Talk:Mining hardware comparison/Archives/2013 - Bitcoin Wiki

Just saw it by coincidence: Worldwide fullnode count up from 60,000 to 95,000 in just 2 months! That's more than 50%!

I stumbled upon a post of mine from 28th of January. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/ajn4dh/decentralized_bitcoin_network_9000_nodes_proud_to/eewz7x4
Just visited Luke Jr. site again. https://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/software.html
Fullnode count up 50% since January, 28th 2019. Tremendously awesome!!
submitted by castorfromtheva to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Modifying luke-jr's hard fork proposal: (BIP-?) Safer and growing block size limit

The original proposal: https://github.com/luke-jbips/blob/bip-blksize/bip-blksize.mediawiki
It's a 17.7% annual increase, with the following caveats:
I propose the following changes
I believe almost two years should be enough time to prepare for a hard fork like this.
To illustrate what that would mean for bitcoin I made this chart. WRONG!
I think any proposal based on luke-jr's BIP is to be viewed as the new baseline, replacing the 1MB hardcoded limit, and not something that's necessarily set in stone for the next 40 years.
(edited)
submitted by supermari0 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

When BTC consigns itself to a use case that no one uses it for

A few years ago in the Bitcoin community the discussion was all about how the Bitcoin blockchain could do it all so there was no reason for altcoins (or "shitcoins"). Everything was being built on Bitcoin, or should be built on Bitcoin, because it was going to be the only global blockchain that mattered. Need to issue your own tokens or do something that required more scripting? Colored coins and Counterparty (and later RSK)! Supply chain tracking? Blockchain voting? Notary? Property ownership? Bitcoin can do it all.
But now the community seems to be more in the spirit of Bitcoin being a store of value and a transfer of value and that's it. The comments on this post sum it up. Ignoring Luke-jr's expected nonsense, so many people are adamantly against anyone using the Bitcoin blockchain for anything other than transferring money.
Which is an interesting issue, because almost no one uses Bitcoin for that. Specifically, in 2016, the majority of transfers are between exchanges, only a tiny fraction is for payments or other transfers, see chart in article.
This is probably why the number of transactions keep climbing and fees keep rising despite people complaining. Exchanges aren't really hurt by high fees, they can pass them on or absorb them since their average txn amount is relatively high so the fees for them are still low.
As an aside, it's almost funny that LN is being offered as a scaling solution, but the majority of users who are actually making money off Bitcoin (exchanges, and miners) don't need that solution at all. They also don't need larger blocks (perhaps someday the exchanges would, but they don't seem to need them currently). Is it no wonder the scaling issue is in a stalemate? Anyway...
So what does this have to do with /ethtrader?
It seems to me that the Bitcoin community has mostly relegated Bitcoin to a use (transfer of value) that almost no one uses it for (majority use it for speculation and store of value, with the idea that future users will need it as a transfer of value). While a market can stay irrational longer than anyone can stay liquid, they do eventually catch up to reality, and when that happens with Bitcoin some money will go to things like Dash, Monero, and Litecoin, but I think the majority will go to Ethereum. It might be years, but that's ok, I think most of us are in this for the long haul, both as an investment and as a technological revolution.
submitted by arcturnus to ethtrader [link] [comments]

If Bitcoin usage and blocksize increase, then mining would simply migrate from 4 conglomerates in China (and Luke-Jr's slow internet =) to the top cities worldwide with Gigabit broadban - and price and volume would go way up. So how would this be "bad" for Bitcoin as a whole??

If Bitcoin usage and blocksize increase, then mining would simply migrate from 4 conglomerates in China (and Luke-Jr's slow internet =) to the top cities worldwide with Gigabit broadban - and price and volume would go way up. So how would this be "bad" for Bitcoin as a whole??
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141104014739-90103575-top-24-cities-with-fastest-internet-speeds-in-2014
Top 24 Cities Having Fastest Download/Upload Speeds in 2014
The 2014 Cost of Connectivity report, which was produced between July 2014 and September 2014, says the top 24 cities having the fastest download/upload speeds in terms of Gigabytes per second (Gbps), equivalent to 1,000 Megabytes per second (Mbps), are as ranked in the above titled chart and listed below:
1 Gbps:
(0.5 Gbps upload speeds) ^
(0.3 Gbps upload speeds) ^
(~0 Gbps upload speeds) ^
0.5 Gbps:
0.35 Gbps:
0.24 Gbps:
0.2 Gbps:
0.152 Gbps:
(~0 Gbps upload speeds) ^
Would mining still be "decentralized" enough if it simply spread out to these cities?
The only danger I could think of would be a few weeks where ASICs would frantically get shipped from locations with slow internet to locations with fast internet.
But mining would go on. Miners are always gonna mine.
Our discourse needs to take into consideration the following possibilities:
(1) The current concentration of mining power among a mere 4 mining conglomerates in China may be a by-product of the current mining parameters themselves - ie:
  • the availability of ASICs,
  • cheap electricity in China,
  • the arbitrary, artifificial 1 MB max block size (a temporary cap intended to fight spam - which now might actually help spammers)
  • slow internet in and out of China (across the Great Firewall?)
(2) Every different combination of these peramaters may favor some geographic regions more over others in terms of mining
Proposition:
It is not the responsibility of Bitcoin to worry about favoring some geographic locations for mining over others.
It is not the responsibility of Bitcoin to worry about favoring existing, incumbent miners over new, future miners (possibly in different locations).
Bitcoin's only responsibility is to favor its Users - by supporting increasing volume and value.
If Bitcoin's need for speed sets off a global internet bandwidth arms race (as countries discover that bandwidth = money), then that would be a nice side-benefit.
submitted by LazLO-LULZkash to btc [link] [comments]

To arms Bitcoin community! Help us to complete this mining installation for the Zürich MoneyMuseum. We are not asking for funds. Only your expertise needed! 20$ tip if you give us the relevant clue to solve or mitigate our main problem. Nice pictures of the exhibition inside as well…

