems are solved in Epic.
With our forthcoming Mobile Mining app, hundreds of millions of cell phones and tablets will be able to easily join the network. People can quickly and cheaply send money to one another, fulfilling the long-envisioned promise of P2P electronic cash.
As an investor, it’s important to ask a few key questions. Bitcoin Standard tokenomics of disinflation and a fixed supply are well proven over a decade now. We follow this model exactly, with a permanently synchronized supply from 2028, and 4 emission halvings from now until then, with our first one in about two weeks. Beyond that, we can apply some simple logical tests. What is more valuable, money that can only be used in some cases (censorable Bitcoin based on a lack of fungibility) or money that can be used universally? (fungible Epic based on always-on privacy by default). Epic is also poised to be a more decentralized and therefore resilient network because of wider participation in mining. Epic is designed to be Bitcoin++ Privacy, Fungibility, Scalability
Cryptodiffer Community
Q1. What are advantages for choosing three mining algorithms RandomX+, ProgPow and CuckAToo31+ ?
Q2. Beam and Grin use MimbleWimble protocol, so what are difference for Epic? All of you will be friends for partners or competitors?
Max Freeman Project Lead at Epic Cash
RandomX and ProgPow are designed to use the entirety of a CPU / GPU’s unique processing capabilities in a way that other types of hardware don’t work as well. You can run RandomX on a GPU but it doesn’t work nearly as well as a much cheaper CPU, for example. Cuckoo is a “memory hard” algorithm that widens the range of companies that can produce the hardware.
Grin and Beam are great projects and we’ve learned a lot from them. We inherited our first codebase from Grin’s excellent Rust design, which is a better language for community participation than C++ that Beam currently uses.
Functionally, Mimblewimble is similar across the 3 coins, with standard Confidential Transactions, CoinJoin, Dandelion++, Schnorr Signatures and other advanced features. Grin is primarily ASIC-targeted, Beam is GPU-targeted, and Epic is multi-hardware.
The biggest differences though are in tokenomics and project structure. Grin has permanent inflation of 60 coins per block with no halvings, which means steady erosion of value over time due to new supply pressure. It also lacks a steady funding model, making future development in jeopardy, particularly as the per coin price falls. Beam has a for-profit model with heavy early inflation and a high developer tax. Epic builds on the strengths of these earlier mimblewimble projects and addresses the parts that could be improved.
Cryptodiffer Community Some privacy coin has scalability issues! How Epic cash will solve scalability issues? Why you choose randomX consensus algorithem?
Xenolink Advisor at Epic Cash
Fungibility means that you can’t distinguish one unit of currency from another, in example Gold. Fungibility has recently become a hot issue as people have been noticing Bitcoins being locked up by exchanges which may of had a nefarious history which are called Tainted Coins. In example coins that have been involved in a hack, darknet market transactions, or even processing coin through a mixer. Today we can already see freshly mined Bitcoins being sold at a premium price to avoid the fungibility problem Bitcoin carries today. Bitcoin can be tracked by chainalysis and is not a fungible cryptocurrency. One of the features that Epic has is privacy with added fungibility, because of Mimblewimble technology, Epic has no addresses recorded and therefore nothing can be tracked by chainalysis. Below I provide a link of an example of what the lack of fungibility is resulting in today with Bitcoin. One of the reasons why we chose the Random X algo. is because of the easy barrier of entry and also to further decentralize the mining. Random X algo can be mined on old computers or laptops. We also have 2 other algos Progpow (GPU), and Cuckoo (ASIC) to create a wider decentralization of mining methods for Epic.
Cryptodiffer Community
I’m a newbie in crypto and blockchain so how will Epic Cash team target and educate people who don’t know about blockchain and crypto?
What is the uniqueness of Epic Cash that cannot be found in other project that´s been released so far ?
Yoga Dude Pr&Marketing at Epic Cash
Actually, while we have our white paper translated into over 30 languages, we are more focused on explaining our uses and advantages rather than cold specs. Our tech is solid, but we not get hung up on pure tech talk which most casual users do not need to or care to understand. As long as our fundamentals and tech are secure and user friendly our primary goal is to educate about use cases and market potential.
The uniqueness of Epic Cash is its amalgamation of “whats good” in other cryptos. We use Mimblewimble for privacy and anonymity. Our blockchain is much lighter than our competitors. We are the only Mimblewimble crypto to use a unique cocktail of mining algorithms allowing to be mined by casual miners with gaming rigs and laptops, while remaining friendly to GPU and CPU farmers.
The “uniqueness” is learning from the mistakes of those who came before us, we evolved and learned, which is why our privacy is better, we are faster, we are fungible, we offer diverse mining and so on. We are the best blend — thats powerful and unique
Cryptodiffer Community
Can you share EPIC’s vision for decentralized finance (DEFI)? What features do EPIC have to support DEFI?
Yoga Dude PR&Marketing at Epic Cash
We view Epic as ideally suited to be the decentralized digital reserve asset of the new Private Internet of Money that’s emerging. At a technology level, atomic swaps can be created to build liquidity bridges so that wrapped Epic tokens (like WBTC, WETH) can trade on other networks as ERC20, BEP2, NEP5, VIP180, Algorand and so on. There is more Bitcoin value locked on Ethereum than in Lightning Network, so we will similarly integrate Epic so that it can trade on networks such as Uniswap, Kyber, and so on.
Longer term, if there is market demand for it, thanks to Scriptless Script functionality our blockchain has, we can build “Confidential Assets” (which Raven, Tari, and Beam are all also working on) that enable people to create tokenized assets in a private way.
Cryptodiffer Community
If you could choose one celebrity to promote Epic-cash, who that would be?
Max Freeman Project Lead at Epic Cash
I am a firm believer that the strength of the project lies in allowing community members to become their own celebrities, if their content is good enough the community will propel them to celebrity status. Organic celebrities with small but loyal following are vastly more beneficial than big name professional shills with inflated but non caring audiences.
I remember the early days of Apple when an enthusiastic dude named Guy Kawasaki became Apple Evangelist, he was literally going around stores that sold Apple and visited user groups and Evangelized his belief in Apple. This guy became a Legend and helped Apple become what it is today.
Epic Cash will have its OWN Celebrities
Cryptodiffer Community
How does $EPIC solve scalability of transactions? Current blockchains face issues with scalability a lot, how does $EPIC creates a solution to it?
Xenolink Advisor at Epic Cash
Epic Cash is utilizing Mimblewimble technology. Besides the privacy & fungibility aspect of the tech. There is the scalability features of it. It is implemented into Epic by transaction cut-through. Which means it allows nodes to remove all intermediate transactions, thus significantly reducing the blockchain size without affecting its validation. Mimblewimble also does not use addresses like a BTC address, and amount of transactions are also not recorded. One problem Monero and Bitcoin are facing now is scalability. It is evident today that data is getting more expensive and that will be a problem in the long run for those coins. Epic is 90% lighter and more scalable compared to Monero and Bitcoin.
Cryptodiffer Community
what are the ways that Epic Cash generates profits/revenue to maintain your project and what is its revenue model ? How can it make benefit win-win to both invester and your project ?
Max Freeman Project Lead at Epic Cash
There is a block subsidy of 7.77% that declines 1.11% per year until 0, where it stays after that. As a nonprofit community effort, this extremely modest amount goes much further than in other projects, which often take 20, 30, even 50+ % of the coin supply. We believe that this ongoing funding model best aligns the long term incentives for all participants and balances the compromises between the ends of the centralized/decentralized spectrum of choices that any project must make.
Cryptodiffer Community
Q1 : What are your major goals to archive in the next 3–4 years?
Q2 : What are your plans to expand and gain more adoption?
Yoga Dude Pr&Marketing at Epic Cash
Max already talked about our technical plans and goals in his roadmap. Allow me to talk more about the non technical 😁
We are aiming for broader reach in the non technical more mainstream community — this is a big challenge but we believe it is doable. By offering simpler ways to mine Epic Cash (with smart phones for example), and by doing more education we will achieve the holy grail of crypto — moving past the fiat bridges and getting Epic Cash to be accepted as means of payment for goods and services. We will accomplish this by working with regional advocacy groups, community interaction, off-line promotional activities and diverse social media targeting.
Cryptodiffer Community
It seems to me that EpicCash will have its first Halving, right? Why a halving so soon?
Is a mobile version feasible?
Max Freeman Project Lead at Epic Cash
Our supply emission catches up to that of Bitcoin’s first 19 years after 8 years in Epic, so that requires more frequent halvings. Today’s block emission is 16, next up are 8, 4, 2, and then finally 0.15625. After that, the supply of Epic and that of BTC stay synchronized until maxing out at 21m coins in 2140.
Today we have a mobile wallet through the Vitex app, a native mobile wallet coming, and are working on mobile mining.
Cryptodiffer Community
What markets will you add after that?
Yoga Dude PR&Marketing at Epic Cash
Well, we are aiming to have ALL markets
Epic Cash in its final iteration will be usable by everyone everywhere regardless of their technical expertise. We are not limiting ourselves to the technocrats, one of our main goals is to help the billions of unbanked. We want everyone to be able to mine, buy, and most of all USE Epic Cash — gamers, farmers, soccer moms, students, retirees, everyone really — even bankers (well once we defeat the banking industry)
We will continue building on the multilingual diversity of our global community adding support and advocacy groups in more countries in more languages.
Epic Cash is More than Money and its for Everyone.
Cryptodiffer Community
Almost, all cryptocurrencies are decentralized & no-one knows who owns that cryptocurrencies ! then also, why Privacy is needed? hats the advantages of Private coins?
Max Freeman Project Lead at Epic Cash
With a public transparent blockchain such as Bitcoin, you are permanently posting a detailed history of your money movements open for anyone to see (not just legitimate authorities, either!) — It would be considered crazy to post your credit card or bank statements to Twitter, but that’s what is happening every time you send a transaction that is not private. This excellent video from community contributor Spencer Lambert https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0blbfmvCq\_4 explains better than I can.
Privacy is not just for criminals, it’s for everyone. Do you want your landlord to increase the rent when he sees that you get a raise? Your insurance company to raise your healthcare costs because they see you buying too much ice cream? If you’re a business, do you want your employees to see how much money their coworkers make? Do you want your competitors to trace your supplier and customer relationships? Of course not. By privacy being default for everyone, cryptocurrency can be used in a much wider range of situations without unacceptable compromises.
Cryptodiffer Community
What are the main utility and real-life usage of the #EPIC As an investor, why should we invest in the #EPIC project as a long-term investment?
Xenolink Advisor at Epic Cash
Epic Cash can be used as a Private and Fungible store of value, medium of exchange, and unit of account. As Epic Cash grows and becomes adopted it can be compared to how Bitcoin and Monero is used and adopted as well. As Epic is adopted by the masses, it can be accepted as a medium of exchange for store owners and as fungible payments without the worry of having money that is tainted. Epic Cash as a store of value may be a good long term aspect of investment to consider. Epic Cash carries an inelastic fixed supply economic model of 21 million coins. There will be 5 halvings which this month of June will be our first halving of epic. From a block reward of 16 Epic reduced to 8. If we look at BTC’s price action and history of their halvings it has been proven and show that there has been an increase in value due to the scarcity and from halvings a reduction of # of BTC’s mined per block. An inelastic supply model like Bitcoin provides proof of the circulating supply compared to the total supply by the history of it’s Price action which is evident in long term charts since the birth of Bitcoin. EPIC Plans to have 5 halvings before the year 2028 to match the emissions of Bitcoin which we call the singularity event. Below is a chart displaying our halvings model approaching singularity. Once bitcoin and cryptocurrency becomes adopted mainstream, the fungibility problem will be more noticed by the general public. Privacy coins and the features of fungibility/scalability will most likely be sought over. Right now a majority of people believe that all cryptocurrency is fungible. However, that is not true. We can already see Chainalysis confirming that they can trace and track and even for other well-known privacy coins today such as Z-Cash.
Cryptodiffer Community
  1. You aim to reach support from a global community, what are your plans to get spanish speakers involved into Epic Cash? And emerging markets like the african
  2. How am I secure I won’t be affected by receiving tainted money?
Max Freeman Project Lead at Epic Cash
Native speakers from our community are working to raise awareness in key markets such as mining in Argentina and Venezuela for Spanish (Roberto Navarro called Epic “the holy grail of cryptocurrency” and Ethiopia and certain North African countries that have the lowest electricity costs in the world. Remittances between USA and Latin American countries are expensive and slow, so Epic is also perfect for people to send money back home as well.
Cryptodiffer Community
Do EPICs in 2020 focus more on research and coding, or on sales and implementation?
Yoga Dude PR&Marketing at Epic Cash
We will definitely continue to work on research and coding, with emphasis on improved accessibility (especially via smartphones) usability, security and privacy.
In terms of financial infrastructure will continuing to add exchanges both KYC and non KYC.
Big part of our plans is in ongoing Marketing and PR outreach. The idea is to make Epic Cash a viral sensation of sorts. If we can get Epic Cash adopters to spread the word and tell their family, coworkers and friends about Epic Cash — there will be no stopping us and to help that happen we have a growing army of content creators, and supporters.
Everyone with skin in the game gets the benefit of advancing the cause.
Folks also, this isn’t an answer to the question but an example of a real-world Epic Cash content —
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtAVEqKGgqY
a challenge from one of our content creators to beat his 21 pull ups and get 100 epics! This has not been claimed yet — people need to step up 🙂 and to help that I will match another 100 Epic Cash to the first person to beat this
Cryptodiffer Community
I was watching some videos explaining how to send and receive transactions in EpicCash, which consists of ports and sending links, my question is why this is so, which, for now, looks complex?
Let’s talk about the economic model, can EpicCash comply with the concept of value reserve?
Max Freeman Project Lead at Epic Cash
In V3, which is coming later this summer, Epic can be sent over Tor, which eliminates this issue of port opening, even though using tools like ngrok.io, it’s not necessarily as painful as directly configuring the router ports. Early Lightning Network had this issue as well and it’s something we have a plan to address via research into non-interactive transactions. “Fire and Forget” payments to an address, as people are used to in Bitcoin, is coming to Epic and we’re excited to develop functionality that other advanced mimblewimble coins don’t yet have. We are committed to constant improvement in usability and utility, to make our money system the ease of use leader.
We are involved in the project (anyone can join the Freeman Family) because we believe that simply by choosing to use a form of money that better aligns with our ideals, that we can make a positive change in the world. Some of my thoughts about how I got involved are here: https://medium.com/epic-cash/the-freeman-family-e3b9c3b3f166
Max Freeman Project Lead at Epic Cash
Huge thanks to our friends Maks and Vladyslav, we welcome everyone to come say hi at one of our friendly communities. It is extremely early in this journey, our market cap is only 0.5m right now, whereas the 3 other mimblewimble coins are at $20m, $30m and $100m respectively. Epic is a historic opportunity to follow in the footsteps of legends such as Bitcoin and Monero, and we hope to become the first Top 5 privacy coin project.
Xenolink Advisor at Epic Cash
Would like to Thank the Cryptodiffer Team and the Cryptodiffer community for hosting us and also engaging with us to learn more about Epic. If anyone else has more questions and wants to know more about EPIC , can find us at our telegram channel at https://t.me/EpicCash .
Yoga Dude Pr&Marketing at Epic Cash
Thank you, CryptoDiffer Team, and this wonderful Community!!!
Cryptodiffer TEAM
Thank you everyone for taking your time and asking great questions
Thank you for your time, it was an insightful session
Spread the love
submitted by EpicCashFrodo to epiccash [link] [comments]

