Circle of the fraud: more information about Bitcoin Orcus ...
Circle of the fraud: more information about Bitcoin Orcus ...
Bitcoin - The Currency of the Internet - reddit
Cryptocurrency Exchange Poloniex Has Been Bought by Circle ...
I asked theymos how is XT an altcoin and ... - reddit.com
Circle’s Bitcoin Services Now Available In Spain & Ireland ...
Why is Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc trying to pretend AXA isn't one of the top 5 "companies that control the world"? AXA relies on debt & derivatives to pretend it's not bankrupt. Million-dollar Bitcoin would destroy AXA's phony balance sheet. How much is AXA paying Greg to cripple Bitcoin?
Typical semantics games and hair-splitting and bullshitting from Greg. But I guess we shouldn't expect too much honesty or even understanding from someone like Greg who thinks that miners don't control Bitcoin. AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc doesn't understand how Bitcoin mining works
Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg's comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought "honest" meant "plays by Core rules." [But] there is no "honesty" involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus
Adam Back & Greg Maxwell are experts in mathematics and engineering, but not in markets and economics. They should not be in charge of "central planning" for things like "max blocksize". They're desperately attempting to prevent the market from deciding on this. But it will, despite their efforts.
Gregory Maxwell nullc has evidently never heard of terms like "the 1%", "TPTB", "oligarchy", or "plutocracy", revealing a childlike naïveté when he says: "‘Majority sets the rules regardless of what some minority thinks’ is the governing principle behind the fiats of major democracies."
People are starting to realize how toxic Gregory Maxwell is to Bitcoin, saying there are plenty of other coders who could do crypto and networking, and "he drives away more talent than he can attract." Plus, he has a 10-year record of damaging open-source projects, going back to Wikipedia in 2006.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4klqtg/people_are_starting_to_realize_how_toxic_gregory/ So here we have Greg this week, desperately engaging in his usual little "semantics" games - claiming that AXA isn't technically a bank - when the real point is that: AXA is clearly one of the most powerful fiat finance firms in the world. Maybe when he's talking about the hairball of C++ spaghetti code that him and his fellow devs at Core/Blockstream are slowing turning their version of Bitcoin's codebase into... in that arcane (and increasingly irrelevant :) area maybe he still can dazzle some people with his usual meaningless technically correct but essentially erroneous bullshit. But when it comes to finance and economics, Greg is in way over his head - and in those areas, he can't bullshit anyone. In fact, pretty much everything Greg ever says about finance or economics or banks is simply wrong. He thinks he's proved some point by claiming that AXA isn't technically a bank. But AXA is far worse than a mere "bank" or a mere "French multinational insurance company". AXA is one of the top-five "companies that control the world" - and now (some people think) AXA is in charge of paying for Bitcoin "development". A recent infographic published in the German Magazine "Die Zeit" showed that AXA is indeed the second-most-connected finance company in the world - right at the rotten "core" of the "fantasy fiat" financial system that runs our world today.
Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream.
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/ So, let's get a few things straight here. "AXA" might not be a household name to many people. And Greg was "technically right" when he denied that AXA is a "bank" (which is basically the only kind of "right" that Greg ever is these days: "technically" :-) But AXA is one of the most powerful finance companies in the world. AXA was started as a French insurance company. And now it's a French multinational insurance company. But if you study up a bit on AXA, you'll see that they're not just any old "insurance" company. AXA has their fingers in just about everything around the world - including a certain team of toxic Bitcoin devs who are radically trying to change Bitcoin:
And ever since AXA started throwing tens of millions of dollars in filthy fantasy fiat at a certain toxic dev named Gregory Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream, suddenly he started saying that we can't have nice things like the gradually increasing blocksizes (and gradually increasing Bitcoin prices - which fortunately tend to increase proportional to the square of the blocksize because of Metcalfe's law :-) which were some of the main reasons most of us invested in Bitcoin in the first place. My, my, my - how some people have changed!
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them?
AXA would be exposed as bankrupt in a world dominated by a "counterparty-free" asset class like Bitcoin.
AXA pays Greg's salary - and Greg is one of the major forces who has been actively attempting to block Bitcoin's on-chain scaling - and there's no way getting around the fact that artificially small blocksizes do lead to artificially low prices.
AXA kinda reminds me of AIG If anyone here was paying attention when the cracks first started showing in the world fiat finance system around 2008, you may recall the name of another mega-insurance company, that was also one of the most connected finance companies in the world: AIG.
Falling Giant: A Case Study Of AIG What was once the unthinkable occurred on September 16, 2008. On that date, the federal government gave the American International Group - better known as AIG (NYSE:AIG) - a bailout of $85 billion. In exchange, the U.S. government received nearly 80% of the firm's equity. For decades, AIG was the world's biggest insurer, a company known around the world for providing protection for individuals, companies and others. But in September, the company would have gone under if it were not for government assistance.