Edit:
A big thank you to all people who helped us we can now mine true pps with diff1! The people in this thread which have helped most have been awarded. I want to mention also the operator of btcmp.com denis2342 and Luke-Jr.
Actually looking at the miner screen in the Linux terminal helped a lot ;-). The pool constantly resigned to stratum with variable difficulty. We can now mine true pps with diff1. Getwork with long polling seems to be default after disabling stratum...
We will probably post again, when there is a video of the installation in action...
Again many thanks. Learned a lot.
Edit: Thank you for all the answeres so far! We will try different things now and report back. Tip bounty will be distrubuted as soon as we found out what finally does the trick. Ths could take a few days. The offerd tip will be distributed and very likeley a few others as well.
First of all, let me tell you that the Bitcoin Exhibition at the Zürich MoneyMuseum is most likely the biggest and most diverse of it’s kind. Please read more about the museum and the exhibition below.
Help us solve the following problem we experience with our “Muscle Powered Proof of Work” installation:
Me and a friend have invested a lot of time to build an installation for the Museum. It is basically a 10GHash/s miner and RapberryPi which is powered by a hand generator (Maxon DC motor with planetary gear). Here are some pictures of the installation, although not entirely put together yet. There are still some changes planned.
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/0qcvl3wu4romhnt/AAAYF08lnVAy6W6KEepE7e2Ua?dl=0
Now let’s get to the core of our problem:
We are mining at the getwork diff1 pool btcmp.com as it is a true pps pool with getwork diff1. The visitors in the museum can power the generator for 2-3min and see directly how many Satoshis the "network" (actually pool but we don't want to confuse the visitors to much at that point) has given the museum for their work. This all works well so far but one problem remains. Sometimes the pool does not get a share from us for more than 40 seconds or even more than 60 in some cases. I have calculated that with 8.4 GHash/s we should find a share about every 0.5 seconds in average (diff1). I think when the pool gets a share it gets all the hashes as it then accounts for several Satoshis. Statistically we get per minute what we should get in theory. We would very much like to lower the time between the accepted shares by the pool, however. This would help to make the overall experience much smoother for the visitors.
Please look at this screenshot from MinePeon and answer some questions:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/lb1jei4trc9kqe5/MinePeonScreenshot.png?dl=0
We see that we get a lot of diff1 hashes. However, only 11 shares/packages have been accepted. The Is there a possibility to set the miner SW so it submits to the pool as soon as a share is found? It seems to send them in packages which sometimes have 4-5 seconds in between but sometimes a much as 80 seconds. I would like to submit packages of hashes much more often. How can this be influenced?
What exactly are the Getworks (GW)?
What exactly are the Accepted ones (Acc)? This is where the TipBounty is. Help us to get a better Acc/diff1 ratio. Best would be 1:1.
What exactly are the rejected ones (Rej)?
What exactly are the discarded ones (Disc)?
What exactly are the difficulty one hashes (diff1)?
Now some of these questions seem very very basic but it is important for us to understand what these are and how we can influence these. We have a 1:1 correlation between the Acc and the pool side acknowledgement of shares/packages. So whenever the MinePeon shows one more for this value the pool value for last submitted share goes to “moments ago”.
Does the miner SW have a setting where we can set after how many diff1 hashes a package of hashes is sent to the pool? If no, do you have another idea why so few are sent? Ideally we would set it so the diff1 hashes are sent every 5 seconds or so, probably even more often.
Is stratum with fixed diff1 possible? If so, would it be better to use stratum?
Are there critical settings if we should know of? (we have tried --request-diff and --no-submit-stale)
We are using BFGMiner on MinePeon if that matters. We could switch to CGMiner if that would help. Any help is very much appreciated. The museum is doing a great job explaining Bitcoin basics. We had special focus on interactive learning and have several things to underline this.
I hope to hear back from you so we can improve our installation. Please don't hesitate to ask if you have further questions. We are both not mining experts.
Thanks for reading and AMA.
SimonBelmond
Current features of the Bitcoin exhibition at the Zürich MoneyMuseum:
Current Features:
  • Life screen with various stats/charts/parameters/transactions…
  • Printed infographics.
  • Muscle powered PoW: Hand generator with 5v and 3.5-5A output, Raspberry Pi, MinePeon, 5x Antminer U2+ plus a screen to show the hash-rate at the pool and/or in MinePeon web interface. This screen will not be hand powered. This installation will complement their coining die (go to 1:27 to see what I mean).
  • The Bitcoin mining evolution (CPU, GPU, FPGA, ASIC)
  • A few short (2-3 minutes) interviews.
  • Other wallets, Trezor, PiperWallet
  • ATM Prototype, functional
  • MoneyMuseum Bit-Cards
  • PiperWallet to use.
  • Casascius and other physical Bitcoins, Wallets (also some commemorative coins), Paper wallet like one out of the first Bitcoin (A)TM ever
  • Bitcoin Quiz
  • 12 Picture tours
    • Bitcoin for beginners
    • Bitcoin advanced
    • Debunking 13 Bitcoin myths
    • What you definitely have to know
    • The history of Bitcoin
    • Bitcoin und traditional forms of money
    • Alternatives to Bitcoin
    • Citations about Bitcoin
    • How do I open an account?
    • How do I get Bitcoin?
    • Bitcoin community and economy
    • Bitcoin as a platform
I see this as a good opportunity for Bitcoin, so let’s embrace it. I am especially excited to compare the traditional forms of money which used proof of work to the new money which also uses proof of work. I think in that context it will be much easier for the visitors to value this concept.
A lot of schools and other groups book guided tours at the museum. It is open on every Friday from December 05. On. Entry is free of charge.
Edit:Markdown, typos
submitted by SimonBelmond to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Look at these graphs, and you will see that Luke-Jr is *lying* when he says: "At the current rate of growth, we will not hit 1 MB for 4 more years."

Luke-Jr says:
"At the current rate of growth, we will not hit 1 MB for 4 more years."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47f0b0/f2pool_testing_classic/d0d6g7z
Luke-Jr & Core/Blockstream are denying basic facts of economics, capacity planning, and simple mathematics.
Anyone can see that Luke-Jr is lying, by looking at these graphs:
https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-block-size?timespan=all&showDataPoints=false&daysAverageString=1&show_header=true&scale=0&address=
https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/historical/1w-f-txval_per_tot-01071-blksize_per_avg-01071
https://www.smartbit.com.au/charts/block-size?from=2011-2-25&to=2016-2-25
http://rusty.ozlabs.org/?p=498
And yet Core/Blockstream dev Luke-Jr continues to deny reality, saying black-is-white and up-is-down:
Luke-Jr: "At the current rate of growth, we will not hit 1 MB for 4 more years."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47f0b0/f2pool_testing_classic/d0d6g7z
This is what happens when devs follow the "party line" of Core/Blockstream - they start lying.
This is the reason why this debate has been unresolved for years - because one side is lying.
By spreading falsehoods, Core/Blockstream has lost all legitimacy in this debate. They should be ignored.
The Nine Miners of China: "Core is a red herring. Miners have alternative code they can run today that will solve the problem. Choosing not to run it is their fault, and could leave them with warehouses full of expensive heating units and income paid in worthless coins." – tsontar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3xhejm/the_nine_miners_of_china_core_is_a_red_herring/
I know for a fact that multiple large firms are choosing to postpone involvement with Bitcoin because there isn't currently capacity for it to grow.
~ Roger Ver
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47ekqu/i_know_for_a_fact_that_multiple_large_firms_are/
Just click on these historical blocksize graphs - all trending dangerously close to the 1 MB (1000KB) artificial limit. And then ask yourself: Would you hire a CTO / team whose Capacity Planning Roadmap from December 2015 officially stated: "The current capacity situation is no emergency" ?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynswc/just_click_on_these_historical_blocksize_graphs/
submitted by ydtm 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]

Modifying luke-jr's hard fork proposal: (BIP-?) Safer and growing block size limit