Block size limit debate history lesson

Pre 2013
Bitcoin users and developers have near universal agreement that the block size limit is a temporary feature must be raised and/or removed. Preparing for this hard fork is one of lead developer Gavin's top priorities.
https://web.archive.org/web/20140328052630/https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Talk:Scalability
MAX_BLOCK_SIZE has always been planned to increase as needed. That limitation should be ignored. theymos 17:15, 4 March 2011 (GMT)
What Theymos said. Increasing MAX_BLOCK_SIZE will be done when "lightweight, header-only" client mode is done. Until then, block size has to be kept under control.--Gavin Andresen 00:19, 5 March 2011 (GMT)
However development priorities are not very unified, as noted by one observer:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=122013.msg1390298#msg1390298
When I joined this forum I was completely wrong calling the Bitcoin core development team "Bitcoin bunker". Now that I understand the situation better I know that there's no single bunker. There are numerous one-or-two-person cubbyholes that may occasionally form the aliances to shoot at the occupant of another cubbyhole. The situation conforms better to the distributed paradigm inherent in the design of Bitcoin.
2013
For the first time in Bitcoin's history, arguments begin to erupt regarding the desirability of increasing the block size limit.
Many of the proponents in favor of making the block size limit permanent are investors in competing currencies/payment systems and this fact was not lost on observers of the era and can easily be confirmed by viewing the profiles of the participants:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=221111.0;all
In May of 2013, Peter Todd funds the production of a propaganda video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
None of the claims in this video are true, but it is effective in creating drama. Tensions rise and development work grinds nearly to a halt due to infighting.
BTC market share is 95%.
In December, Gregory Maxwell begins to revive the idea of sidechains along with Adam Back, TheBlueMatt, and other individuals who will go on to form Blockstream.
They begin promoting sidechains as an alternative to Bitcoin scaling.
http://web.archive.org/web/20140226095319/http://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/wizards/2013-12-18.txt
2014
April 7: Unwilling to deal with the drama any further, Gavin steps down as lead developer. At the time the BTC market share is 90%.
Sidechain discussion is well underway, yet a few people still manage to speak up to point out that sidechains should not be treated as an alternative to scaling Bitcoin. You may notice some familiar posters in these threads:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=566704.0;all
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0;all
In October, Blockstream.com publishes their sidechain whitepaper:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=831527.0;all
The response is underwhelming.
On November 17, Blockstream announces the securing of $21 million in seed funding.
BTC market share is 91%.
2015
On June 22, Gavin Andresen proposes BIP101 to increase the block size limit as the conclusion of his work performed since stepping down as lead developer.
On August 6, Mike Hearn announces BitcoinXT, a full node implementation that includes BIP101.
Many Blockstream employees, including Adam Back, call this effort a "coup", a claim that can not be made without admitting they believe themselves to be the legitimate rulers of Bitcoin.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/computing/networks/the-bitcoin-for-is-a-coup
In October, Blockstream employee Pieter Wuille proposes "Segregated Witness":
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1210235.0
Post-2015
This is the time period most Bitcoin users are familiar with, which really only represents the tail end of a five year long fight to prevent the planned block size limit increase.
The BTC market share has been steadily dropping since the anti-scaling propaganda began in late 2012/early 2013.
It currently stands at 66%.
https://coinmarketcap.com/charts/
submitted by ABlockInTheChain to btc [link] [comments]

