The War on Bitcoin - CoinGeek

Voici LA chronique à découvrir, intitulée: La guerre contre Bitcoin. Idéal pour comprendre certains tenants et aboutissants

Voici LA chronique à découvrir, intitulée: La guerre contre Bitcoin. Idéal pour comprendre certains tenants et aboutissants… Bonne découverte!
La guerre contre Bitcoin
Bitcoin est peut-être le meilleur outil de liberté économique de cette génération, et peut-être depuis plusieurs générations. Malheureusement, Bitcoin a été furieusement étouffé par une guerre civile brutale depuis environ cinq ans maintenant; menée par des ingénieurs sociaux professionnels de certaines des entreprises les plus puissantes des médias sociaux. Leur talent dans l'art et la science de la manipulation a permis aux "Bitcoiners" de se battre largement entre eux plutôt que de chercher à créer des modèles commerciaux innovants basés sur les données qui pourraient révolutionner l'économie mondiale via Bitcoin.
À la suite de la guerre civile de Bitcoin, trois versions concurrentes de Bitcoin ont vu le jour (BTC, BCH et BitcoinSV ), mais il en est de même pour environ 3000 autres projets et jetons de « crypto-monnaie » se faisant passer pour des entreprises légitimes, souvent jusqu'à un "exit scam" presque garanti, le fait de disparaitre du jour au lendemain avec tout l'argent des utilisateurs. Le principal bienfaiteur de la guerre civile Bitcoin a été Ethereum: une cryptomonnaie qui fonctionne comme une machine à états mondiale et permet un déploiement facile de tokens et de contrats intelligents. Mais le protocole Ethereum ne peut pas évoluer, et parmi les milliers de projets lancés, seule une poignée pourrait même être présentés comme pouvant devenir des entreprises légitimes. La plupart des autres sont des stratagèmes de Ponzi ou des émissions d'actions illégales enrichissant les développeurs et escroquant les investisseurs amateurs.
C'est dans ce contexte que les défenseurs de BTC et de BCH, les porte-parole d'Ethereum et les altcoiners (nom donné pour englober toutes les autres cryptomonnaies) de tous bords s'alignent pour attaquer sans cesse le protocole Bitcoin préservé uniquement par le réseau BSV. Une industrie composée presque entièrement de criminels, de fraudes et d'arnaqueurs s'est unie contre BSV citant - et c'est là l'ironie! - une prétendue fraude et arnaque présumée qui serait l'existence même de BSV.
Nous devons nous demander pourquoi ?
Quel est le différenciateur clé de BSV?
Pourquoi tous les arnaqueurs se sont-ils unis contre lui?
Je suis fermement convaincu que pour la plupart, la motivation est la peur de la capacité de BSV à absorber l'économie mondiale et tous les autres projets «crypto» qui vont avec. Pour les autres, ou ceux qui ne comprennent pas le pouvoir du Bitcoin, ils sont entraînés dans une guerre civile et culturelle qui les dépasse. Il est essentiel de comprendre les pouvoirs en jeu et leurs implications pour Bitcoin et l'économie mondiale.
Une histoire brève de Bitcoin
Bitcoin a été lancé avec un "livre blanc" sur la liste de diffusion de cryptographie en 2008. Le pseudonyme « Satoshi Nakamoto » a déclaré une solution au problème de la double dépense. Or il s'agit là du problème de tous les systèmes de paiement électronique précédents, et c'était le seul facteur limitant l'adoption d'une monnaie digitale fonctionnelle. Mais qu'est-ce que le problème de la double dépense ? Pour faire simple, il était impossible de prouver exactement qui possédait quelles unités d'argent sur des registres distribués, de sorte que les utilisateurs ne pouvaient pas avoir confiance dans le système, et ces projets mourraient assez vite. Bitcoin a résolu ce problème avec un concept appelé la « preuve de travail ». Il pose la question: qui a utilisé le plus de puissance de calcul pour résoudre des énigmes arbitraires ? ceci afin de rendre compte de l'état du registre d'une manière qui coûte de l'argent, de sorte qu'il y ait une incitation économique à tenir un compte honnête des avoirs de chacun des participants. Ce processus est souvent appelé « exploitation minière » car les nœuds honnêtes qui maintiennent l'état du registre sont récompensés pour leur travail avec des nouveaux Bitcoins toutes les dix minutes - un peu à la même manière d'un mineur d'or qui est récompensé par de l'or en échange de son travail.