The original proposal: https://github.com/luke-jbips/blob/bip-blksize/bip-blksize.mediawiki
It's a 17.7% annual increase, with the following caveats:
I propose the following changes
I believe almost two years should be enough time to prepare for a hard fork like this.
To illustrate what that would mean for bitcoin I made this chart.
I think any proposal based on luke-jr's BIP is to be viewed as the new baseline, replacing the 1MB hardcoded limit, and not something that's necessarily set in stone for the next 40 years.
Year Blocksize Est. eff. Blocksize (SW+Schnorr)
2019 1MB 2.9MB
2023 2MB 5.6MB
2027 4MB 11.2MB
2031 8MB 22.4MB
2035 16MB 44.9MB
2040 32MB 89.7MB
(See also: https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qtcbmodifying_lukejrs_hard_fork_proposal_bip_safe)
submitted by supermari0 to btc [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] USA Bandwidth Speeds

The following post by luke-jr is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/71x9ao
The original post's content was as follows:
http://www.pcpitstop.com/ispChart/
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

So... The insurer whose "solvency" is most dependent on maintaining the fiction that the riskiest assets in Exter's Inverted Pyramid (derivatives) are actually worth something - is now paying the devs who write the code for the solidest asset in that pyramid (Bitcoin). What could possibly go wrong?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Exter
Exter's Pyramid
Exter is known for creating Exter's Pyramid (also known as Exter's Golden Pyramid and Exter's Inverted Pyramid) for visualizing the organization of asset classes in terms of risk and size.
In Exter's scheme, gold [and now Bitcoin?] forms the small base of most reliable value, and asset classes on progressively higher levels are more risky.
The larger size of asset classes at higher levels is representative of the higher total worldwide notional value of those assets.
While Exter's original pyramid placed Third World debt at the top, today derivatives hold this dubious honor.
I like to think that the graph in the link below provides a nice, updated version of "Exter's Pyramid", although the layout isn't exactly triangular (but the sizes of each asset class are actually more accurate):
http://www.businessinsider.com/all-of-worlds-money-in-one-chart-2015-12
Note that Bitcoin is the safest asset in the system - and derivatives are the riskiest.
And there is very, very little Bitcoin - versus a shitload of derivatives.
But if you hold Bitcoin (ie, you hold your private keys), then you have absolutely no counterparty risk. Versus if hold a derivative, it could be totally worthless - depending on whether the counterparty behind it is "solvent" or not.
And I would think that the battle between "people who hold Bitcoin" versus "people who hold derivatives" will shape up to be a million times more massive than the battle between savers and borrowers that we've already seen in the world.
In other words, an insurance company like AXA, which is more dependent on derivatives than any other insurer, is probably freaked out that they'd lose over a trillion dollars if Bitcoin were to succeed.
So... Can people start to see why I'm so freaked out about AXA funding Bitcoin development via their "investment" in Blockstream?
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.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k1r7v/the_insurance_company_with_the_biggest_exposure/
http://www.actuaries.org.hk/upload/File/ET210513.pdf (see where AXA is on the graph on page 5)
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=axa+blockstream&ia=web
It's really poignant to see some clueless people wondering what AXA's "business model" might be for investing in Bitcoin.
Those clueless people need to wake the fuck up and face the reality of how bankers continue to print trillions of dollars to enslave the world.
AXA has absolutely zero interest in becoming some kind of two-bit Red Hat earning chump change in "support fees" or even "transaction fees" from being the maintainers / developers of some kind of open-source cryptocurrency sidechain code.
I can pretty much guarantee you: that is not their "busines model" for wanting to control Bitcoin development via investing in Blockstream.
As of 2007, AXA already had 1.123 trillion Euros in AUM (Assets under Management).
http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/AXA_%28AXA%29/Assets_Management
That's over a million million Euros.
And as of 2014, one half of AXA (just their "AXA IM" part) had AUD 891 billion of Assets under Management.
http://www.professionalplanner.com.au/cut-and-paste/2015/03/06/axa-im-reaches-record-assets-under-management-34877/
So, for a giant insurer like AXA, "investing" $55 million in Blockstream is like dropping a fraction of a penny on the ground.
And any paltry few million dollars - or even billions of dollars - which AXA might make or lose from Blockstream / Lightning or whatever, would still be pretty insignificant bordering on immaterial when compared with the half a trillion or so dollars of derivatives which are on AXA's balance sheet - and which they must desperately try to continue to prop up, by continuing to keep people believing in the whole charade of the worldwide derivatives casino.
That's what is at stake here. The very definition of the worldwide accounting ledger itself - not a few entries in it. And as we know, Bitcoin provides an entirely new - and transparent, and unforgeable - ledger.
That's why companies like AXA want to control Bitcoin development. Not to make millions or even billions of dollars on fees. But to to continue to prop up the so-called legitimacy of their legacy accounting ledger containing hundreds of trillions of dollars. (Remember, the derivatives market is a ledger with entries currently totally $1.2 quadrillion dollars - ie, 1200 trillion dollars - and that ledger itself is what Bitcoin's very existence is threatening to "uber".)
AXA does not give a fuck what happens to the $55 million that got invested in Blockstream in that second funding round they participated in back in February 2016. The only purpose of that money is to sprinkle a few hundred thou around per dev per year to control useful idiots like Gregory Maxwell and Adam Back and outright lunatics like Luke-Jr - to let those economically ignorant coders keep on toiling away on their idealistic pie-in-the-sky mathematical cypherpunk daydreams, while the Bitcoin network goes into paralysis due to artificially small blocksize due to doctrainaire dolts like the current crop of "Core" devs.
AXA does not give a fuck if Blockstream or SegWit or Lightning succeeds.
The only reason AXA is interested in Bitcoin is because Bitcoin is real money, and AXA's balance sheet uses a legacy ledger based on the fiction of fantasy fiat money - and Bitcoin threatens to destroy all that.
AXA knows that it must destroy Bitcoin - or else Bitcoin will destroy AXA.
And before some brainwashed amateurish sophomoric loser wanna-be astroturfing troll from r\bitcoin wanders over here again and tries to spout some meaningless nonsense disruptive bullshit to sidetrack this serious topic (responses in the previous thread linked above included gibberish like "get a job!" or "MtGox!" or "but scammers!") - I would appreciate it if someone around here could divert about a half hour of their precious multitasking time and brainpower towards addressing the 800-pound gorilla of a question in the room, namely:
Do you think it's a good idea for the insurance company with the biggest exposure to the "legacy ledger" of derivatives in both $ and % terms (AXA - with $464 billion in notional derivatives exposure, over 50% of their balance sheet in this 2013 report - see graph on page 5) to be paying the devs who are in charge of "upgrading" our Bitcoin code - or do you think there might be the tiiiniest chance of some kind of conflict of interest there???
This could be the biggest issue in Bitcoin right now.
But it doesn't seem to get addressed head-on very much.
You don't hear the name "AXA" or the word "derivatives" used very much - although these might be the most important aspects of the issue here.
This isn't about earning or losing a million dollars here or a billion dollars there.
This is about redefining the very heart and soul of the world's ledger - which Bitcoin has a chance to do.
This is about that tiny speck called "Bitcoin" at the top of the chart in the link below:
http://www.businessinsider.com/all-of-worlds-money-in-one-chart-2015-12
organically growing and blossoming and eventually destroying that grotesque metastazising mass called "derivatives" at the bottom of that chart.
That is why AXA is interested in Bitcoin.
It's about the ledger itself - not the payment rails - not even the tokens - and certainly not the fees.
Trust me, no company with 1 trillion dollars of Assets under Management is going to pay any attention to some miniscule little runt like Bitcoin with a mere $7 billion in market cap - unless they think that miniscule little runt actually might contain the code which might possibly replace their whole precarious phoney fiat fantasy accounting ledger which pays their billion dollar bonuses and buys their mansions and yachts.
That is why AXA is "investing" in Bitcoin. To control it - not to earn some pathetic tiny fees from it.
And it's time we started addressing this issue seriously.
The main question is:
Do you want a massive, derivatives-dependent, legacy fiat insurance company like AXA controlling Bitcoin development??
Upvotes on these kinds of posts are certainly nice (and drive-by troll-snark is of course tedious and annoying).
But what I would really like to know is whether there is anyone on these forums who wants to spend some time seriously discussing things like:
  • the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives casino,
  • that other notorious insurance group (AIG) which engaged in massive and fraudulent derivatives shenanigans that almost took down the world's economy in 2008,
  • the massive and glaring conflict of interest in letting a company whose very façade of solvency depends on maintaining the fantasy legacy ledger which Bitcoin threatens to replace
  • etc etc etc
Do we want a corrupt derivatives monster like AXA (which is probably only steps away from becoming the next AIG) to be in charge of paying Bitcoin devs?
I don't have all the answers. I'm just some shmuck who spent a few years writing code for some major financial institutions, and I heard and saw a few things, and I watched how those scumbags almost brought down the world's economy in 2008, and I am fully convinced that they do not want something like Bitcoin to "uber" their legacy ledger.
So I am simply raising the question, and I really would like to know if anyone else has anything substantive to say about this:
Should the insurance company with the biggest exposure to derivatives (the riskiest asset in the world), which is totally dependent on maintaining the charade of the world's legacy fantasy fiat accounting ledger, be in charge of paying the devs writing the code for the solidest asset in the world (Bitcoin), which threatens to "uber" that very ledger?
Could there be a conflict of interest in this kind of situation?
Am I the only person around here who finds this absolutely outrageous?
Or does everyone just think it's fine and dandy - and maybe we could even just put someone like Blythe Masters or Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein in charge of paying Bitcoin devs?
Henri de Castries might not be a household villain name like some of those above. He's probably a more behind-the-scenes guy. But he is the chairman of the Bilderberg group, and he is the CEO of AXA, and he is going to move to HSBC this fall - and now he is paying Greg Maxwell's and Adam Back's and Luke Jr's salary.
And then we sit here and keep wondering why "our" devs keep ignoring us when we've been begging them for over a year to pretty-please give us bigger blocks so the Bitcoin network won't die.
Well, maybe there's more to the story than meets the eye here.
Maybe it's time for us to start to recognize the magnitude of who we might actually be up against here, and how they might have used social engineering to infiltrate and neutralize the Bitcoin development process, and how desperate they might be to maintain the so-called legitimacy of their make-believe legacy accounting ledger which Bitcoin is poised to replace.
Maybe it's time to stop bringing a pocket-knife to fight a SWAT team.
Like I say, I don't know what the answer will turn out to be. (Maybe a spin-off, but who really knows at this point.)
But I do think it's time for all of us to sober up and start asking some serious questions about this bullshit we've been getting from Blockstream.
We need to be realistic about who and what we're up against - and how many trillions of dollars they know are at stake - and how dirty and sneaky they're willing to fight.
And we need to liberate Bitcoin development from the people who stand to lose the most from Bitcoin - and put it back in the hands of people who stand to win the most from Bitcoin.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Subreddit Stats: Bitcoin top posts from 2017-01-09 to 2017-02-08 00:18 PDT