Adam Back is trying to get miners to sign a letter to never run Classic

Because that didn’t work out, he got it “diminished” to the one below. It is rumored that this letter will be signed by certain miners in the next 24 hours. This letter is based on misinformation and scaremongering, and the risks are completely exaggerated. It seems Core really does not want any competition and is trying to pull every trick in the book as a last resort. Unfortunately, it seems some miners are believing their BS.
Note: Bitmainwarranty is not Bitmain. They are not miners.
Some of the people I heard are going to sign are:
Over the past few months there has been significant attention within the bitcoin ecosystem and beyond on what is commonly referred to as the “block size issue” - the size and scale of bitcoin blocks. there is a pressing need for an inclusive roadmap that takes into account the needs of businesses and all stakeholders.
As a community of bitcoin businesses, exchanges, wallets, miners, and mining pools, we have come together to chart an effective path to resolve this challenge and agree on five positions we hope will guide the larger community as we move forward together.
The following are five key points that we have all agreed on.
Our shared goal is the success of bitcoin. Bitcoins is strong and transformational. By working together, we will ensure that its future is bright.
submitted by DailyXP to btc [link] [comments]

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?

Dr. Peter R. Rizun is arguably one of the most serious, prominent, and promising new voices in Bitcoin research today.
He not only launched the first scientific peer-reviewed cryptocurrency journal - he has also consistently provided high-quality, serious and insightful posts, papers and presentations on reddit (in writing, at conferences, and on YouTube) covering a wide array of important topics ranging from blocksize, scaling and decentralization to networking theory, economics, and fee markets - including:
It was of course probably to be expected that such an important emerging new Bitcoin researcher would be constantly harrassed, attacked and censored by the ancien régime of Core / Blockstream / Theymos.
But now, the attacks have risen to a new level, where some Reddit admin(s) have suspended his account Peter__R.
This means that now he can't post anywhere on reddit, and people can no longer see his reddit posts simply by clicking on his user name (although his posts - many of them massively upvoted with hundreds of upvotes - are of course still available individually, via the usual search box).
Questions:
  • What Reddit admin(s) are behind this reddit-wide banishing of Peter__R?
  • What is their real agenda, and why are they aiding and abbeting the censorship imposed by Core / Blockstream / Theymos?
  • Don't they realize that in the end they will only harm reddit.com itself, by forcing the most important new Bitcoin researchers to publish their work elsewhere?
(Some have suggested that Peter__R may have forgotten to use 'np' instead of 'www' when linking to other posts on reddit - a common error which subs like /btc will conveniently catch for the poster, allowing the post to be fixed and resubmitted. If this indeed was the actual justification of the Reddit admin(s) for banning him reddit-wide, it seems like a silly technical "gotcha" - and one which could easily have been avoided if other subs would catch this error the same way /btc does. At any rate, it certainly seems counterproductive for reddit.com to ban such a prominent and serious Bitcoin contributor.)
  • Why is reddit.com willing to risk pushing serious discussion off the site, killing its reputation as a decent place to discuss Bitcoin?
  • Haven't the people attempting to silence him ever heard of the Streisand effect?
Below are some examples of the kinds of outstanding contributions made by Peter__R, which Core / Blockstream / Theymos (and apparently some Reddit admin(s)) have been desperately trying to suppress in the Bitcoin community.
Peer-Reviewed Cryptocurrency Journal
Bitcoin Peer-Reviewed Academic Journal ‘Ledger’ Launches
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-peer-reviewed-academic-journal-ledger-launches/
Blocksize as an Emergent Phenonomen
The Size of Blocks: Policy Tool or Emergent Phenomenon? [my presentation proposal for scaling bitcoin hong kong]
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3s5507/the_size_of_blocks_policy_tool_or_emergent/
Peter R's presentation is really awesome and much needed analysis of the market for blockspace and blocksize.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3me634/peter_rs_presentation_is_really_awesome_and_much/
In case anyone missed it, Peter__R hit the nail on the head with this: "The reason we can't agree on a compromise is because the choice is binary: the limit is either used as an anti-spam measure, or as a policy tool to control fees."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xaexf/in_case_anyone_missed_it_peter_r_hit_the_nail_on/
Bigger Blocks = Higher Prices: Visualizing the 92% historical correlation [NEW ANIMATED GIF]
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nufe7/bigger_blocks_higher_prices_visualizing_the_92/
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3nudkn/bigger_blocks_higher_prices_visualizing_the_92/
Miners are commodity producers - Peter__R
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3l3g4f/miners_are_commodity_producers_peter_
Fees and Fee Markets
“A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit” — new research paper ascertains. [Plus earn $10 in bitcoin per typo found in manuscript]
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3fpuld/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/
"A Transaction Fee Market Exists Without a Block Size Limit", Peter R at Scaling Bitcoin Montreal 2015
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3mddr4/a_transaction_fee_market_exists_without_a_block/
An illustration of how fee revenue leads to improved network security in the absence of a block size limit.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3qana4/an_illustration_of_how_fee_revenue_leads_to/
Greg Maxwell was wrong: Transaction fees can pay for proof-of-work security without a restrictive block size limit
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3yod27/greg_maxwell_was_wrong_transaction_fees_can_pay/
Networks and Scaling
Bitcoin's "Metcalfe's Law" relationship between market cap and the square of the number of transactions
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3x8ba9/bitcoins_metcalfes_law_relationship_between/
Market cap vs. daily transaction volume: is it reasonable to expect the market cap to continue to grow if there is no room for more transactions?
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nvkn3/market_cap_vs_daily_transaction_volume_is_it/
In my opinion the most important part of Scaling Bitcoin! (Peter R)
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3l5uh4/in_my_opinion_the_most_important_part_of_scaling/
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3l5up3/in_my_opinion_the_most_important_part_of_scaling/
Visualizing BIP101: A Payment Network for Planet Earth
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3uvaqn/visualizing_bip101_a_payment_network_for_planet/
A Payment Network for Planet Earth: Visualizing Gavin Andresen's blocksize-limit increase
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3ame17/a_payment_network_for_planet_earth_visualizing/
Is Bitcoin's block size "empirically different" or "technically the same" as Bitcoin's block reward? [animated GIF visualizing real blockchain data]
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3thu1n/is_bitcoins_block_size_empirically_different_o
New blocksize BIP: User Configurable Maximum Block Size
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hcrmn/new_blocksize_bip_user_configurable_maximum_block/
A Block Size Limit Was Never Part Of Satoshi’s Plan : Draft proposal to move the block size limit from the consensus layer to the transport layer
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3hdeqs/a_block_size_limit_was_never_part_of_satoshis/
Truth-table for the question "Will my node follow the longest chain?"
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3i5pk4/truthtable_for_the_question_will_my_node_follow/
Peter R: "In the end, I believe the production quota would fail." #ScalingBitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3koghf/peter_r_in_the_end_i_believe_the_production_quota/
Decentralized Nodes, Mining and Development
Centralization in Bitcoin: Nodes, Mining, Development
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3n3z9b/centralization_in_bitcoin_nodes_mining_development/
Deprecating Bitcoin Core: Visualizing the Emergence of a Nash Equilibrium for Protocol Development
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nhq9t/deprecating_bitcoin_core_visualizing_the/
What is wrong with the goal of decentralizing development across multiple competing implementations? - Peter R
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3ijuw3/what_is_wrong_with_the_goal_of_decentralizing/
Potentially Unlimited, "Fractal-Like" Scaling for Bitcoin: Peter__R's "Subchains" proposal
"Reduce Orphaning Risk and Improve Zero-Confirmation Security With Subchains" — new research paper on 'weak blocks' explains
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xkok3/reduce_orphaning_risk_and_improve/
A Visual Explanation of Subchains -- an application of weak blocks to secure zero-confirmation transactions and massively scale Bitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3y76du/a_visual_explanation_of_subchains_an_application/
New Directions in Bitcoin Development
Announcing Bitcoin Unlimited.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynoaa/announcing_bitcoin_unlimited/
"It's because most of them are NOT Bitcoin experts--and I hope the community is finally starting to recognize that" -- Peter R on specialists vs. generalists and the aptitudes of Blockstream Core developers
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xn110/its_because_most_of_them_are_not_bitcoin/
It is time to usher in a new phase of Bitcoin development - based not on crypto & hashing & networking (that stuff's already done), but based on clever refactorings of datastructures in pursuit of massive and perhaps unlimited new forms of scaling
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xpufy/it_is_time_to_usher_in_a_new_phase_of_bitcoin/
Peter__R on RBF
Peter__R on RBF: (1) Easier for scammers on Local Bitcoins (2) Merchants will be scammed, reluctant to accept Bitcoin (3) Extra work for payment processors (4) Could be the proverbial straw that broke Core's back, pushing people into XT, btcd, Unlimited and other clients that don't support RBF
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3umat8/upeter_r_on_rbf_1_easier_for_scammers_on_local/
Peter__R on Mt. Gox
Peter R’s Theory on the Collapse of Mt. Gox
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/1zdnop/peter_rs_theory_on_the_collapse_of_mt_gox/
Censorship and Attacks by Core / Blockstream / Theymos / Reddit Admins against Peter__R
Peter__R's infographic showing the BIP 101 growth trajectory gets deleted from /bitcoin for "trolling"
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3uy3ea/peter_rs_infographic_showing_the_bip_101_growth/
"Scaling Bitcoin" rejected Peter R's proposal
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3takbscaling_bitcoin_rejected_peter_rs_proposal/
After censoring Mike and Gavin, BlockStream makes its first move to silence Peter R on bitcoin-dev like they did on /bitcoin
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3syb0z/after_censoring_mike_and_gavin_blockstream_makes/
Looks like the censors in /bitcoin are at it again: Peter_R post taken down within minutes
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3tvb3b/looks_like_the_censors_in_rbitcoin_are_at_it/
I've been banned for vote brigading for the animated GIF that visualized the possible future deprecation of Bitcoin Core.
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3nizet/ive_been_banned_for_vote_brigading_for_the/
An example of moderator subjectivity in the interpretation of the rules at /bitcoin: animated pie chart visualizing the deprecation of Bitcoin Core
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3osthv/an_example_of_moderator_subjectivity_in_the/
"My response to Pieter Wuille on the Dev-List has once again been censored, perhaps because I spoke favourably of Bitcoin Unlimited and pointed out misunderstandings by Maxwell and Back...here it is for those who are interested" -- Peter R
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ybhdy/my_response_to_pieter_wuille_on_the_devlist_has/
To those who are interested in judging whether Peter R's paper merits inclusion in the blockchain scaling conference, here it is:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3td6b9/to_those_who_are_interested_in_judging_whethe
The real reason Peter_R talk was refused (from his previous presentation) (xpost from /btc)
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoinxt/comments/3uwpvh/the_real_reason_peter_r_talk_was_refused_from_his/
[CENSORED] The Morning After the Moderation Mistake: Thoughts on Consensus and the Longest Chain
https://np.reddit.com/bitcoin_uncensored/comments/3h8o50/censored_the_morning_after_the_moderation_mistake/
Core / Blockstream cheerleader eragmus gloating over Peter__R's account getting suspended from Reddit (ie, from all subreddits) - by some Reddit admin(s)
[PSA] Uber Troll Extraordinaire, Peter__R, has been permanently suspended by Reddit
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/407j77/psa_uber_troll_extraordinaire_upeter_r_has_been/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Actual Data from a serious test with blocks from 0MB - 10MB