Bernanke did say he believed an AIG failure would be "catastrophic," and that the heavy use of derivatives made the AIG problem potentially more explosive. An AIG failure, thanks to the firm's size and its vast web of trading partners, "would have triggered an intensification of the general run on international banking institutions," Bernanke said.
http://fortune.com/2010/09/02/why-the-fed-saved-aig-and-not-lehman/ Just like AIG, AXA is a "systemically important" finance company - one of the biggest insurance companies in the world. And (like all major banks and insurance firms), AXA is drowning in worthless debt and bets (derivatives). Most of AXA's balance sheet would go up in a puff of smoke if they actually did "mark-to-market" (ie, if they actually factored in the probability of the counterparties of their debts and bets actually coming through and paying AXA the full amount it says on the pretty little spreadsheets on everyone's computer screens). In other words: Like most giant banks and insurers, AXA has mainly debt and bets. They rely on counterparties to pay them - maybe, someday, if the whole system doesn't go tits-up by then. In other words: Like most giant banks and insurers, AXA does not hold the "private keys" to their so-called wealth :-) So, like most giant multinational banks and insurers who spend all their time playing with debts and bets, AXA has been teetering on the edge of the abyss since 2008 - held together by chewing gum and paper clips and the miracle of Quantitative Easing - and also by all the clever accounting tricks that instantly become possible when money can go from being a gleam in a banker's eye to a pixel on a screen with just a few keystrokes - that wonderful world of "fantasy fiat" where central bankers ninja-mine billions of dollars in worthless paper and pixels into existence every month - and then for some reason every other month they have to hold a special "emergency central bankers meeting" to deal with the latest financial crisis du jour which "nobody could have seen coming". AIG back in 2008 - much like AXA today - was another "systemically important" worldwide mega-insurance giant - with most of its net worth merely a pure fantasy on a spreadsheet and in a four-color annual report - glossing over the ugly reality that it's all based on toxic debts and derivatives which will never ever be paid off. Mega-banks Mega-insurers like AXA are addicted to the never-ending "fantasy fiat" being injected into the casino of musical chairs involving bets upon bets upon bets upon bets upon bets - counterparty against counterparty against counterparty against counterparty - going 'round and 'round on the big beautiful carroussel where everyone is waiting on the next guy to pay up - and meanwhile everyone's cooking their books and sweeping their losses "under the rug", offshore or onto the taxpayers or into special-purpose vehicles - while the central banks keep printing up a trillion more here and a trillion more there in worthless debt-backed paper and pixels - while entire nations slowly sink into the toxic financial sludge of ever-increasing upayable debt and lower productivity and higher inflation, dragging down everyone's economies, enslaving everyone to increasing worktime and decreasing paychecks and unaffordable healthcare and education, corrupting our institutions and our leaders, distorting our investment and "capital allocation" decisions, inflating housing and healthcare and education beyond everyone's reach - and sending people off to die in endless wars to prop up the deadly failing Saudi-American oil-for-arms Petrodollar ninja-mined currency cartel. In 2008, when the multinational insurance company AIG (along with their fellow gambling buddies at the multinational investment banks Bear Stearns and Lehmans) almost went down the drain due to all their toxic gambling debts, they also almost took the rest of the world with them. And that's when the "core" dev team working for the miners central banks (the Fed, ECB, BoE, BoJ - who all report to the "central bank of central banks" BIS in Basel) - started cranking up their mining rigs printing presses and keyboards and pixels to the max, unilaterally manipulating the "issuance schedule" of their shitcoins and flooding the world with tens of trillions in their worthless phoney fiat to save their sorry asses after all their toxic debts and bad bets. AXA is at the very rotten "core" of this system - like AIG, a "systemically important" (ie, "too big to fail") mega-gigantic multinational insurance company - a fantasy fiat finance firm quietly sitting at the rotten core of our current corrupt financial system, basically impacting everything and everybody on this planet. The "masters of the universe" from AXA are the people who go to Davos every year wining and dining on lobster and champagne - part of that elite circle that prints up endless money which they hand out to their friends while they continue to enslave everyone else - and then of course they always turn around and tell us we can't have nice things like roads and schools and healthcare because "austerity". (But somehow we always can have plenty of wars and prisons and climate change and terrorism because for some weird reason our "leaders" seem to love creating disasters.) The smart people at AXA are probably all having nightmares - and the smart people at all the other companies in that circle of "too-big-to-fail" "fantasy fiat finance firms" are probably also having nightmares - about the following very possible scenario: If Bitcoin succeeds, debt-and-derivatives-dependent