Period: 29.84 days
Submissions Comments
Total 999 46557
Rate (per day) 33.48 1507.53
Unique Redditors 653 6643
Combined Score 110856 177455

Top Submitters' Top Submissions

  1. 3932 points, 2 submissions: tuqqs
    1. Clearly not mainstream yet (2808 points, 104 comments)
    2. what it'll look like, when it happens (1124 points, 195 comments)
  2. 3593 points, 19 submissions: helmsk
    1. Countdown: Bitcoin Will Be a Legal Method of Payment in Japan in Two Months (2316 points, 151 comments)
    2. Europe Lays Out Roadmap to Restrict Payments in Cash and Cryptocurrencies (317 points, 102 comments)
    3. Polish Bitcoin Adoption Escalating with Strong Ecosystem (86 points, 4 comments)
    4. Why South Korean Bitcoin Adoption Could Outpace Most Other Countries This Year (74 points, 3 comments)
    5. Pakistan Set to Become a Major Bitcoin Hub (72 points, 49 comments)
    6. UAE Did Not Ban Bitcoin (72 points, 2 comments)
    7. Europe Committed to Tightening Digital Currency Rules by End of 2017 (71 points, 23 comments)
    8. How to Start Your Own Bitcoin ATM Business (67 points, 15 comments)
    9. Coincheck's Growth Reveals Surging Japanese Bitcoin Trade (62 points, 8 comments)
    10. How Trump's Wall and Remittance Tax Could Give Bitcoin a Boost (60 points, 23 comments)
  3. 3177 points, 2 submissions: futureofeverything
    1. "R.I.P. Bitcoin. It's Time to Move On"....funny billboard driving around in Miami (3136 points, 227 comments)
    2. Why Venezuela's Currency Crisis Is A Case Study For Bitcoin (41 points, 1 comment)
  4. 2577 points, 7 submissions: Pizpie
    1. Welcome to Bitcoin, everyone. Don't worry, he'll recover. (1353 points, 155 comments)
    2. Breaking: Huobi & BTCC stopped margin trading, OKc leverage only 1x, finally no more fake BTC generated by exchange (485 points, 160 comments)
    3. Breaking: Bitcoin exchange Coinbase receives New York BitLicense (242 points, 55 comments)
    4. Canada Goose is thinking about accepting Bitcoin - Let them know what you think! (191 points, 49 comments)
    5. Confirmed: Huobi reactivates margin trading, with a limit of 100k CNY instead of 10 million CNY. (160 points, 79 comments)
    6. BREAKING: Huobi official announcement: We are considering charging trading fees. (80 points, 25 comments)
    7. Breaking: PBOC strikes again - Lending disabled on BTCC (66 points, 70 comments)
  5. 1941 points, 1 submission: bahatassafus
    1. Internet Archive: $3000 donated anonymously to the @internetarchive in bitcoin just now. Made our day! Thank you! (1941 points, 31 comments)
  6. 1338 points, 1 submission: kynek99
    1. Deutsche Bank - More than $10 billion in transactions never appeared on the books. That's why banksters don't want to use public blockchains. (1338 points, 96 comments)
  7. 1294 points, 1 submission: umbawumpa
    1. Julian Assange just used the current block hash as proof-of-not-prerecorded-interview in his AMA (1294 points, 182 comments)
  8. 1272 points, 2 submissions: Butt_Cheek_Spreader
    1. When you ride the bitcoin rally (1189 points, 204 comments)
    2. OKcoin and Huobi provided margin trading that violated rules resulting in abnormal price and fluctuations. (83 points, 28 comments)
  9. 1258 points, 4 submissions: dan_from_san_diego
    1. I started mining bitcoin in the desert. Here's some of what I have learned. (516 points, 575 comments)
    2. Chase is closing my account due to bitcoin purchases. Nice. (478 points, 410 comments)
    3. Here are some pictures of the solar greenhouse in the desert I am using to mine bitcoin. (140 points, 303 comments)
    4. Man... Brian Kelly from CNBC really fell hard for bitcoin. I like that! (124 points, 27 comments)
  10. 1250 points, 10 submissions: PoCaMiQu
    1. Can we fucking acknowledge that the Chinese Government just legitimized bitcoin? (604 points, 154 comments)
    2. WTF Huffington Post <---Fake News: "Bitcoin Plummets On Yuan Reversal" (218 points, 71 comments)
    3. This is what I like to see when checking daily's finances. (122 points, 22 comments)
    4. Beautiful balance (71 points, 13 comments)
    5. Reminder: Bitcoin's immutability is not only not a bug, but its main feature. Scalability comes secondary to it. (44 points, 20 comments)
    6. Bitcoin Price Gets Ready to Factor In Winklevoss Bitcoin ETF Approval (43 points, 24 comments)
    7. Paxful - a global leader in peer-to-peer bitcoin technology - has launched a new widget, allowing anyone to buy bitcoin worldwide instantly with over 300 ways to pay. (41 points, 34 comments)
    8. Scaling Revisited: What If Bitcoin's Big 'Problem' is Its Great Strength? (38 points, 16 comments)
    9. Flashback to the 90's: Interviewer asks Fed Chair "What is Blockchain?" (37 points, 21 comments)
    10. It seems all those FUD mongers were wrong when they predicted the price would crash without China's "liquidity" (32 points, 13 comments)
  11. 1155 points, 16 submissions: eragmus
    1. Ben Davenport (BitGo CTO): "Centralization of mining has led to some miners thinking they're in charge of Bitcoin. They forgot where Bitcoin's value comes from." (169 points, 112 comments)
    2. [Twitter Poll] Charlie Lee (Director of Engineering @ Coinbase): "What's the most important feature of Bitcoin that we must not sacrifice? Decentralization, Security, Low fees, Global payments" (116 points, 62 comments)
    3. Hernz: "Did you know you can get paid to help spread misinformation? -birds dot bitcoin dot com-" (hosted by Roger Ver) (106 points, 38 comments)
    4. The Passion of 'Bitcoin Jesus': How The Blockchain's Most Beloved Investor Became its Most Polarizing (101 points, 52 comments)
    5. Jonas Nick: "MimbleWimble blockchain (non-interactive coinjoin + pruning) may be able to support Lightning" / ref: Andrew Poelstra @ lists.launchpad.net/mimblewimble/msg00022.html (96 points, 19 comments)
    6. Bitcoin Core - IRC Meeting Summary (January 19, 2016) (83 points, 16 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Core - IRC Meeting Summary (January 12, 2016) (68 points, 7 comments)
    8. WhalePanda: "Analyzed @rogerkver's 'Cry Wolf' tactic on censorship on /bitcoin." (59 points, 16 comments)
    9. Inside MAST: The Little-Known Plan to Advance Bitcoin Smart Contracts (52 points, 8 comments)
    10. Bitcoin Core - IRC Meeting Summary (January 5, 2016) (51 points, 2 comments)
  12. 1155 points, 14 submissions: castom
    1. Russian Authorities: Bitcoin Poses No Threat, Won’t Be Banned (575 points, 80 comments)
    2. Bitcoin Goes to Washington - Trump May Hire More Digital Currency Leaders (86 points, 50 comments)
    3. With Another $30 Million Investment, BitFury becomes the Highest-funded Bitcoin Company (80 points, 3 comments)