Jonathan Toomim's work on blocksize measurements is not appreciated widely enough.
The data from his intensive global testnet investigations is presented in a nice and informative interactive format here:
https://toom.im/blocktime
Jonathan presented this data at scaling bitcoin Hong Kong, and then proceeded to spend many more days in Asia talking to miners there, the results of which have been summarized in other posts.
The tests charted at the link above involved generating blocks in London, and watching how they propagated across the world.
TL;DR: if you're in China, you have a problem whose name is the Great Firewall, that affects even tiny blocks. Otherwise, your experience is pretty good, even up to 9+MB blocks. Have a look at the data for yourself.
One of the things you'll see Jonathan has been testing is "thin blocks". This is a simple compression technique similar to IBLT or the relay network, but it's built into a fully validating node. It was written by Mike Hearn and is currently available as a patch to XT. It's still being improved but as you'll see from the charts, it can make a huge difference in block propagation times.
In this first test, thin blocks didn't have much effect on larger blocks -- this was due to an index size limit that is now being addressed in both core and XT (technically, "setInventoryKnown" was much too small).
Jonathan is now planning another global test with many improvements to the first. Thank you JT!
submitted by dgenr8 to btc [link] [comments]

Is anyone else freaked out by this whole blocksize debate? Does anyone else find themself often agreeing with *both* sides - depending on whichever argument you happen to be reading at the moment? And do we need some better algorithms and data structures?