Étant donné que Bitcoin n'avait aucune valeur lors de son lancement, il était extrêmement facile à miner et également gratuit d'envoyer des tonnes de transactions. En théorie, il s'agissait d'un vecteur d'attaque par déni de service (DoS). Une attaque DoS ou DDoS se produit lorsque les nœuds d'un réseau sont inondés de plus de données qu'ils ne peuvent en gérer et qu'ils se mettent donc à planter. Sur le jeune réseau Bitcoin, un crash comme celui-ci aurait été considéré comme un échec du réseau. Pour empêcher cela, un plafond de 1 Mo de données par chaque dix minutes de transactions a été codé en dur dans le logiciel - semant la première graine de la guerre civile Bitcoin. De 2009 à 2017, cette limite de 1 Mo sur le total des transactions était l'aspect technique le plus controversé du bitcoin et le déclencheur de la plus grande guerre civile virtuelle de l'univers de la cryptomonnaie.
Pourquoi est-ce aussi important?
Une seule transaction basique Bitcoin est relativement petite du point de vue des données, donc 1 Mo toutes les dix minutes donne environ trois à sept transactions par seconde avant que le réseau ne devienne trop encombré. Satoshi Nakamoto le créateur, a plaidé pour un nombre de transactions du niveau de Visa et bien plus, ainsi que son successeur direct en tant que développeur principal du projet, Gavin Andresen. Certains des premiers Bitcoiners influents comme Mike Hearn et Jeff Garzik ont ​​également plaidé pour plus de données par bloc pour permettre à Bitcoin de se développer et de rester le meilleur système de paiement électronique. Ils étaient pour des «gros blocs» contrairement au camp des «petits blocs» qui préconisaient une permanence de la limitation de 1 Mo des blocs.
Le camp des "petits blocs" estiment que Bitcoin n'est pas un réseau de paiement, mais plutôt qu'il s'apparente davantage à une banque décentralisée conçue pour stocker des Bitcoins qui ne bougent jamais: une sorte de coffre-fort d'or numérique. Ils voulaient que la limite de taille des blocs de 1 Mo reste permanente sous les auspices de chaque personne exécutant un «nœud complet» sans avoir à payer trop d'espace sur le disque dur. Cela signifierait qu'en période de congestion, les frais de transaction deviendraient absurdement élevés, mais cela n'aurait pas d'importance car le bitcoin ne devrait pas être utilisé pour des envois sauf en grosses quantités de toute façon, selon eux. En décembre 2017 les frais de BTC ont ainsi atteint les $50 par transaction. L'autre problème est que s'il est bon marché de rejoindre la gouvernance de Bitcoin, alors le réseau est facile à attaquer par Sybil, et je dirais que BTC est régi par des sybilles à ce jour.
Le camp des "gros-blocs" estime que tout le monde sur terre devrait être en mesure d'échanger et de faire ses affaires sur Bitcoin pour des frais infimes, de l'ordre d'un centième ou millième de centime par transaction, afin d'apporter à la population mondiale la liberté monétaire, y compris aux pays les plus pauvres qui sont gardés en dehors du système actuel car considérés comme pas assez profitables pour des entreprises comme Visa.
Les "petits-blocs" pensent que tout le monde devrait être en mesure de gérer soi-même le registre mondial chez soi, mais que seules certaines personnes très riches devraient pouvoir effectuer des transactions, ce qui est le cas quand les frais sont à $50 par transaction comme en 2017.
Après des années de querelles, en 2017, Bitcoin s'est scindé en deux chaînes distinctes, et en 2018, il s'est à nouveau divisé.
Alors quelle est la différence entre ces trois versions ?
BTC est actuellement la version qui a le prix le plus élevé, avec la plus petite taille de bloc et la plus grande puissance de calcul. On peut dire que BTC à gagné la guerre médiatique. Malheureusement, il est régi par des développeurs et des sybilles qui contrôlent le consensus grâce à une utilisation intelligente de logiciels malveillants appelés «soft-fork» qui leur permet de saper les règles du Bitcoin. Ils utilisent ce pouvoir pour changer les règles des transactions en mentant aux nœuds et en leur disant de les valider quand même. Toute la culture BTC consiste à acheter du BTC afin de le conserver jusqu'à un moment dans le futur où il serait revendu à un prix exorbitant. Le but est de spéculer au maximum. Les paiements avec BTC, particulièrement les petits paiements, ou les transactions de toute nature non-monétaires, sont méprisés.