    4. Nigeria's Bitcoin Interest Unwavering Despite Government Crackdown (64 points, 3 comments)
    5. German TV Calls Bitcoin "Digital Gold" (46 points, 3 comments)
    6. A Town in Illinois Just Announced It's Holding a Bitcoin Sale (46 points, 9 comments)
    7. Coinbase CEO: IRS Battle Could Cost Startup $1 Million (43 points, 15 comments)
    8. Xapo Now Licensed to Operate from Switzerland (39 points, 2 comments)
    9. Bitcoin Payments Startup BitPesa Raises $2.5 Million (32 points, 0 comments)
    10. Lawsuit Accuses Bitcoin ATM Owner of Smashing Competing Machines With Hammers (31 points, 18 comments)
  13. 1140 points, 4 submissions: bdd4
    1. sigh (859 points, 189 comments)
    2. As Predicted. 🙄 PBoC (137 points, 86 comments)
    3. Friendly Reminder: Bitcoin is still up 2.6% for the last 30 days (94 points, 8 comments)
    4. Dead Man's Switch for HODLers (50 points, 84 comments)
  14. 1104 points, 3 submissions: Vaultoro
    1. "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people." can we please stop this culture of bashing or lifting cults of personality and get back to science? (807 points, 143 comments)
    2. The house of Nakamoto in the main shopping strip of Vienna gets massive new bitcoin logo signage 2 stories big, 4 times 4 meters of epic propaganda! (265 points, 32 comments)
    3. I saw a post here that little snitch takes bitcoin. I just purchased a copy! Great little app and well worth 30 bucks. (32 points, 9 comments)
  15. 1088 points, 3 submissions: Carlscrazyidea
    1. You can now buy Bitcoin from any 7-11 in the Philippines! (1021 points, 136 comments)
    2. What is my impact as a Bitcoin holder? (41 points, 45 comments)
    3. I am a Hodling noob who still has a lot of Hodling work to do! (26 points, 30 comments)
  16. 1060 points, 7 submissions: Bitcohen
    1. Mercedes Buys Bitcoin Service Provider in 'Digitization Strategy' (518 points, 70 comments)
    2. Mercedes-Benz cars are now being sold for Bitcoin in Venezuela (348 points, 68 comments)
    3. Dutch Pirate Party pays 11,250 Euro deposit in Bitcoin to Electoral Council (68 points, 9 comments)
    4. Amir Taaki & Cody Wilson's Bitcoin support described by film critic as “defense of criminality” at Sundance Film Festival 2017 (44 points, 13 comments)
    5. Russia's Kaliningrad May Trial 'Legal' Bitcoin, Launch Exchange (31 points, 2 comments)
    6. Bitcurex Owner 'Disappears' After Failing to Return 2,300 BTC (26 points, 2 comments)
    7. Liverpool Launches Own Digital Currency Based on Bitcoin's Blockchain Tech - Attracts 3,000 Users in First Month (25 points, 1 comment)
  17. 1009 points, 1 submission: worstkeptsecrets
    1. Bitcoin on NewEgg. 3rd option! Ahead of Credit Card and PayPal! #ITSHAPPENING (1009 points, 92 comments)
  18. 975 points, 1 submission: SooieSide
    1. You can't get to the moon on a roller coaster. (975 points, 73 comments)
  19. 941 points, 4 submissions: Logical007
    1. UPDATE: Nearly all of Circle's 5 Star Ratings have disappeared today for their latest version (Jan 5th). A stark difference to what we saw earlier, looks like action was taken. (633 points, 177 comments)
    2. Bloomberg: Wyre CEO: "Bitcoin is a good investment for everyone." (VIDEO (188 points, 13 comments)
    3. Bitcoin isn't 'real money'. Google, you need to work on your search results. (85 points, 38 comments)
    4. Coinbase, please fix your merchant invoices on iOS 10. They haven't worked properly for months (while BitPay's work perfectly). Details and screenshot inside. (35 points, 5 comments)
  20. 896 points, 1 submission: amendment64
    1. Just paid 23 cents on a $3.74 transaction. When does it end? $1.00 per transaction? $2? $5? I don't wanna stop using this peer to peer currency, but I'm fast being priced out of it. (896 points, 1017 comments)
  21. 884 points, 2 submissions: theswapman
    1. Bitcoiner interrupts Shia LaBeouf's "He Will Not Divide Us" stream with chant that Bitcoin Will Unite Us! (456 points, 204 comments)
    2. PSA: Xapo will freeze your bitcoin and demand documents AFTER you have deposited (428 points, 101 comments)
  22. 820 points, 3 submissions: MorrisMustang
    1. South Florida Distillers uses heat from bitcoin mining to accelerate rum barrel aging! (709 points, 66 comments)
    2. "See, bitcoin is down 9.75% over the past month...I told you it crashed..." says my wife (72 points, 64 comments)
    3. EthereRum by South Florida Distillers, the worlds first rum distilled from mining heat. Stayed tuned for more details. (39 points, 21 comments)
  23. 799 points, 5 submissions: finalhedge
    1. Patrick Byrne (Overstock CEO) on Fox Business Channel today (288 points, 57 comments)
    2. "Sent my first instant bitcoin LN payment to a random irc user on testnet. Second-layer tech for the win!" | Justin Camarena on Twitter (250 points, 64 comments)
    3. Balaji Srinivasan (21 CEO) just deleted his whole tweet history. Heading to the FDA? (137 points, 69 comments)
    4. BARRY SILBERT'S BITCOIN INVESTMENT TRUST FILES FOR IPO (99 points, 10 comments)
    5. Bloomberg: 'Blockchain' Fans Will Have A Rude Awakening In 2017 (25 points, 2 comments)
  24. 798 points, 9 submissions: FluxSeer
    1. Gemini Introduces Zero-Confirmation Bitcoin Deposits (205 points, 69 comments)
    2. Bitcoin Mining Distribution 2012 vs. 2017 (146 points, 69 comments)
    3. When someone says Bitcoin is a ponzi/scam/etc... Send them this link. (131 points, 24 comments)
    4. Developer Release for OpenBazaar 2.0 (123 points, 45 comments)
    5. Federal Reserve Staffer Fined for Mining Bitcoins at Work (62 points, 4 comments)
    6. A Future Led by Bitcoin Unlimited is a Centralized Future (56 points, 38 comments)
    7. Blockstream joins Digital Garage to jointly develop next-generation financial technology (33 points, 15 comments)
    8. Bitcoin Matrix Wallpaper (1920x1080) (23 points, 6 comments)
    9. The ECB Explains Why Central Banks Can't Go Bankrupt (19 points, 7 comments)
  25. 796 points, 1 submission: kidblondie
    1. [AMA] I'm the woman who got pepper sprayed wearing the "Make Bitcoin Great Again" hat. (796 points, 938 comments)
  26. 709 points, 1 submission: silver_89
    1. Liftoff (709 points, 282 comments)
  27. 697 points, 2 submissions: Tfoe1399
    1. Huge shoutout to BTC.com for giving me back my money (666 points, 91 comments)
    2. So this just happened (31 points, 101 comments)
  28. 691 points, 3 submissions: jholmes91
    1. Antonopoulos Supports SegWit, Opens Doors For Lightning and TumbleBit (315 points, 112 comments)
    2. Donald Trump is Considering a Bitcoin Entrepreneur to Lead the FDA (220 points, 137 comments)
    3. Japanese Internet Giant GMO Announces Entrance to Bitcoin Wallet Market (156 points, 14 comments)