financial "giants" like AXA will probably be exposed as having been bankrupt this entire time. All their debts and bets will be exposed as not being worth the paper and pixels they were printed on - and at that point, in a cryptocurrency world, the only real money in the world will be "counterparty-free" assets ie cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin - where all you need to hold is your own private keys - and you're not dependent on the next deadbeat debt-ridden fiat slave down the line coughing up to pay you. Some of those people at AXA and the rest of that mafia are probably quietly buying - sad that they missed out when Bitcoin was only $10 or $100 - but happy they can still get it for $1000 while Blockstream continues to suppress the price - and who knows, what the hell, they might as well throw some of that juicy "banker's bonus" into Bitcoin now just in case it really does go to $1 million a coin someday - which it could easily do with just 32MB blocks, and no modifications to the code (ie, no SegWit, no BU, no nuthin', just a slowly growing blocksize supporting a price growing roughly proportional to the square of the blocksize - like Bitcoin always actually did before the economically illiterate devs at Blockstream imposed their centrally planned blocksize on our previously decentralized system). Meanwhile, other people at AXA and other major finance firms might be taking a different tack: happy to see all the disinfo and discord being sown among the Bitcoin community like they've been doing since they were founded in late 2014 - buying out all the devs, dumbing down the community to the point where now even the CTO of Blockstream Greg Mawxell gets the whitepaper totally backwards. Maybe Core/Blockstream's failure-to-scale is a feature not a bug - for companies like AXA. After all, AXA - like most of the major banks in the Europe and the US - are now basically totally dependent on debt and derivatives to pretend they're not already bankrupt. Maybe Blockstream's dead-end road-map (written up by none other than Greg Maxwell), which has been slowly strangling Bitcoin for over two years now - and which could ultimately destroy Bitcoin via the poison pill of Core/Blockstream's SegWit trojan horse - maybe all this never-ending history of obstrution and foot-dragging and lying and failure from Blockstream is actually a feature and not a bug, as far as AXA and their banking buddies are concerned.
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
"I'm angry about AXA scraping some counterfeit money out of their fraudulent empire to pay autistic lunatics millions of dollars to stall the biggest sociotechnological phenomenon since the internet and then blame me and people like me for being upset about it." ~ u/dresden_k
Bitcoin can go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks, so it will go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks. All the censorship & shilling on r\bitcoin & fantasy fiat from AXA can't stop that. BitcoinCORE might STALL at 1,000 USD and 1 MB blocks, but BITCOIN will SCALE to 10,000 USD and 4 MB blocks - and beyond
AXA/Blockstream are suppressing Bitcoin price at 1000 bits = 1 USD. If 1 bit = 1 USD, then Bitcoin's market cap would be 15 trillion USD - close to the 82 trillion USD of "money" in the world. With Bitcoin Unlimited, we can get to 1 bit = 1 USD on-chain with 32MB blocksize ("Million-Dollar Bitcoin")
Greg Maxwell has now publicly confessed that he is engaging in deliberate market manipulation to artificially suppress Bitcoin adoption and price. He could be doing this so that he and his associates can continue to accumulate while the price is still low (1 BTC = $570, ie 1 USD can buy 1750 "bits")
Why did Blockstream CTO u/nullc Greg Maxwell risk being exposed as a fraud, by lying about basic math? He tried to convince people that Bitcoin does not obey Metcalfe's Law (claiming that Bitcoin price & volume are not correlated, when they obviously are). Why is this lie so precious to him?
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57dsgz/why_did_blockstream_cto_unullc_greg_maxwell_risk/ I don't know how a so-called Bitcoin dev can sleep at night knowing he's getting paid by fucking AXA - a company that would probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin becomes a major world currency. Greg must have to go through some pretty complicated mental gymastics to justify in his mind what everyone else can see: he is a fucking sellout to one of the biggest fiat finance firms in the world - he's getting paid by (and defending) a company which would probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin ever achieved multi-trillion dollar market cap. Greg is literally getting paid by the second-most-connected "systemically important" (ie, "too big to fail") finance firm in the world - which will probably go bankrupt if Bitcoin were ever to assume its rightful place as a major currency with total market cap measured in the tens of trillions of dollars, destroying most of the toxic sludge of debt and derivatives keeping a bank financial giant like AXA afloat. And it may at first sound batshit crazy (until You Do The Math), but Bitcoin actually really could go to one-million-dollars-a-coin in the next 8 years or so - without SegWit or BU or anything else - simply by continuing with Satoshi's original 32MB built-in blocksize limit and continuing to let miners keep blocks as small as possible to satisfy demand while avoiding orphans - a power which they've had this whole friggin' time and which they've been managing very well thank you.