Why do both sides of the debate seem “right” to me?
I know, I know, a healthy debate is healthy and all - and maybe I'm just not used to the tumult and jostling which would be inevitable in a real live open major debate about something as vital as Bitcoin.
And I really do agree with the starry-eyed idealists who say Bitcoin is vital. Imperfect as it may be, it certainly does seem to represent the first real chance we've had in the past few hundred years to try to steer our civilization and our planet away from the dead-ends and disasters which our government-issued debt-based currencies keep dragging us into.
But this particular debate, about the blocksize, doesn't seem to be getting resolved at all.
Pretty much every time I read one of the long-form major arguments contributed by Bitcoin "thinkers" who I've come to respect over the past few years, this weird thing happens: I usually end up finding myself nodding my head and agreeing with whatever particular piece I'm reading!
But that should be impossible - because a lot of these people vehemently disagree!
So how can both sides sound so convincing to me, simply depending on whichever piece I currently happen to be reading?
Does anyone else feel this way? Or am I just a gullible idiot?
Just Do It?
When you first look at it or hear about it, increasing the size seems almost like a no-brainer: The "big-block" supporters say just increase the blocksize to 20 MB or 8 MB, or do some kind of scheduled or calculated regular increment which tries to take into account the capabilities of the infrastructure and the needs of the users. We do have the bandwidth and the memory to at least increase the blocksize now, they say - and we're probably gonna continue to have more bandwidth and memory in order to be able to keep increasing the blocksize for another couple decades - pretty much like everything else computer-based we've seen over the years (some of this stuff is called by names such as "Moore's Law").
On the other hand, whenever the "small-block" supporters warn about the utter catastrophe that a failed hard-fork would mean, I get totally freaked by their possible doomsday scenarios, which seem totally plausible and terrifying - so I end up feeling that the only way I'd want to go with a hard-fork would be if there was some pre-agreed "triggering" mechanism where the fork itself would only actually "switch on" and take effect provided that some "supermajority" of the network (of who? the miners? the full nodes?) had signaled (presumably via some kind of totally reliable p2p trustless software-based voting system?) that they do indeed "pre-agree" to actually adopt the pre-scheduled fork (and thereby avoid any possibility whatsoever of the precious blockchain somehow tragically splitting into two and pretty much killing this cryptocurrency off in its infancy).
So in this "conservative" scenario, I'm talking about wanting at least 95% pre-adoption agreement - not the mere 75% which I recall some proposals call for, which seems like it could easily lead to a 75/25 blockchain split.
But this time, with this long drawn-out blocksize debate, the core devs, and several other important voices who have become prominent opinion shapers over the past few years, can't seem to come to any real agreement on this.
Weird split among the devs
As far as I can see, there's this weird split: Gavin and Mike seem to be the only people among the devs who really want a major blocksize increase - and all the other devs seem to be vehemently against them.
But then on the other hand, the users seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of a major increase.
And there are meta-questions about governance, about about why this didn't come out as a BIP, and what the availability of Bitcoin XT means.
And today or yesterday there was this really cool big-blockian exponential graph based on doubling the blocksize every two years for twenty years, reminding us of the pure mathematical fact that 210 is indeed about 1000 - but not really addressing any of the game-theoretic points raised by the small-blockians. So a lot of the users seem to like it, but when so few devs say anything positive about it, I worry: is this just yet more exponential chart porn?
On the one hand, Gavin's and Mike's blocksize increase proposal initially seemed like a no-brainer to me.
And on the other hand, all the other devs seem to be against them. Which is weird - not what I'd initially expected at all (but maybe I'm just a fool who's seduced by exponential chart porn?).
Look, I don't mean to be rude to any of the core devs, and I don't want to come off like someone wearing a tinfoil hat - but it has to cross people's minds that the powers that be (the Fed and the other central banks and the governments that use their debt-issued money to run this world into a ditch) could very well be much more scared shitless than they're letting on. If we assume that the powers that be are using their usual playbook and tactics, then it could be worth looking at the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins, to get an idea of how they might try to attack Bitcoin. So, what I'm saying is, they do have a track record of sending in "experts" to try to derail projects and keep everyone enslaved to the Creature from Jekyll Island. I'm just saying. So, without getting ad hominem - let's just make sure that our ideas can really stand scrutiny on their own - as Nick Szabo says, we need to make sure there is "more computer science, less noise" in this debate.
When Gavin Andresen first came out with the 20 MB thing - I sat back and tried to imagine if I could download 20 MB in 10 minutes (which seems to be one of the basic mathematical and technological constraints here - right?)
I figured, "Yeah, I could download that" - even with my crappy internet connection.
And I guess the telecoms might be nice enough to continue to double our bandwidth every two years for the next couple decades – if we ask them politely?
On the other hand - I think we should be careful about entrusting the financial freedom of the world into the greedy hands of the telecoms companies - given all their shady shenanigans over the past few years in many countries. After decades of the MPAA and the FBI trying to chip away at BitTorrent, lately PirateBay has been hard to access. I would say it's quite likely that certain persons at institutions like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs and the Fed might be very, very motivated to see Bitcoin fail - so we shouldn't be too sure about scaling plans which depend on the willingness of companies Verizon and AT&T to double our bandwith every two years.
Maybe the real important hardware buildout challenge for a company like 21 (and its allies such as Qualcomm) to take on now would not be "a miner in every toaster" but rather "Google Fiber Download and Upload Speeds in every Country, including China".
I think I've read all the major stuff on the blocksize debate from Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd, Adam Back, and Jeff Garzick and several other major contributors - and, oddly enough, all their arguments seem reasonable - heck even Luke-Jr seems reasonable to me on the blocksize debate, and I always thought he was a whackjob overly influenced by superstition and numerology - and now today I'm reading the article by Bram Cohen - the inventor of BitTorrent - and I find myself agreeing with him too!
I say to myself: What's going on with me? How can I possibly agree with all of these guys, if they all have such vehemently opposing viewpoints?
I mean, think back to the glory days of a couple of years ago, when all we were hearing was how this amazing unprecedented grassroots innovation called Bitcoin was going to benefit everyone from all walks of life, all around the world:
...basically the entire human race transacting everything into the blockchain.
(Although let me say that I think that people's focus on ideas like driverless cabs creating realtime fare markets based on supply and demand seems to be setting our sights a bit low as far as Bitcoin's abilities to correct the financial world's capital-misallocation problems which seem to have been made possible by infinite debt-based fiat. I would have hoped that a Bitcoin-based economy would solve much more noble, much more urgent capital-allocation problems than driverless taxicabs creating fare markets or refrigerators ordering milk on the internet of things. I was thinking more along the lines that Bitcoin would finally strangle dead-end debt-based deadly-toxic energy industries like fossil fuels and let profitable clean energy industries like Thorium LFTRs take over - but that's another topic. :=)
Paradoxes in the blocksize debate
Let me summarize the major paradoxes I see here:
(1) Regarding the people (the majority of the core devs) who are against a blocksize increase: Well, the small-blocks arguments do seem kinda weird, and certainly not very "populist", in the sense that: When on earth have end-users ever heard of a computer technology whose capacity didn't grow pretty much exponentially year-on-year? All the cool new technology we've had - from hard drives to RAM to bandwidth - started out pathetically tiny and grew to unimaginably huge over the past few decades - and all our software has in turn gotten massively powerful and big and complex (sometimes bloated) to take advantage of the enormous new capacity available.
But now suddenly, for the first time in the history of technology, we seem to have a majority of the devs, on a major p2p project - saying: "Let's not scale the system up. It could be dangerous. It might break the whole system (if the hard-fork fails)."
I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here, maybe someone else could enlighten me, but I don't think I've ever seen this sort of thing happen in the last few decades of the history of technology - devs arguing against scaling up p2p technology to take advantage of expected growth in infrastructure capacity.
(2) But... on the other hand... the dire warnings of the small-blockians about what could happen if a hard-fork were to fail - wow, they do seem really dire! And these guys are pretty much all heavyweight, experienced programmers and/or game theorists and/or p2p open-source project managers.
I must say, that nearly all of the long-form arguments I've read - as well as many, many of the shorter comments I've read from many users in the threads, whose names I at least have come to more-or-less recognize over the past few months and years on reddit and bitcointalk - have been amazingly impressive in their ability to analyze all aspects of the lifecycle and management of open-source software projects, bringing up lots of serious points which I could never have come up with, and which seem to come from long experience with programming and project management - as well as dealing with economics and human nature (eg, greed - the game-theory stuff).
So a lot of really smart and experienced people with major expertise in various areas ranging from programming to management to game theory to politics to economics have been making some serious, mature, compelling arguments.
But, as I've been saying, the only problem to me is: in many of these cases, these arguments are vehemently in opposition to each other! So I find myself agreeing with pretty much all of them, one by one - which means the end result is just a giant contradiction.
I mean, today we have Bram Cohen, the inventor of BitTorrent, arguing (quite cogently and convincingly to me), that it would be dangerous to increase the blocksize. And this seems to be a guy who would know a few things about scaling out a massive global p2p network - since the protocol which he invented, BitTorrent, is now apparently responsible for like a third of the traffic on the internet (and this despite the long-term concerted efforts of major evil players such as the MPAA and the FBI to shut the whole thing down).
Was the BitTorrent analogy too "glib"?
By the way - I would like to go on a slight tangent here and say that one of the main reasons why I felt so "comfortable" jumping on the Bitcoin train back a few years ago, when I first heard about it and got into it, was the whole rough analogy I saw with BitTorrent.
I remembered the perhaps paradoxical fact that when a torrent is more popular (eg, a major movie release that just came out last week), then it actually becomes faster to download. More people want it, so more people have a few pieces of it, so more people are able to get it from each other. A kind of self-correcting economic feedback loop, where more demand directly leads to more supply.
(BitTorrent manages to pull this off by essentially adding a certain structure to the file being shared, so that it's not simply like an append-only list of 1 MB blocks, but rather more like an random-access or indexed array of 1 MB chunks. Say you're downloading a film which is 700 MB. As soon as your "client" program has downloaded a single 1-MB chunk - say chunk #99 - your "client" program instantly turns into a "server" program as well - offering that chunk #99 to other clients. From my simplistic understanding, I believe the Bitcoin protocol does something similar, to provide a p2p architecture. Hence my - perhaps naïve - assumption that Bitcoin already had the right algorithms / architecture / data structure to scale.)
The efficiency of the BitTorrent network seemed to jive with that "network law" (Metcalfe's Law?) about fax machines. This law states that the more fax machines there are, the more valuable the network of fax machines becomes. Or the value of the network grows on the order of the square of the number of nodes.
This is in contrast with other technology like cars, where the more you have, the worse things get. The more cars there are, the more traffic jams you have, so things start going downhill. I guess this is because highway space is limited - after all, we can't pave over the entire countryside, and we never did get those flying cars we were promised, as David Graeber laments in a recent essay in The Baffler magazine :-)
And regarding the "stress test" supposedly happening right now in the middle of this ongoing blocksize debate, I don't know what worries me more: the fact that it apparently is taking only $5,000 to do a simple kind of DoS on the blockchain - or the fact that there are a few rumors swirling around saying that the unknown company doing the stress test shares the same physical mailing address with a "scam" company?
Or maybe we should just be worried that so much of this debate is happening on a handful of forums which are controlled by some guy named theymos who's already engaged in some pretty "contentious" or "controversial" behavior like blowing a million dollars on writing forum software (I guess he never heard that reddit.com software is open-source)?
So I worry that the great promise of "decentralization" might be more fragile than we originally thought.
Scaling
Anyways, back to Metcalfe's Law: with virtual stuff, like torrents and fax machines, the more the merrier. The more people downloading a given movie, the faster it arrives - and the more people own fax machines, the more valuable the overall fax network.
So I kindof (naïvely?) assumed that Bitcoin, being "virtual" and p2p, would somehow scale up the same magical way BitTorrrent did. I just figured that more people using it would somehow automatically make it stronger and faster.
But now a lot of devs have started talking in terms of the old "scarcity" paradigm, talking about blockspace being a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" - which seems kinda scary, and antithetical to much of the earlier rhetoric we heard about Bitcoin (the stuff about supporting our favorite creators with micropayments, and the stuff about Africans using SMS to send around payments).
Look, when some asshole is in line in front of you at the cash register and he's holding up the line so they can run his credit card to buy a bag of Cheeto's, we tend to get pissed off at the guy - clogging up our expensive global electronic payment infrastructure to make a two-dollar purchase. And that's on a fairly efficient centralized system - and presumably after a year or so, VISA and the guy's bank can delete or compress the transaction in their SQL databases.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if some guy buys a coffee on the blockchain, or if somebody pays an online artist $1.99 for their work - then that transaction, a few bytes or so, has to live on the blockchain forever?
Or is there some "pruning" thing that gets rid of it after a while?
And this could lead to another question: Viewed from the perspective of double-entry bookkeeping, is the blockchain "world-wide ledger" more like the "balance sheet" part of accounting, i.e. a snapshot showing current assets and liabilities? Or is it more like the "cash flow" part of accounting, i.e. a journal showing historical revenues and expenses?
When I think of thousands of machines around the globe having to lug around multiple identical copies of a multi-gigabyte file containing some asshole's coffee purchase forever and ever... I feel like I'm ideologically drifting in one direction (where I'd end up also being against really cool stuff like online micropayments and Africans banking via SMS)... so I don't want to go there.
But on the other hand, when really experienced and battle-tested veterans with major experience in the world of open-souce programming and project management (the "small-blockians") warn of the catastrophic consequences of a possible failed hard-fork, I get freaked out and I wonder if Bitcoin really was destined to be a settlement layer for big transactions.
Could the original programmer(s) possibly weigh in?
And I don't mean to appeal to authority - but heck, where the hell is Satoshi Nakamoto in all this? I do understand that he/she/they would want to maintain absolute anonymity - but on the other hand, I assume SN wants Bitcoin to succeed (both for the future of humanity - or at least for all the bitcoins SN allegedly holds :-) - and I understand there is a way that SN can cryptographically sign a message - and I understand that as the original developer of Bitcoin, SN had some very specific opinions about the blocksize... So I'm kinda wondering of Satoshi could weigh in from time to time. Just to help out a bit. I'm not saying "Show us a sign" like a deity or something - but damn it sure would be fascinating and possibly very helpful if Satoshi gave us his/hetheir 2 satoshis worth at this really confusing juncture.
Are we using our capacity wisely?
I'm not a programming or game-theory whiz, I'm just a casual user who has tried to keep up with technology over the years.