  29. 688 points, 2 submissions: belcher_
    1. bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails (543 points, 428 comments)
    2. Segwit talk by Pieter Wuille. 25 minutes talk time (145 points, 21 comments)
  30. 673 points, 9 submissions: Lite_Coin_Guy
    1. Litecoin Moves to Adopt Bitcoin's SegWit Scaling Upgrade (155 points, 86 comments)
    2. If Bitcoin ETF approval ignites speculative rush, doesn't that prove intense latent demand, blocked only by the SEC? (120 points, 22 comments)
    3. Big miners are free to create their Unlimited coin, but if they try to kill Bitcoin it will resist censorship and route around it. (108 points, 103 comments)
    4. What is money? (93 points, 56 comments)
    5. Charlie Shrems next jail time? (50 points, 15 comments)
    6. In 1996 they said the Internet was in need of a "killer app". In 2016, they said #Bitcoin needed a "killer app", too. (39 points, 17 comments)
    7. Introduction to Bitcoin & Blockchains (38 points, 5 comments)
    8. Evaporative Two-Phase Immersion Cooling (Bitfury) (37 points, 6 comments)
    9. Crypto '98 Rump Session- Hal Finney (33 points, 8 comments)
  31. 635 points, 8 submissions: olivercarding
    1. Bitcoin Has Many Fans at Amazon According to Purse CEO Andrew Lee (152 points, 39 comments)
    2. Bitcoin is Closing in On Its Transaction Capacity Limit, For Real This Time (110 points, 155 comments)
    3. The Founder of India-Based Bitcoin Mining Pool GBMiners is Running a Ponzi Scheme (105 points, 50 comments)
    4. How Bitcoin Is Disrupting The Online Gambling Industry (98 points, 74 comments)
    5. Report Estimates There are More Than 10 Million Bitcoin Holders Worldwide (91 points, 54 comments)
    6. Blockchain Announces Expansion in Middle East; Partners with Dubai Government (32 points, 7 comments)
    7. 3 Teams Receive Funding from $1.2 Million Bitcoin Development Grant, More Funds Incoming (27 points, 7 comments)
    8. Digital Garage and Blockstream Collaborate on New Blockchain Solutions for Japanese Market (20 points, 0 comments)
  32. 630 points, 1 submission: classna
    1. FOMO-ing right now (630 points, 85 comments)
  33. 621 points, 7 submissions: _smudger_
    1. Bitcoin: Why It Now Belongs in Every Portfolio (206 points, 33 comments)
    2. Bitcoin ETF may attract $300 million in the first week, says Needham & company (205 points, 103 comments)
    3. It's time to start thinking about denominating Bitcoins in mBTC permanently. Might be the last time to buy some for less than a dollar each! (82 points, 127 comments)
    4. Big China bitcoin exchange says no government pressure on outflows (46 points, 6 comments)
    5. New weekly record in Local Bitcoin volumes plus new highs in Canada, Colombia, Denmark, Saudi Arabia, Thailand and Venezuela (36 points, 1 comment)
    6. Despite the recent drop the price is hitting new records when averaged over a year (24 points, 10 comments)
    7. Press Release: CD Key retailer CJS CD Keys now Accepting Bitcoin (22 points, 3 comments)
  34. 597 points, 1 submission: arichnad
    1. mac has the new bitcoin Unicode character already! (597 points, 81 comments)
  35. 594 points, 1 submission: drvox1600
    1. Bitcoin just hit $1000 USD! :D (594 points, 147 comments)
  36. 573 points, 4 submissions: bitcoinglobe
    1. Japanese internet giant, GMO, entering bitcoin exchange and wallet markets (451 points, 26 comments)
    2. Abra overview (52 points, 22 comments)
    3. Japan Could See 20,000 Bitcoin Accepting Merchants in 2017 - CryptoCoinsNews (44 points, 5 comments)
    4. Bitcoin is gold with a teleporter (26 points, 2 comments)
  37. 567 points, 9 submissions: PrimeParticle
    1. "Introduction to Bitcoin" - Andreas Antonopoulos (Probably one of the best videos for introducing bitcoin). (131 points, 7 comments)
    2. Venezuela's currency now worth so little shopkeepers weigh vast piles of notes instead of counting them (118 points, 42 comments)
    3. Coins are cheaper in China by $30 to $50 dollars for the first time in a long time, that means... (92 points, 87 comments)
    4. Andreas Antonopoulos - The Death of Money | London Real (57 points, 1 comment)
    5. Abra: Bitcoin To Fiat Withdrawals At Tellers Globally! - 2017 North American Bitcoin Conference (47 points, 14 comments)
    6. Remember that you can use CPFP or RBF to get your transactions confirmed faster. (45 points, 46 comments)
    7. Bitcoin Q&A: The Lightning Network & Rootstock (30 points, 1 comment)
    8. Public Perception of Bitcoin is Slowly Shifting Amid Global Financial Turmoil (25 points, 1 comment)
    9. Bitcoin is shrugging off some big news of out of China (22 points, 1 comment)
  38. 561 points, 1 submission: kevsudos
    1. Bitcoin Hodlers Be Like........ (561 points, 96 comments)
  39. 543 points, 1 submission: turn-down-for-what
    1. $1,000! (543 points, 49 comments)
  40. 539 points, 1 submission: BlahYourHamster
    1. [META] Can we use the Bitcoin Rollercoster Guy as the upvote and downvote arrows? (539 points, 49 comments)
  41. 538 points, 7 submissions: themetalfriend
    1. The real superhero (210 points, 15 comments)
    2. Countries where you can survive on Bitcoin (map) (76 points, 88 comments)
    3. How practical is it to live on Bitcoin: historical progress (gif) (63 points, 40 comments)
    4. Among the countries with the strongest Bitcoin adoption: Slovenia, Finland, Singapore, Hong Kong, Canada, Switzerland (63 points, 13 comments)
    5. Long-term bitcoiner checking this sub (51 points, 9 comments)
    6. The complete list of the factors that influence the value of Bitcoin (45 points, 29 comments)
    7. Will Bitcoin work on Mars? (30 points, 41 comments)
  42. 521 points, 2 submissions: roasbeef
    1. Announcing the Alpha Release of the Lightning Network Daemon! (427 points, 152 comments)
    2. Setting up and Testing LND with the Testnet Lightning Faucet (94 points, 7 comments)
  43. 506 points, 1 submission: ToTheMoonGuy
    1. Super Bowl Bitcoin Lady (506 points, 37 comments)
  44. 484 points, 1 submission: ssienk117
    1. My new Phone background. Thanks u/SooieSide/ (484 points, 30 comments)
  45. 472 points, 2 submissions: Wingsuit
    1. I think duck duck go should improve their decimal accuracy (386 points, 41 comments)
    2. Bitcoin achieves leetness in Australia (86 points, 12 comments)
  46. 470 points, 1 submission: robertgenito
    1. The REAL good ol' days of bitcoin... (470 points, 103 comments)
  47. 444 points, 1 submission: loserkids
    1. Bitcoin saved my ass in South East Asia (444 points, 115 comments)
  48. 441 points, 1 submission: boyber
    1. LibreTaxi, free and open source UbeLyft alternative to connect passengers and drivers - bitcoin integration on the way! (441 points, 94 comments)