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/ Meanwhile Greg continues to work for Blockstream which is getting tens of millions of dollars from a company which would go bankrupt if Bitcoin were to actually scale on-chain to 32MB blocks and 1 million dollars per coin without all of Greg's meddling. So Greg continues to get paid by AXA, spreading his ignorance about economics and his lies about Bitcoin on these forums. In the end, who knows what Greg's motivations are, or AXA's motivations are. But one thing we do know is this: Satoshi didn't put Greg Maxwell or AXA in charge of deciding the blocksize. The tricky part to understand about "one CPU, one vote" is that it does not mean there is some "pre-existing set of rules" which the miners somehow "enforce" (despite all the times when you hear some Core idiot using words like "consensus layer" or "enforcing the rules"). The tricky part about really understanding Bitcoin is this: Hashpower doesn't just enforce the rules - hashpower makes the rules. And if you think about it, this makes sense. It's the only way Bitcoin actually could be decentralized. It's kinda subtle - and it might be hard for someone to understand if they've been a slave to centralized authorities their whole life - but when we say that Bitcoin is "decentralized" then what it means is: We all make the rules. Because if hashpower doesn't make the rules - then you'd be right back where you started from, with some idiot like Greg Maxwell "making the rules" - or some corrupt too-big-to-fail bank debt-and-derivative-backed "fantasy fiat financial firm" like AXA making the rules - by buying out a dev team and telling us that that dev team "makes the rules". But fortunately, Greg's opinions and ignorance and lies don't matter anymore. Miners are waking up to the fact that they've always controlled the blocksize - and they always will control the blocksize - and there isn't a single goddamn thing Greg Maxwell or Blockstream or AXA can do to stop them from changing it - whether the miners end up using BU or Classic or BitcoinEC or they patch the code themselves.
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.
Clearing up Some Widespread Confusions about BU Core deliberately provides software with a blocksize policy pre-baked in. The ONLY thing BU-style software changes is that baking in. It refuses to bundle controversial blocksize policy in with the rest of the code it is offering. It unties the blocksize settings from the dev teams, so that you don't have to shop for both as a packaged unit. The idea is that you can now have Core software security without having to submit to Core blocksize policy. Running Core is like buying a Sony TV that only lets you watch Fox, because the other channels are locked away and you have to know how to solder a circuit board to see them. To change the channel, you as a layman would have to switch to a different TV made by some other manufacturer, who you may not think makes as reliable of TVs. This is because Sony believes people should only ever watch Fox "because there are dangerous channels out there" or "because since everyone needs to watch the same channel, it is our job to decide what that channel is." So the community is stuck with either watching Fox on their nice, reliable Sony TVs, or switching to all watching ABC on some more questionable TVs made by some new maker (like, in 2015 the XT team was the new maker and BIP101 was ABC). BU (and now Classic and BitcoinEC) shatters that whole bizarre paradigm. BU is a TV that lets you tune to any channel you want, at your own risk. The community is free to converge on any channel it wants to, and since everyone in this analogy wants to watch the same channel they will coordinate to find one.
Adjustable blocksize cap (ABC) is dangerous? The blocksize cap has always been user-adjustable. Core just has a really shitty inferface for it. What does it tell you that Core and its supporters are up in arms about a change that merely makes something more convenient for users and couldn't be prevented from happening anyway? Attacking the adjustable blocksize feature in BU and Classic as "dangerous" is a kind of trap, as it is an implicit admission that Bitcoin was being protected only by a small barrier of inconvenience, and a completely temporary one at that. If this was such a "danger" or such a vector for an "attack," how come we never heard about it before? Even if we accept the improbable premise that inconvenience is the great bastion holding Bitcoin together and the paternalistic premise that stakeholders need to be fed consensus using a spoon of inconvenience, we still must ask, who shall do the spoonfeeding? Core accepts these two amazing premises and further declares that Core alone shall be allowed to do the spoonfeeding. Or rather, if you really want to you can be spoonfed by other implementation clients like libbitcoin and btcd as long as they are all feeding you the same stances on controversial consensus settings as Core does. It is high time the community see central planning and abuse of power for what it is, and reject both:
Throw off central planning by removing petty "inconvenience walls" (such as baked-in, dev-recommended blocksize caps) that interfere with stakeholders coordinating choices amongst themselves on controversial matters ...
Make such abuse of power impossible by encouraging many competing implementations to grow and blossom
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/617gf9/adjustable_blocksize_cap_abc_is_dangerous_the/ So it's time for Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc to get over his delusions of grandeur - and to admit he's just another dev, with just another opinion. He also needs to look in the mirror and search his soul and confront the sad reality that he's basically turned into a sellout working for a shitty startup getting paid by the 5th (or 4th or 2nd) "most connected", "systemically important", "too-big-to-fail", debt-and-derivative-dependent multinational bank mega-insurance giant in the world AXA - a major fiat firm firm which is terrified of going bankrupt just like that other mega-insurnace firm AIG already almost did before the Fed rescued them in 2008 - a fiat finance firm which is probably very conflicted about Bitcoin, at the very least. Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell is getting paid by the most systemically important bank mega-insurance giant in the world, sitting at the rotten "core" of the our civilization's corrupt, dying fiat cartel. Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell is getting paid by a mega-bank mega-insurance company that will probably go bankrupt if and when Bitcoin ever gets a multi-trillion dollar market cap, which it can easily do with just 32MB blocks and no code changes at all from clueless meddling devs like him.
Bitcoin (the system) cannot do everything that people want to do with BTC; so, the solution is to make your own system that is usable with BTC through a 2-way peg. That is, the solution is not to create your own token, but rather to use Bitcoin's token; this doesn't detach BTC from Bitcoin's blockchain, but rather this attaches your blockchain to BTC.