It just seems weird to me that here we have this massive supercomputer (500 times more powerful than the all the supercomputers in the world combined) doing fairly straightforward "embarassingly parallel" number-crunching operations to secure a p2p world-wide ledger called the blockchain to keep track of a measly 2.1 quadrillion tokens spread out among a few billion addresses - and a couple of years ago you had people like Rick Falkvinge saying the blockchain would someday be supporting multi-million-dollar letters of credit for international trade and you had people like Andreas Antonopoulos saying the blockchain would someday allow billions of "unbanked" people to send remittances around the village or around the world dirt-cheap - and now suddenly in June 2015 we're talking about blockspace as a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" and partially centralized, corporate-sponsored "Level 2" vaporware like Lightning Network and some mysterious company is "stess testing" or "DoS-ing" the system by throwing away a measly $5,000 and suddenly it sounds like the whole system could eventually head right back into PayPal and Western Union territory again, in terms of expensive fees.
When I got into Bitcoin, I really was heavily influenced by vague analogies with BitTorrent: I figured everyone would just have tiny little like utorrent-type program running on their machine (ie, Bitcoin-QT or Armory or Mycelium etc.).
I figured that just like anyone can host a their own blog or webserver, anyone would be able to host their own bank.
Yeah, Google and and Mozilla and Twitter and Facebook and WhatsApp did come along and build stuff on top of TCP/IP, so I did expect a bunch of companies to build layers on top of the Bitcoin protocol as well. But I still figured the basic unit of bitcoin client software powering the overall system would be small and personal and affordable and p2p - like a bittorrent client - or at the most, like a cheap server hosting a blog or email server.
And I figured there would be a way at the software level, at the architecture level, at the algorithmic level, at the data structure level - to let the thing scale - if not infinitely, at least fairly massively and gracefully - the same way the BitTorrent network has.
Of course, I do also understand that with BitTorrent, you're sharing a read-only object (eg, a movie) - whereas with Bitcoin, you're achieving distributed trustless consensus and appending it to a write-only (or append-only) database.
So I do understand that the problem which BitTorrent solves is much simpler than the problem which Bitcoin sets out to solve.
But still, it seems that there's got to be a way to make this thing scale. It's p2p and it's got 500 times more computing power than all the supercomputers in the world combined - and so many brilliant and motivated and inspired people want this thing to succeed! And Bitcoin could be our civilization's last chance to steer away from the oncoming debt-based ditch of disaster we seem to be driving into!
It just seems that Bitcoin has got to be able to scale somehow - and all these smart people working together should be able to come up with a solution which pretty much everyone can agree - in advance - will work.
Right? Right?
A (probably irrelevant) tangent on algorithms and architecture and data structures
I'll finally weigh with my personal perspective - although I might be biased due to my background (which is more on the theoretical side of computer science).
My own modest - or perhaps radical - suggestion would be to ask whether we're really looking at all the best possible algorithms and architectures and data structures out there.
From this perspective, I sometimes worry that the overwhelming majority of the great minds working on the programming and game-theory stuff might come from a rather specific, shall we say "von Neumann" or "procedural" or "imperative" school of programming (ie, C and Python and Java programmers).
It seems strange to me that such a cutting-edge and important computer project would have so little participation from the great minds at the other end of the spectrum of programming paradigms - namely, the "functional" and "declarative" and "algebraic" (and co-algebraic!) worlds.
For example, I was struck in particular by statements I've seen here and there (which seemed rather hubristic or lackadaisical to me - for something as important as Bitcoin), that the specification of Bitcoin and the blockchain doesn't really exist in any form other than the reference implementation(s) (in procedural languages such as C or Python?).
Curry-Howard anyone?
I mean, many computer scientists are aware of the Curry-Howard isomorophism, which basically says that the relationship between a theorem and its proof is equivalent to the relationship between a specification and its implementation. In other words, there is a long tradition in mathematics (and in computer programming) of:
And it's not exactly "turtles all the way down" either: a specification is generally simple and compact enough that a good programmer can usually simply visually inspect it to determine if it is indeed "correct" - something which is very difficult, if not impossible, to do with a program written in a procedural, implementation-oriented language such as C or Python or Java.
So I worry that we've got this tradition, from the open-source github C/Java programming tradition, of never actually writing our "specification", and only writing the "implementation". In mission-critical military-grade programming projects (which often use languages like Ada or Maude) this is simply not allowed. It would seem that a project as mission-critical as Bitcoin - which could literally be crucial for humanity's continued survival - should also use this kind of military-grade software development approach.
And I'm not saying rewrite the implementations in these kind of theoretical languages. But it might be helpful if the C/Python/Java programmers in the Bitcoin imperative programming world could build some bridges to the Maude/Haskell/ML programmers of the functional and algebraic programming worlds to see if any kind of useful cross-pollination might take place - between specifications and implementations.
For example, the JavaFAN formal analyzer for multi-threaded Java programs (developed using tools based on the Maude language) was applied to the Remote Agent AI program aboard NASA's Deep Space 1 shuttle, written in Java - and it took only a few minutes using formal mathematical reasoning to detect a potential deadlock which would have occurred years later during the space mission when the damn spacecraft was already way out around Pluto.
And "the Maude-NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) Protocol Analyzer (Maude-NPA) is a tool used to provide security proofs of cryptographic protocols and to search for protocol flaws and cryptosystem attacks."
These are open-source formal reasoning tools developed by DARPA and used by NASA and the US Navy to ensure that program implementations satisfy their specifications. It would be great if some of the people involved in these kinds of projects could contribute to help ensure the security and scalability of Bitcoin.
But there is a wide abyss between the kinds of programmers who use languages like Maude and the kinds of programmers who use languages like C/Python/Java - and it can be really hard to get the two worlds to meet. There is a bit of rapprochement between these language communities in languages which might be considered as being somewhere in the middle, such as Haskell and ML. I just worry that Bitcoin might be turning into being an exclusively C/Python/Java project (with the algorithms and practitioners traditionally of that community), when it could be more advantageous if it also had some people from the functional and algebraic-specification and program-verification community involved as well. The thing is, though: the theoretical practitioners are big on "semantics" - I've heard them say stuff like "Yes but a C / C++ program has no easily identifiable semantics". So to get them involved, you really have to first be able to talk about what your program does (specification) - before proceeding to describe how it does it (implementation). And writing high-level specifications is typically very hard using the syntax and semantics of languages like C and Java and Python - whereas specs are fairly easy to write in Maude - and not only that, they're executable, and you state and verify properties about them - which provides for the kind of debate Nick Szabo was advocating ("more computer science, less noise").
Imagine if we had an executable algebraic specification of Bitcoin in Maude, where we could formally reason about and verify certain crucial game-theoretical properties - rather than merely hand-waving and arguing and deploying and praying.
And so in the theoretical programming community you've got major research on various logics such as Girard's Linear Logic (which is resource-conscious) and Bruni and Montanari's Tile Logic (which enables "pasting" bigger systems together from smaller ones in space and time), and executable algebraic specification languages such as Meseguer's Maude (which would be perfect for game theory modeling, with its functional modules for specifying the deterministic parts of systems and its system modules for specifiying non-deterministic parts of systems, and its parameterized skeletons for sketching out the typical architectures of mobile systems, and its formal reasoning and verification tools and libraries which have been specifically applied to testing and breaking - and fixing - cryptographic protocols).
And somewhat closer to the practical hands-on world, you've got stuff like Google's MapReduce and lots of Big Data database languages developed by Google as well. And yet here we are with a mempool growing dangerously big for RAM on a single machine, and a 20-GB append-only list as our database - and not much debate on practical results from Google's Big Data databases.
(And by the way: maybe I'm totally ignorant for asking this, but I'll ask anyways: why the hell does the mempool have to stay in RAM? Couldn't it work just as well if it were stored temporarily on the hard drive?)
And you've got CalvinDB out of Yale which apparently provides an ACID layer on top of a massively distributed database.
Look, I'm just an armchair follower cheering on these projects. I can barely manage to write a query in SQL, or read through a C or Python or Java program. But I would argue two points here: (1) these languages may be too low-level and "non-formal" for writing and modeling and formally reasoning about and proving properties of mission-critical specifications - and (2) there seem to be some Big Data tools already deployed by institutions such as Google and Yale which support global petabyte-size databases on commodity boxes with nice properties such as near-real-time and ACID - and I sometimes worry that the "core devs" might be failing to review the literature (and reach out to fellow programmers) out there to see if there might be some formal program-verification and practical Big Data tools out there which could be applied to coming up with rock-solid, 100% consensus proposals to handle an issue such as blocksize scaling, which seems to have become much more intractable than many people might have expected.
I mean, the protocol solved the hard stuff: the elliptical-curve stuff and the Byzantine General stuff. How the heck can we be falling down on the comparatively "easier" stuff - like scaling the blocksize?
It just seems like defeatism to say "Well, the blockchain is already 20-30 GB and it's gonna be 20-30 TB ten years from now - and we need 10 Mbs bandwidth now and 10,000 Mbs bandwidth 20 years from - assuming the evil Verizon and AT&T actually give us that - so let's just become a settlement platform and give up on buying coffee or banking the unbanked or doing micropayments, and let's push all that stuff into some corporate-controlled vaporware without even a whitepaper yet."
So you've got Peter Todd doing some possibly brilliant theorizing and extrapolating on the idea of "treechains" - there is a Let's Talk Bitcoin podcast from about a year ago where he sketches the rough outlines of this idea out in a very inspiring, high-level way - although the specifics have yet to be hammered out. And we've got Blockstream also doing some hopeful hand-waving about the Lightning Network.
Things like Peter Todd's treechains - which may be similar to the spark in some devs' eyes called Lightning Network - are examples of the kind of algorithm or architecture which might manage to harness the massive computing power of miners and nodes in such a way that certain kinds of massive and graceful scaling become possible.
It just seems like a kindof tiny dev community working on this stuff.
Being a C or Python or Java programmer should not be a pre-req to being able to help contribute to the specification (and formal reasoning and program verification) for Bitcoin and the blockchain.
XML and UML are crap modeling and specification languages, and C and Java and Python are even worse (as specification languages - although as implementation languages, they are of course fine).
But there are serious modeling and specification languages out there, and they could be very helpful at times like this - where what we're dealing with is questions of modeling and specification (ie, "needs and requirements").
One just doesn't often see the practical, hands-on world of open-source github implementation-level programmers and the academic, theoretical world of specification-level programmers meeting very often. I wish there were some way to get these two worlds to collaborate on Bitcoin.
Maybe a good first step to reach out to the theoretical people would be to provide a modular executable algebraic specification of the Bitcoin protocol in a recognized, military/NASA-grade specification language such as Maude - because that's something the theoretical community can actually wrap their heads around, whereas it's very hard to get them to pay attention to something written only as a C / Python / Java implementation (without an accompanying specification in a formal language).
They can't check whether the program does what it's supposed to do - if you don't provide a formal mathematical definition of what the program is supposed to do.
Specification : Implementation :: Theorem : Proof
You have to remember: the theoretical community is very aware of the Curry-Howard isomorphism. Just like it would be hard to get a mathematician's attention by merely showing them a proof without telling also telling them what theorem the proof is proving - by the same token, it's hard to get the attention of a theoretical computer scientist by merely showing them an implementation without showing them the specification that it implements.
Bitcoin is currently confronted with a mathematical or "computer science" problem: how to secure the network while getting high enough transactional throughput, while staying within the limited RAM, bandwidth and hard drive space limitations of current and future infrastructure.
The problem only becomes a political and economic problem if we give up on trying to solve it as a mathematical and "theoretical computer science" problem.
There should be a plethora of whitepapers out now proposing algorithmic solutions to these scaling issues. Remember, all we have to do is apply the Byzantine General consensus-reaching procedure to a worldwide database which shuffles 2.1 quadrillion tokens among a few billion addresses. The 21 company has emphatically pointed out that racing to compute a hash to add a block is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem - very easy to decompose among cheap, fault-prone, commodity boxes, and recompose into an overall solution - along the lines of Google's highly successful MapReduce.
I guess what I'm really saying is (and I don't mean to be rude here), is that C and Python and Java programmers might not be the best qualified people to develop and formally prove the correctness of (note I do not say: "test", I say "formally prove the correctness of") these kinds of algorithms.
I really believe in the importance of getting the algorithms and architectures right - look at Google Search itself, it uses some pretty brilliant algorithms and architectures (eg, MapReduce, Paxos) which enable it to achieve amazing performance - on pretty crappy commodity hardware. And look at BitTorrent, which is truly p2p, where more demand leads to more supply.
So, in this vein, I will close this lengthy rant with an oddly specific link - which may or may not be able to make some interesting contributions to finding suitable algorithms, architectures and data structures which might help Bitcoin scale massively. I have no idea if this link could be helpful - but given the near-total lack of people from the Haskell and ML and functional worlds in these Bitcoin specification debates, I thought I'd be remiss if I didn't throw this out - just in case there might be something here which could help us channel the massive computing power of the Bitcoin network in such a way as to enable us simply sidestep this kind of desperate debate where both sides seem right because the other side seems wrong.
https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/neil.ghani/papers/ghani-calco07
The above paper is about "higher dimensional trees". It uses a bit of category theory (not a whole lot) and a bit of Haskell (again not a lot - just a simple data structure called a Rose tree, which has a wikipedia page) to develop a very expressive and efficient data structure which generalizes from lists to trees to higher dimensions.
I have no idea if this kind of data structure could be applicable to the current scaling mess we apparently are getting bogged down in - I don't have the game-theory skills to figure it out.
I just thought that since the blockchain is like a list, and since there are some tree-like structures which have been grafted on for efficiency (eg Merkle trees) and since many of the futuristic scaling proposals seem to also involve generalizing from list-like structures (eg, the blockchain) to tree-like structures (eg, side-chains and tree-chains)... well, who knows, there might be some nugget of algorithmic or architectural or data-structure inspiration there.
So... TL;DR:
(1) I'm freaked out that this blocksize debate has splintered the community so badly and dragged on so long, with no resolution in sight, and both sides seeming so right (because the other side seems so wrong).
(2) I think Bitcoin could gain immensely by using high-level formal, algebraic and co-algebraic program specification and verification languages (such as Maude including Maude-NPA, Mobile Maude parameterized skeletons, etc.) to specify (and possibly also, to some degree, verify) what Bitcoin does - before translating to low-level implementation languages such as C and Python and Java saying how Bitcoin does it. This would help to communicate and reason about programs with much more mathematical certitude - and possibly obviate the need for many political and economic tradeoffs which currently seem dismally inevitable - and possibly widen the collaboration on this project.
(3) I wonder if there are some Big Data approaches out there (eg, along the lines of Google's MapReduce and BigTable, or Yale's CalvinDB), which could be implemented to allow Bitcoin to scale massively and painlessly - and to satisfy all stakeholders, ranging from millionaires to micropayments, coffee drinkers to the great "unbanked".
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