Top Commenters

  1. nullc (2659 points, 215 comments)
  2. kidblondie (2127 points, 89 comments)
  3. BashCo (1530 points, 293 comments)
  4. dellintelbitcoin (1400 points, 372 comments)
  5. smartfbrankings (1141 points, 265 comments)
  6. belcher_ (1031 points, 149 comments)
  7. Frogolocalypse (986 points, 322 comments)
  8. dan_from_san_diego (949 points, 554 comments)
  9. Cryptolution (851 points, 226 comments)
  10. Vaultoro (822 points, 100 comments)
  11. thieflar (792 points, 231 comments)
  12. Lite_Coin_Guy (748 points, 219 comments)
  13. Cryptoconomy (728 points, 134 comments)
  14. Coinosphere (723 points, 282 comments)
  15. luke-jr (718 points, 141 comments)
  16. waxwing (707 points, 117 comments)
  17. bitsteiner (658 points, 157 comments)
  18. BitttBurger (646 points, 157 comments)
  19. shesek1 (607 points, 132 comments)
  20. pb1x (595 points, 76 comments)
  21. jratcliff63367 (591 points, 45 comments)
  22. supermari0 (587 points, 131 comments)
  23. bitusher (581 points, 96 comments)
  24. 4n4n4 (576 points, 79 comments)
  25. coinjaf (562 points, 225 comments)
  26. glockbtc (541 points, 168 comments)
  27. 45sbvad (539 points, 102 comments)
  28. killerstorm (536 points, 119 comments)
  29. adam3us (527 points, 66 comments)
  30. maaku7 (527 points, 63 comments)
  31. nopara73 (523 points, 120 comments)
  32. phor2zero (499 points, 66 comments)
  33. PrimeParticle (496 points, 108 comments)
  34. sreaka (495 points, 155 comments)
  35. jonny1000 (488 points, 98 comments)
  36. CoinCadence (487 points, 77 comments)
  37. SatoshisCat (480 points, 150 comments)
  38. petertodd (473 points, 24 comments)
  39. spoonfednonsense (472 points, 126 comments)
  40. Hitchslappy (472 points, 102 comments)
  41. albuminvasion (466 points, 84 comments)
  42. Taek42 (456 points, 44 comments)
  43. chrisrico (452 points, 87 comments)
  44. AnonymousRev (451 points, 115 comments)
  45. the_bob (443 points, 114 comments)
  46. satoshicoin (438 points, 65 comments)
  47. Riiume (434 points, 83 comments)
  48. exab (430 points, 125 comments)
  49. jimmajamma (422 points, 141 comments)
  50. brg444 (421 points, 69 comments)