BCH est un réseau basé sur Bitcoin qui pense que les blocs devraient être à peine légèrement plus grands, mais ils ont également des développeurs en charge des règles, tout comme BTC, et ils pensent que Bitcoin devrait être utilisé uniquement pour le commerce de détail, mais rien de plus. Le réseau change de règles tous les six mois. Les transactions non commerciales sont en général méprisées. Un nouveau scindement de BCH est prévu pour novembre 2020 suite à des conflits internes et l'incapacité à avoir un système de gouvernance dans un projet où les règles changent en permanence.
BSV est la version restaurée du protocole Bitcoin original avec tous les paramètres ouverts afin que les nœuds honnêtes puissent s'engager dans un consensus conformément au livre blanc de Bitcoin - par la preuve de travail ! Le protocole est gravé dans la pierre afin que les développeurs de logiciels ne puissent pas bricoler les règles. Cela permet aux entreprises de planifier des décennies d'utilisation du réseau et d'investir en toute confiance. Il s'agit d'apporter une réelle innovation technologique au monde plutôt que de spéculer. En tant que seul réseau bitcoin totalement sans besoin d'autorisation, le commerce de toute nature est encouragé sur BSV. Tout, allant des réseaux sociaux aux expériences de science des données météorologiques ou aux tests de disponibilité du réseau, est encouragé. Paiements de détail, tokenisation, ou tout autre type de contrat intelligent est simple à déployer sans limitations. Bitcoin SV n'a aucune limite dans son protocole sauf l'esprit humain, l'innovation et l'esprit d'entreprise. Il vise également une adoption mondiale notamment par les pays pauvres afin d'apporter la liberté monétaire et l'inclusion à l'économie mondiale de ceux que les grandes entreprises actuelles comme Visa dédaignent comme pas assez profitables pour leur accorder leur services.
Et c'est la racine de la haine envers BSV.
Les "petits-blocs" ont investi toute leur réputation et leurs moyens de subsistance sur la notion que le bitcoin est incapable de s'adapter. Pendant des années, des experts présumés ont convaincu de nombreuses personnes que les limites de taille de bloc de 2 Mo, 8 Mo ou 22 Mo casseraient littéralement Bitcoin. Ils ont furieusement mis en jeux leur réputation sur ces fausses notions. Et ensuite, BSV a eu de nombreux blocs de plus de 100 Mo. En fait, il y en a même eu quelques-uns de plus de 300 Mo! prouvant que les petits-blocs se trompaient depuis le début sur les limites du réseau. Mais cette prise de conscience est une menace pour l'hégémonie de l'histoire médiatique qui a été crée sur Bitcoin. Depuis 2015, lorsque le Dr Craig Wright est apparu sur les lieux pour expliquer que le bitcoin avait en réalité ZERO limitations, il a créé un tollé massif parmi l'intelligentsia des petits-blocs. Les leaders d'opinion de l'époque étaient payés pour prendre la parole lors de conférences où ils expliquaient à tort que Bitcoin n'était rien d'autre qu'une réserve de valeur rare sans autre utilité, et surtout pas à usage des plus pauvres. Le Dr Wright parlait de l'échelle illimitée du réseau, de son exhaustivité de Turing, de l'objectif d'inclure enfin les plus pauvres dans l'économie mondiale, et d'autres notions inconcevables (à l'époque) sur Bitcoin. Sa passion et ses connaissances se sont heurtées à des calomnies et des railleries. Ils se sont concentrés sur l'attaque de son personnage au lieu de discuter de Bitcoin!
C'est devenu l'une des principales méthodes d'attaque des petits-blocs. Lorsque de gros-blocs parlent des capacités de Bitcoin, ils sont ridiculisés en tant qu'escrocs et le sujet est toujours dirigé très loin de la discussion technique, car les petits-blocs savent bien qu'ils sortiraient perdants. Ils fouillent les dossiers personnels et cherchent des moyens de faire taire les gens du camp des grands-blocs de Bitcoin par des attaques personnelles - de la même manière que les guerriers de la justice sociale s'engagent dans la culture d'annulation contre leurs ennemis politiques.