More fallacies and falsehoods being used that need to be cleared up if we want to have a clear debate (deleted in r/bitcoin)

This is a follow up thread on the thread I made about the misconception about individual fees needing to increase. I noticed in that thread there were a large number of very obvious logical fallacies being made. It seems relatively clear to me that these were/are being made in bad faith so I thought it would be useful to point them out here so that people can use this thread as a guide on how to respond to them in the future.
"In what world could we have 8GB blocks short term and Bitcoin remain even remotely decentralised"
No one is advocating for 8GB blocks in the short-term unless you consider 'in 22 years' to be short term. Planning for the future is a necessary requirement of a system that is to be used in the future. For example, Google having a schedule for server upgrades in the future does not mean the server upgrades are happening now.
On the one hand you say mass adoption any time now and show tables with massive tps rates, on the other hand you say 20 years. Which is it?
No one is saying mass adoption is right around the corner. If we are planning for success though (why wouldn't we be) then we must plan for some increase in adoption throughout time though. Adoption is not a binary process where bitcoin has either been adopted or it hasn't. It will occur gradually over time and often in smaller waves due to the nature of bitcoin.
8MB in two months is enough to massively cull nodes but not for any sort of mass adoption as plain transactions in the chain. You know this, right?
There are multiple fallacies here. Firstly 8MB is a limit and not the actual block size. For almost the entire 7 years of bitcoin's history, blocks have not been full (but have continued to fill up over time). If the block size limit is increased to 8MB in 2 months it does not mean that the that the block size will be 8MB. We can expect blocks to fill up to the limit over time just as they have done in the past history of bitcoin.
The second is that there is no evidence that 8MB blocks will "massively cull nodes" (when 8MB blocks are reached). If someone can describe what "massively cull" means, and provide specific evidence for that this will happen, it would go towards supporting this kind of statement.
'even with 8GB blocks, bitcoin will not be able to handle enough transactions for the whole world'
Just because bitcoin with blocks of a certain size cannot handle every possible conceivable transaction across the world does not mean it is not useful. Having larger blocks also does not mean that other solutions cannot also be implemented. Sidechains, higher layer services and off-chain services can all offer useful niche services (with tradeoffs) that bitcoin cannot. Just because bitcoin is not the be-all-and-end-all solution with bigger blocks does not mean that bigger blocks are not useful.
The mining subsidy is decreasing therefore we need to increase individual fees now/in the near future to cover this loss to make sure there is still an incentive for miners to keep mining.
The mining subsidy is decreasing (every halving) in bitcoin terms. In real terms though the subsidy has been increasing over time. You can very easily see this on this chart.
As bitcoin price has (much) more than doubled in the time between each halving. For example the miner revenue per day around the last block halving (50->25) was around $50,000. It is now currently at around $1,500,000. So while the block reward in bitcoin terms has decreased by 50%. The block reward in real terms has increased by around 3000%. At a certain point it is certain that the block reward will stop increasing and decrease in real terms as well, but there is no indication this will start any time soon.
There are likely considerably more than this, so if anyone has any serious, logical fallacies (or simply falsehoods) that I haven't mentioned, I will gladly add them.
To have a serious debate we need to stop pushing things are based on false premises just to try and win an argument. I support BIP101 but I could certainly be convinced of a better solution if there is one, but using arguments like I have referenced to above only creates more arguments which provide no outcome other than all parties wasting time and energy.
EDIT 1: Here's another one from Theymos.
As actual block sizes get larger, it becomes more and more difficult/expensive to run a full node.
This is a false premise as it ignores technological progress and the lowering of cost for technology over time. If block size increases at the same speed that the technology needed to process those blocks improves then the cost of processing each block will remain the same.
EDIT 2: Here's one from BashCo.
BitcoinXT probably won't be the last implementation that tries to subvert consensus via hash rate. Who knows, maybe the next one will want to remove the 21 million coin limit.
Two fallacies. First, as bitsko points out, this is a very clear slippery slop fallacy. There is nothing to indicate that someone who does A will do B. Using the threat of them doing B as a reason against A is the fallacy here.
The second, as rezzme points out, is that you cannot attain consensus, or knowledge of consensus, without first people putting their cards on the table.
submitted by singularity87 to bitcoinxt [link] [comments]