Top Submissions

  1. "R.I.P. Bitcoin. It's Time to Move On"....funny billboard driving around in Miami by futureofeverything (3136 points, 227 comments)
  2. Clearly not mainstream yet by tuqqs (2808 points, 104 comments)
  3. Countdown: Bitcoin Will Be a Legal Method of Payment in Japan in Two Months by helmsk (2316 points, 151 comments)
  4. Internet Archive: $3000 donated anonymously to the @internetarchive in bitcoin just now. Made our day! Thank you! by bahatassafus (1941 points, 31 comments)
  5. Welcome to Bitcoin, everyone. Don't worry, he'll recover. by Pizpie (1353 points, 155 comments)
  6. Deutsche Bank - More than $10 billion in transactions never appeared on the books. That's why banksters don't want to use public blockchains. by kynek99 (1338 points, 96 comments)
  7. Julian Assange just used the current block hash as proof-of-not-prerecorded-interview in his AMA by umbawumpa (1294 points, 182 comments)
  8. When you ride the bitcoin rally by Butt_Cheek_Spreader (1189 points, 204 comments)
  9. what it'll look like, when it happens by tuqqs (1124 points, 195 comments)
  10. You can now buy Bitcoin from any 7-11 in the Philippines! by Carlscrazyidea (1021 points, 136 comments)

Top Comments

  1. 380 points: Tyatku's comment in When you ride the bitcoin rally
  2. 340 points: Vaultoro's comment in Just paid 23 cents on a $3.74 transaction. When does it end? $1.00 per transaction? $2? $5? I don't wanna stop using this peer to peer currency, but I'm fast being priced out of it.
  3. 323 points: jamesdpitley's comment in "R.I.P. Bitcoin. It's Time to Move On"....funny billboard driving around in Miami
  4. 290 points: Clutch70's comment in Clearly not mainstream yet
  5. 212 points: BitcoinDreamland's comment in South Florida Distillers uses heat from bitcoin mining to accelerate rum barrel aging!
  6. 206 points: bitpotluck's comment in FOMO-ing right now
  7. 195 points: howardkinsd's comment in Clearly not mainstream yet
  8. 182 points: beloboi's comment in "R.I.P. Bitcoin. It's Time to Move On"....funny billboard driving around in Miami
  9. 181 points: BattleChimp's comment in "R.I.P. Bitcoin. It's Time to Move On"....funny billboard driving around in Miami
  10. 179 points: kidblondie's comment in [AMA] I'm the woman who got pepper sprayed wearing the "Make Bitcoin Great Again" hat.
Generated with BBoe's Subreddit Stats (Donate)
submitted by subreddit_stats to subreddit_stats [link] [comments]

One year ago Andreas said there is no reason to urgently raise the block size (MOOC Q&A).

Listen here: https://youtu.be/n0YQega61GU?t=1197
Since then transactions per block have doubled. Look here: https://blockchain.info/de/charts/n-transactions-per-block
Luke-jr said a 400kb block size is currently enough but if it keeps growing as it did in the last year, all blocks will be full by the end of next year and transactions will be dropped. Fees will go up and we will see news like "bitcoin gets expensive", "paypal much cheaper than bitcoin", "western union is building a less expensive bitcoin alternative". I don't want that.
submitted by shibe05 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

LEADERSHIP CALL THE IMPORTANCE OF PLATINUM 1000 - WITH CHAIRMAN 100 GARY MCSWEEN Best FX Trading Strategies (THE Top Strategy for Forex ... The Choice - YouTube iPhone SE  Die Premiere - YouTube The High-Low Game

Look into bitcoin charts Fee calculator Johoe’s Bitcoin Mempool Statistics Liquid issued assets Liquid Horse Luke Jr’s Bitcoin Node Script sha256.network statoshi.info BitVol Digitalik Bitcoin stock to flow model live chart Bitcoin Rain Clark Moody Bitcoin Cambridge Bitcoin Electricity Consumption Index aggr.trade sk3w bitcoin futures sk3w ... luke-jr wants to merge 1 commit into bitcoin: master from luke-jr: baremultisig_default_off. Closed ... @luke-jr Don't play meaningless games with semantics. The real world consequence, once this rule is deployed to the majority of the network, is to cut off use of bare multisig. I support that, as stated, but please do not insult our collective intelligence by hand-waving away consequences as ... luke-jr wants to merge 1 commit into bitcoin: master from luke-jr: ... Would be awesome to see a historic chart which includes. all transaction; transaction eligible for priority; transaction which used priority ; This comment has been minimized. Sign in to view. Copy link Quote reply Member Author luke-jr commented Dec 10, 2015. AFAIK nobody has kept such records, and they can't be deduced ... --Luke-jr 04:30, 26 February 2013 (GMT) Not so much as redundant, but horrifically misleading. I have developed a spreadsheet that makes predictions of eventual profitability based on extrapolation of difficulty into the far distant future. For example, if you're planning to buy a mining rig that won't get delivered for 6 months, you can get a reasonable prediction of the eventual payback on ... Luke Dash Jr. is a Bitcoin Core (BTC) developer and he seems to constantly be in the middle of some kind of controversy. One of his most recent comments to get some attention is regarding the block size on the BTC chain, which he suggested reducing down to 300kb.

[index] [29178] [8109] [34276] [19360] [31880] [39437] [20289] [50242] [49242] [46132]

LEADERSHIP CALL THE IMPORTANCE OF PLATINUM 1000 - WITH CHAIRMAN 100 GARY MCSWEEN

The best FX trading strategies out there aren't some magic indicator, some weird hack, or quick little tip. Stop looking for those, you're going to lose. Ins... 4,7" klein. Porträts in Studioqualität. Scharfe Videos in 4K. Lange Batterielaufzeit. Die Sicherheit von Touch ID. Datenschutz serienmäßig. Und der A13 Bioni... Luke Quamina Speech at the 2020 Vision Caribbean Convention ... Tyree Thomas Jr 61,749 views. 44:58. Harmonic Scanner+BRS Strategy - Duration: 56:48. Gary McSween 61,872 views. 56:48. ORIENTATION ... Automated Trading With Sierra Charts, Part 3 - Duration: 10:58. Ed Carp 687 views. 10:58. PIC Microcontroller Tutorial 3 - Reading and reacting to inputs - Duration: 24:54. Luke ... Economic collapse news. JP Morgan's Global PMI Manufacturing Index has just plunged further into contraction and this is the second consecutive month it has remained below a reading of 50 this is ...

#