I think this is how it will play out: Blockstream will create a number of blockchain systems that are specifically useful to banks, but these systems won't supply their own unique tokens; instead, you'll have to send your BTC tokens to these systems through what's called a 2-way peg, and in this way, you'll be able to do interesting and even proprietary things with your BTC that you cannot do with just plain Bitcoin—and more importantly, you can transfer those tokens back to Bitcoin when you're finished, thereby escaping the dangers of some other network; this is what people mean by "The Internet of Money". For instance, Blockstream's Alpha sidechain offers "confidential transactions", which don't allow onlookers to see exactly how much value has been transferred, which is very appealing to banks. The problem is that right now Bitcoin doesn't support 2-way pegs, so Blockstream has developed a method that anybody can use to get things started: The Federated Peg, which is a centralized (but still distributed) federation of computers that handle the business of enforcing a 2-way peg; such a federation would be perfect for a consortium of competing banks, for instance. In the future, it might be somehow worthwhile to "outsource" the business of securing the sidechain to anybody else in the world, and so such a system could transition from a federation to merged mining if the hashrate is high enough, but then fall back on a federation if the hashrate falls too low. The 2-way peg could be outsourced in this way by having Bitcoin handle it, but that would require Bitcoin to be altered with a soft fork; of course, if Bitcoin ever includes a sufficiently expressive script system to allow for truly programmable money, then a decentralized 2-way peg could be implemented as a smart contract with no special treatment.
Now, why in particular would all of this be useful to banks? Well, people like standards; they want one tool and one system—one that is well defined with characteristics about which one can reason. Blockchain data structures excel at allowing immense and widespread auditing with few resources, and frankly, that's what banking and notaries and the like are all about. For instance, git (which also uses Merkle trees to create an increasingly secure record of events, just like Bitcoin) allows disparate people—even enemies—to come to consensus about the correct history of very complex projects; the same could be done with a ledger, and that is why it's useful to the financial world. In a way, the rest of the world is starting to wake up to modern practices of source code management, and the benefit of removing authority over that management from of any one party's hands.
With regard to the Lightning Network, such an overlay (or something like it) is the only way that Bitcoin can scale, and Bitcoin must be scaled in order to be self-sustaining; the volume of transactions must grow tremendously in order for Bitcoin usage to be both cheap and secure.
One data center for processing Visa transactions was handling at least 2500 transactions per second in the year 2012. At an average of 600 bytes per transaction, that would require a 900 MB block in Bitcoin. That being said, the problem with increasing the block size is 2 fold:
Centralization The premise of Bitcoin is that a bunch of independent people are less likely to be malicious (or incompetent) than a small group of related people, so Bitcoin is designed with anti-spam algorithms (notably, Hashcash) and incentives to try to keep the authority composed of as many independent people as possible, though it doesn't guarantee it. Increasing the block size damages that design for decentralization; of course, some centralization might be a good tradeoff if it yields a much more usable system, but it's clear that growing the block size is a pretty damn limited solution in that regard. Further exacerbating the issue is the fact that the mining industry is going to be rapidly losing its income over the next several years. Right now, some miners are complaining that even 1 MB blocks are too large, even while the whole mining industry is currently getting paid the equivalent of completely full 80 MB blocks at 4 U.S. cents per transaction. Suppose that the mining industry copes with the loss of income by losing participants and shutting down mining hardware. Well, again, Bitcoin is designed on the premise that the collection of miners is dominated by general interests (as opposed to a special interest), and that the hashrate is sufficiently high to prevent any special interest from gaining significant authority.
Losing miners possibly reduces the participants with general interests.
Losing hashrate lowers the barrier to authority.
As an aside, an interesting question is how high must a hashrate be in order to be sufficient, and how is that information communicated (whether directly or indirectly) between participants?
Hard Forking Unfortunately, to update the allowable block size, a new altcoin must be created based on a copy of Bitcoin's blockchain, and then everybody must switch to that altcoin. The common sense is that the block size limit needs to be increased to avoid people jumping ship to some better altcoin; well, that altcoin would, at worst, have to copy Bitcoin's blockchain to have any chance. That is, at wost, people would start jumping over to a hard fork, the most popular of such altcoins being "Bitcoin XT". So, some people are saying we've got to hard fork now, before we are forced to hard fork later; it doesn't make any sense. It might be better to take our chances on the existing, working system, and only be forced to the new system by the actual market forces, rather than ideology.
So, at some point, there needs to be a transaction-consolidation network sitting atop Bitcoin, using Bitcoin as a highly secure settlement system; it must be recognized that Bitcoin is a settlement system rather than a currency system, and only after accepting that fact can you start designing a system that works for both settlement and currency. After all, it's more important to secure 100 thousand purchases of coffee than it is to secure any particular purchase of one coffee. Go ahead; stick your coffee purchase in the settlement layer directly if you want, but you won't want to do so, because that's insane; there is no point in storing that one transaction for all time in a highly secure record. This development is virtually proved by the fact that there are already so many ad hoc off-chain transaction consolidation networks (ChangeTip, Coinbase, Circle, exchanges, etc.); using the settlement layer directly just does not make sense. Fortunately, such an overlay need not be centralized; consider something like the Lightning Network.