Why We Need to Ask Gavin Andresen for a 2-4-8 Proposal

Firstly, let’s not confuse this with a BIP let’s just say it’s a change in xt that needs to be implemented immediately, and ideally should be produced with Gavin’s Leadership. Many who have been supporting xt will be reluctant to listen to my reasoning, but please bear with me. I myself still prefer xt over the other versions but there is a reason it is flawed. We don’t have to think of this reason, necessarily, as a mistake in the code. Rather it is a practical reality (in the current forward prediction model form) The Chinese miners are never going to use it. So no matter how perfect xt code is in our imaginations it is not perfect in someone else’s and it is their imagination not ours that determines what code is discovering blocks. The Chinese miners do in fact support a 2-4-8 proposal. See this very informative link produced by jtoomim :
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Cg9Qo9Vl5PdJYD4EiHnIGMV3G48pWmcWI3NFoKKfIzU/edit#gid=0
As you can see the column titled 2-4-8 (Adam Back) is a combination of the best and most popular options.
There are many fallacies used to support the forward prediction model. By this I mean predictions of up to 8GB 20 years out. Before I get into those, let me please advise you, that this model of forward predictions is failed. We will have market prediction models that run dynamically in Code. In fact Jeff Garzik and Gavin Andresen referred to it here:
https://medium.com/@jgarzik/bitcoin-is-being-hot-wired-for-settlement-a5beb1df223a#.s0spzkr4j
Where they say:
“And finally, to remove long term moral hazard, core block size limit should be made dynamic, put in the realm of software, outside of human hands.”
These “dynamic” market prediction models are the future. They will be in place within 10 years. There is no reason to hold up xt over failed prediction models of the past that will never be used.
While trying to convince people I have come across many strange fallacies that are really rationalizations that stop them from considering that their view is totally wrong. Let me list those:
1) Small Block Fallacy: This occurs when we say the miners can make small blocks already. They don’t have to make big blocks if they don’t want to.
Yes the miners can make small blocks. Yes, that does not matter because they still have to download the big ones.
2) Greedy Miners Fallacy: This occurs when we say the miners are just trying to jack up fees by using small blocks.
No, they want bigger blocks. LOOK AT THE CHART. Their money is not maximized with tiny blocks that spike fees up for a short time until bitcoin is replaced.
3) Unreasonable Miners Fallacy: This occurs when we say they are being obstinate, don’t understand the code, and they will only run Core or something.
No, they are not being unreasonable, they have real data problems there behind the Great Fire Wall. See this link: https://toom.im/blocktime They are being conservative and totally reasonable. I can’t say that in every case, but it is not fair to say that they are not searching for a solution or will only run Core. They have said they will make their own code if Core cannot scale bitcoin.
4) Wrong Guesses (about future block sizes) are okay Fallacy: “A wrong guess is no worse than no guess at all.”
No they are not good they cost us everything and gain us nothing.
5) I am just going to sit here and not change my original proposal no matter what fallacy.
If gavinandresen won’t someone else will. That said we in the community would really appreciate your leadership on this. (Admittedly, I am asking people now to support this and hope they would)
Why this is so important. Core is marginalizing bitcoin by the day. We need to take the momentum away from them. The Core coders have a conflict of interest in their funding and this is causing them to make really bad decisions. We know all the reasons too well. Edit: no matter what I discover something that has to be changed after 3 minutes.
submitted by rberrtus to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 2017 a Comprehensive Timeline

Some of the most notable news and events over the past year:
Jan 3:
Jan 10:
Jan 17:
Jan 19:
Feb 8:
Feb 9:
Feb 24:
Mar 1:
Mar 2:
Mar 10:
Mar 12:
Mar 14:
Mar 15:
Mar 23:
Mar 28:
Apr 1:
Apr 5:
Apr 6:
Apr 12:
Apr 20:
Apr 26:
May 2:
May 9:
May 10:
May 21:
May 22:
May 23:
May 31:
Jun 2:
Jun 14:
Jun 29 - Jul 1:
Jun 30:
Jul 12:
Jul 16:
Jul 17:
Jul 22:
Jul 23:
Jul 24:
Jul 25:
Jul 27:
Jul 28:
Jul 31:
Aug 1:
Aug 2:
Aug 3:
Aug 10:
Aug 12:
Aug 15:
Aug 17:
Aug 21:
Aug 22:
Aug 24:
Aug 25:
Aug 28:
Aug 29:
Aug 30:
Aug 31:
Sep 1:
Sep 2:
Sep 3:
Sep 4:
Sep 5:
Sep 6:
Sep 7:
Sep 8:
Sep 9:
Sep 10:
Sep 12:
Sep 13:
Sep 14:
Sep 15:
Sep 17:
Sep 19:
Sep 20:
Sep 21:
Sep 23:
Sep 24:
Sep 25:
Sep 26:
Sep 27:
Sep 28:
Sep 29:
Sep 30:
Oct 4:
Oct 7:
Oct 9:
Oct 10:
Oct 11:
Oct 12:
Oct 13:
Oct 14:
Oct 16:
Oct 27:
Oct 30:
Nov 1:
Nov 2:
Nov 3:
Nov 4:
Nov 7:
Nov 8:
Nov 9:
Nov 10:
Nov 12:
Nov 13:
Nov 20:
Nov 21:
Nov 27:
Nov 28:
Dec 2:
Dec 5:
Dec 6
Dec 7
Dec 9
Dec 10
Dec 11
Dec 12
Dec 13
Dec 14
Dec 15
Dec 16
Dec 17
Dec 19
Dec 20
Dec 21
Dec 22
Dec 23
Dec 25
Dec 27
Dec 29
Dec 30
Dec 31
submitted by BitcoinChronicler to btc [link] [comments]

Mike Hearn's Bitcoin Cedes 6% of Market Cap to Competitors; Classic Soldiers On EB82 – Mike Hearn - Blocksize Debate At The Breaking Point How Much Money Will You Make Bitcoin Mining With a 330MH s Block Erupter Bitcoin Wallet Generator

Bitcoin Classic Node Chart. Bitcoin XT. Bitcoin XT was the first unsuccessful hard fork of Bitcoin. Led by developers Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, XT attempted to raise the Bitcoin block size to 8 MB. Despite support from a few large Bitcoin companies, the proposal failed to gain enough support from the community and Bitcoin users. Frustrated with the lack of support for XT, Hearn labeled ... Daily Average Bitcoin Block Sizes by Network Summary Last updated just now. Daily Average Bitcoin Block Sizes by Network. Switch to Log Chart. open_in_new More Block Info. Support the Team Through site feedback, content submissions, and donations, you help Coin Dance realize its vision. Your donations directly support site development, content quality control, and technical research, which is ... Currently, Bitcoin XT and unlimited nodes (BIP 101) account for over 12.6% of the Bitcoin network’s node count, demonstrating a significant and consistent growth rate for the past few months. An increasing number of established bitcoin startups including blockchain.info, Bitpay, Itbit and KnCMiner have also begun to support Gavin Andresen’s 8 megabyte block-size increase proposal since ... Introduced by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, the Bitcoin XT is a fork of actual bitcoin blockchain. BIP-101 is proposed to increase the block size from 1 MB to 8 MB and double it every two years ... Bitcoin News Bitcoin Network Backlog Lead to 110% Increase in Support Tickets. Bitcoin Network has slowed down, thanks to increasing transactions and the currently fixed block size of 1 MB which ...

[index] [7067] [19168] [25420] [34648] [4194] [7308] [5761] [12393] [20171] [13874]

Mike Hearn's "Worst Case" XT Fork Scenario: Checkpoints, Ignore Longest Chain

Excerpt from Episode 82 of Epicenter Bitcoin. Mike Hearn describes the "worst case scenario" that could follow after the 20MB block size limit is introduced into Bitcoin XT. Miners (e.g., in China ... 2. Bitcoin Cash solve the scaling issue to increase bitcoin’s block size 3. Powered block of maximum 8 MB size 4. Bitcoin cash raise this limit of transactions per second 5. Bitcoin Cash has low ... The dollar amount of all cryptocurrencies combined has remained steady for two months, but Bitcoin's share of that number is dropping. Infighting is the stat... bitcoin block, bitcoin bot, bitcoin betting, bitcoin btcx, bitcoin blender, bitcoin blockchain size, b bitcoin, bitcoin b font, plan b bitcoin, plan b bitcoin podcast, bitcoin miner .b ... Subscribe For More Videos.....Like & Share ..... Thanks For Watching... bitcoin bitcoin how to buy what bitcoin mining what bitcoin bitcoin how to mine bi...

#