Custodial wallet users gated, just waiting to be slaughtered
Coinbase alone claims 3 million users: http://reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3ye8zv Even if only 1/3rd of them hold a balance, that means if suddenly half of the block space was to be consumed by Coinbase withdrawals, it would still take several days for all 1 million user's withdrawal requests to be processed (due to block size restriction). Then add all the block space demand for withdrawals from each exchange (e.g., BitStamp, BitFinex, OKCoin, Huobi, BTC China, BTC-E, Kraken, ITBit, etc.) and custodial wallet (e.g., Coinapult, Circle, Coinbase, Xapo, etc.) and you have a traffic jam miles and miles long. What withdrawals, you might ask? The withdrawals from users when they realize that their coins are held in an exchange or wallet service that won't be sharing the "failed hard fork dividend" with them. What's the "failed hard fork dividend"? A successful hard fork is one where essentially all mining on the original chain ceases. If, after the big blocks hard fork begins, there is mining that continues on the original chain (even if it is just 15% of the pre-fork hashing capacity) then that is the definition of a "failed hard fork". When this happens, pre-fork bitcoins are spendable on both the original chain as well as being spendable on the hard fork chain. The "failed hard fork dividend" then is the ability to realize the purchasing power from spending (independently) on both chains. So if a BTC (bitcoin / original chain) fetches $100, and a BTX (Bitcoin-XT coin / big blocks chain) fetches $250, those who hold pre-fork bitcoins themselves can take some action (tainting of their coins) allowing them to spend the pre-fork bitcoins on both chains and realize the $350 of their pre-fork bitcoin's purchasing power. But if that user had that pre-fork bitcoin with a custodial wallet or exchange, it is likely that a big blocks hard fork would result in those services simply substituting the hard fork coin for the user's bitcoin balance. If that happens, then the user only gets the purchasing power of that one coin (e.g., $250, using the price guesstimate for a BTX given in the paragraph above). But that remaining $100 doesn't disappear. It can be realized by the custodial wallet service. Those custodial services still have those bitcoins that can be used in transactions on the original chain (presuming they took the action to taint their pre-fork bitcoins such that they can be spent independently from the BTXs/big block fork coins). Even if these custodial services give a "two week notice" (at the point that the 75% mining threshold on Bitcoin-XT occurs), it just isn't anywhere near enough time for most users to get their withdrawal transactions into the remaining block space before the two weeks is up and the user's withdrawal request is honored with BTXs (big block/hard fork coins). This isn't some warning about some distant future condition. The hard fork could happen [Edit: in a few weeks, if starting now 75% of the hashing ends up on BItcoin-XT.] Are people who use a custodial wallet service aware that they lose this "failed hard fork dividend"?
We definitely need to coerce Coinbase into switching back to Bitcoin Core. If we do not take any action, we're setting a dangerous precedent where other wallets and services are allowed to break apart from the consensus.
Removing Coinbase from Bitcoin.org is not 'banishment', we're just expressing our opposition. I have been calling for Coinbase, Blockchain.info, Xapo, Circle, BitGo, etc to be removed from bitcoin.org a long time ago. I still think we should preemptively remove all the above services until they sign a letter renouncing their support for Bitcoin Xt, and anything Gavin or Hearn makes.
I'm not sure how we can reliably identify transactions as from Coinbase, but even if we could, we should not reject Coinbase transactions as it removes fungibility of bitcoin. Instead, if we can reliably identify their transactions, we could set a fee multiplier for Coinbase/Blockchain.info/Xapo/Circle/BitGo transactions, like 4x. Bitcoin Core already intends to do this in inverse with the 0.25x multiplier for SegWit, the preferred Bitcoin scaling solution. A better long term solution may be provable computing, plus multisig, with miners verifying that transactions have been signed by Blockstream or another entity in that the node/wallet they are running is compliant with Bitcoin [Core / Blockstream] consensus rules.
– @gladoscc Core / Blockstream / theymos have forgotten the definition of Nakamoto consensus:
The idea expressed by various Core devs / supporters that consensus rules "aren't up for CPU vote" reflects either a bizarre misunderstanding of permissionlessness or a deliberate attempt to dissemble. – tsontar
Hello /MechanicalKeyboards, i'm going to start of with a forewarning of the nature of this post. If I am in the wrong subreddit please direct me towards the correct subreddit where I can get some legitimate help with my situation. I apologize in advance with the length and the whining this post includes but I feel it is justified with my predicament. With that being said, I would like to start detailing the source of this problem, the quality of Cooler Master keyboards. My birthday is on December 20th, and it was the beginning of December 2013, that I took a heavy interest into purchasing a mechanical keyboard. After reviewing and deciding between a few stray keyboard brands , I chose the CMSTORM QUICKFIRE RAPID CHERRY MX RED MECHANICAL GAMING KEYBOARD. After waiting for the prices to drop, I recall it peaking at ~$120 throughout the year but as the price decreased, I found my chance at $100~. At this particular time, I was excited for my upcoming birthday / Christmas present. I ordered the keyboard thinking I was getting a great deal and the price cut was due to christmas/holiday/end of the year events. To my delight, it comes a couple days later(fast shipping was issued, I think), and I plug it in immediately. Now here is where the start of my problems started occurring. As a programer and avid video game player, I expect every key of my keyboard to work especially if I am going to spend $90~ on it. To my dismay I found that the bottom left alt key was not working. I did not find it as major inconvenience until I started using the keyboard more frequently. After the initial discovery of the alt key not working, it took me a month to realize that I really needed the bottom left alt key. All my previous keyboard have only had the alt key on the bottom left side of the keyboard. Although the there was an additional bottom right alt key for my keyboard, it was particularly difficult to alt-tab with 1 hand, issue certain hotkeys with my programming, self spell cast myself (leaguer here), among other frustrating instances. I did try returning my keyboard right away through my retail seller’s “customer support” which was a complete shady website that did nothing but loop me in circles. After 2 failed attempts and phone calls with my indian representative, I gave up on the matter and thought ‘hey a broken key is not so bad’. At this point I realize I should of done a chargeback on my card or taken matters in my own hands and solve the issue immediately, but I had not done so and that was my mistake, that much I can acknowledge. Fast forward a few months and I ran across this thread, [http://www.reddit.com/buildapc/comments/261vs2/cooler_master_is_officially_reporting_in/], I basically posted the ‘story’ above, and recived a repsonse telling me to send in an offical replacement ticket an eRMA. Through the verification process I found my keyboard had warranty until the end of this year. I had asked for a replacement but somehow the coolermaster’s main ‘website’ had changed dramatically and I had to request another eRMA to which it stated that I no longer had warranty. This time I was able to quickly resolve the issue by emailing my support guy that I have the verification of CM telling me the warranty was valid before the whole mishap of the website data being incorrect. This particular individual confirmed my messages and was able to send me my first replacement keyboard. I had spent close to $20 for shipping/packaging/ and tracking but it seemed like a fair deal. The unusual part about this is when I selected the option of “what is wrong with your keyboard”, it had given me a list of several options, one of which that detailed my EXACT problem, bottom left alt key not working. I speculated that this retailer somehow gotten a hold of these “broken” keyboards and sold them for optimal price at the best timing. Nevertheless the idea went over my head and within a few weeks I had recieved my replacement keyboard. As soon as I opened the box, the space key fell right to the floor, a bad sign. I felt okay about it, I could just click it right in but something about that particular moment just made me feel quite bad about my purchase and whether or not I made the best decision. As soon as I start the typing test, I immediately find multiple keys that are not working and I demanded another replacement keyboard. I was so disheartened about the whole ordeal, I mean the replacement keyboard I received wasn't even new, it was refurbished and had a “TEST GOOD” sticker. This time CM decided to pay for my shipping, so I ship back the keyboard and wait almost 3 weeks before replying. This time I had decided not to pay for tracking, so I was unable to see the day by day shipping events, but I assumed the keyboard went to the right place because the shipping and return label was the same on the box the keyboard came in ( also used the same box to ship it out). While waiting for a reply I was being completely annoyed with “ are you satisfied with our customer support CM emails”, I had asked my support when and where my keyboard is coming. The following image, details that I was offered a replacement keyboard such as the CM XT, however I had asked for any other options and they had offered a TK, but it was out of my “replacement fee”. Once again, after I explained my story (two paragraphs above), I was so surprised that the lead support approved a TK for me. THANK GOD, I was extremely relieved that I was getting some REAL APPRECIATED help from someone other than a mindless drone trying to get at my money. He asked me to refile an RMA on the website which I tried to do so BUT the original keyboard of which I entered my serial number was “out of warranty” and the new replacement keyboard serial number was “already in use”. The reason why it was ‘already in use’ , in my opinion, was because someone bought it, returned it, CM refurbished it, ‘tested’ it, and sent it to me as a replacement keyboard. So at this point I have no serial number to enter into my eRMA.I emailed the the lead support back stating, that I had problems with verifying my serial on the RMA, the response I got from him was that he was all out of TK’s but he had red switch TK’s as another option. I didn't know what the difference was but I had accepted his condition. A day later he emailed me saying that he ran out of TK red switches and offered me what he originally proposed, a CM XT keyboard. Now I bought the CM QuickFire rapid because it was compact and it didn't include a number keyboard which added to its clean, minimal/simple, stylish, appearance. The XT that was offered was a bit bigger but the main reason why I didn't want it was because it had the USB input on the back right hand side of the keyboard as opposed to the Quickfire and TK’s middle USB input. This helps with the travel length of my keyboard usb input to my desktop which is currently resting on my far left. So… after all this time of almost 6+ MONTHS waiting, I was capable of waiting for maybe a couple weeks just so I could get the optimal keyboard for my setup. I asked him if it was possible if i could wait it out until a TK was available, and I was returned to my old support guy saying I was more then welcome to wait and that he would be messaging me when they are available again. After a few days of anxiously waiting ( I know its not that long), I kept receiving automated “please rate our customer service” emails, and just had to ask him where we were at this point, which in my mind it was waiting for a reply on whether or not TK’s were available. He had assured me he would be letting me know when they would be coming, although he didn't know when they would be coming. In addition to that he marked my ticket as “solved” and said I would no longer be getting customer survey emails anymore. Incredibly frustrated with the availability of TK’s, I searched for them on the internet and to my disappoint I was able to ORDER one from the main website and from retailers but I had not completed the order because my goal was to find if they were on limited quality or if they were bullshitting me. At the that particular moment, I just felt completely bullshitted on and that all my previous endeavors to get my rightfully owed 2013 birthday/christmas present was a failure. I was not sure how long it takes to find out if a certain keyboard is available, I would assume it would take less than 5 minutes to figure out why they are low in numbers or anything of that sort. I emailed them back asking if they forgot about me and 2 days later, my support guy said I was not forgotten and that he would double check to see if any TKs w/ red switches were available That particular email was 3 days ago. Over the course of almost 8 months, I have paid for a defective CM keyboard, paid shipping on the replacement, received another defective keyboard (worse than the original), went through the painful process of customer support/tickets, and now have a CLOSED ticket with my issue not being resolved yet. The reason why I made this post was not to bad mouth CM support. My particular support guy and the lead support probably went through just as much pain as I did by politely replying to my emails and getting my issue worked out. However, at the end of the day I am a customer who had bought a keyboard but has yet to receive my desired product. People on the internet might say, hey its only $90~ why are you beating yourself up so much when you are obviously typing on a working keyboard, can't you get another one bum? To that I must say, yes, I am not financially stable, its impossible to compare any of the computer components I own to /battlestations, I literally own nothing and am in a staggering student debt living in a low income household. CPU: Pentium(R) Dual-Core CPU E5400 @ 2.70GHz motherboard: default memory: 2g x 4 (brand : Asus int , super talent) storage: 1 tb WD storage video card: gtx 550 ti nvidia Bitcoin speed = 16 mh/s This keyboard I wanted to purchase meant everything to me because my parents were the ones who bought it for me. I did not want to nag and say that my keyboard wasn't working, so I was content with just the alt key not working, but when I found out I still had warranty, I like anyone else in their right mind would return a malfunctioning keyboard to get the working keyboard that they paid for. So with that said my story ends here, i'm not sure where to go with this, all I know is the longer I drag this on, the easier it is for CM to say ‘we dont need to give you anything’. TLDR;
I tried to make this point as unbiased as possible about my experience with CM support
If proof is needed, I am willing to post my entire conversation with my support guy
I apologize for the length/formatting/bitching included in the text.
Honest comments and advice are all im looking for, upvotes for each one
Bitcoin Wiki; Reddit; Live Chat; The Bitcoin Forum Index In the news; Cryptocurrency Exchange Poloniex Has Been Bought by Circle - by Kai Sedgwick. Forum rules If you are posting news, press or any other related material that directly or in-directly benefits you, we request that you post a back-link to bitcoin.com by using a button, banner or text-link on your website. Thanks for supporting ... r/bitcoinxt: A subreddit focused on providing open discussion on all things Bitcoin (BSV). Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics. A large percentage of Bitcoin ... Many bitcoin services and industry stakeholders have recently came out in support of BIP101, including BitPay, Blockchain.info, CIrcle, Kncminer, itBit, Bitnet, and Xapo. They have pledged to "run code that supports this" by December 2015. This is in addition to ad-hoc support from Coinbase and Erik Voorhees (Coinapult). As per bitcoin.org's policy on "contentious hard forks", I have created a ... Bitcoin company Circle Financial recently announced it s expanding into Spain and Ireland. The firm is also focused on pricing aimed at consumer value exchange with a vast array of currencies. Our product launches in Spain and Ireland take another s..
Here is the latest crypto market analysis! Bitcoin hitting new 2019 highs! Starbuck accepting crypto through Gemini App! Ebay introducing crypto to it’s 180 ... A quick tutorial for setting up Circle Pay on our mobile device and purchasing our first bitcoin. "Wolf of Wall Street" Jordan Belfort warns Richard Quest about getting into bitcoin. The best way to buy bitcoin instantly with fiat currency, in my opinion, is on Cash App (affiliate): https://cash.app/app/JWNRGTX Or, you can enter the invit... Video Tutorial on setting up a Bitcoin XT Nodes on Google Compute Engine for free in 5 minutes for two months! Resources: ##### https://cloud.google.com...