Qui est le Dr Craig Wright et que fait-il?
Craig Wright est le scientifique en chef d'une société de recherche sur Bitcoin au Royaume-Uni appelée nChain : une société de 150 à 200 informaticiens. Craig dirige l'équipe qui étudie les possibilités de Bitcoin et de ses applications dans le monde. Il est l'un des experts en criminalité numérique les plus reconnus au monde avec les certifications SANS et GIAC ainsi que les titres GSE CISSP, CISA, CISM, CCE, GCFA, GLEG, GREM et GSPA. En outre, il est un polymathe multidisciplinaire de troisième cycle: un doctorat en informatique, économie et théologie et titulaire d'une maîtrise en statistique et en droit commercial international.
En 2015, il a également été exposé par une publication conjointe de WIRED et Gizmodo en tant que Satoshi Nakamoto, le créateur de Bitcoin. Quelques jours après cette révélation, les gens qui le soutenaient ont vu leurs clés d'accès au code de Bitcoin révoquées, et de nombreux autres ont été instantanément bannis. Craig a été mis sous enquête par le bureau des impôts australien pour ce qu'il considérait être une erreur de comptabilisation probable de ses bitcoins. Les retombées ont été agressives et rapides, avec une gigantesque armée de petits-blocs, organisée sur Reddit et d'autres forums, et nouvellement financés par l'argent de la startup pro petits-blocs appelée «Blockstream». Leur message était clair: Bitcoin doit garder de petits blocs. Le Bitcoin ne peut pas évoluer et doit rester réservé aux riches, et toute personne proche de Craig Wright sera harcelée pour se conformer à une armée de comptes Twitter anonymes et sans visage.
Voici un schéma qui retrace les financements de Blockstream et révèle comment le groupe Bilderberg, la banque centrale américaine (FED) et Mastercard on pris le contrôle du réseau BTC via Blockstream afin de le soumettre à leur propre profit: https://imgur.com/eFApDVE
Au cours des années suivantes, Ira Kleiman, frère du défunt Dave Kleiman, a poursuivi Craig Wright en justice pour sa part du prétendu «Partenariat Satoshi Nakamoto», affirmant que son frère Dave était plus impliqué qu'il ne l'était réellement, et l'affaire est en cours actuellement, jusqu'à courant 2021. Ira Kleiman pense que Craig est Satoshi et il a investi une fortune incalculable dans cette attaque et a obtenu l'argent d'investisseurs extérieurs pour poursuivre sa poursuite. Il est clair que les bailleurs de fonds d'Ira pensent que Craig est également Satoshi.
Les critiques qualifient souvent la révélation publique et le procès public de Wright de ternir énormément sa réputation, mais il convient de noter que les deux sont arrivés à Wright malgré sa volonté et qu'il ne souhaitait clairement pas être pris dans l'une ou l'autre situation.
Au lieu de cela, Craig est un défenseur passionné de la vision d'un Bitcoin avec de gros blocs, appelant à la professionnalisation, à la légalisation et à l'utilisation mondiale de Bitcoin pour une utilisation à tous les niveaux du commerce. La réponse à la passion de Craig et à ses affirmations a été d'attaquer sa réputation et d'endosser Internet avec le surnom de «Faketoshi». Lorsque de simples brimades ont échoué contre le Dr Wright, des attaques ont été intensifiées pour remettre en question ses divers diplômes, des pétitions aux universités pour enquêter sur lui pour plagiat dans divers travaux, y compris des thèses de doctorat, etc. Wright a même revendiqué des menaces contre la vie des membres de sa famille et il y a plus qu'une preuve que, selon Ian Grigg, une des légendes de la cryptographie: «des gens sont morts pour Bitcoin, croyez moi, des gens sont morts».
Les attaques en cours
Cela ne peut être assez souligné: la communauté des petits-blocs est construite autour de tactiques d'ingénierie sociale professionnelles. Gregory Maxwell, co-fondateur de la société Blockstream, a été formé à la pratique de l'ingénierie sociale et l'a utilisé de manière si subversive comme un outil de propagande pendant son mandat en tant que modérateur rémunéré de Wikipedia, qu'il a finalement été démis de ses fonctions avec les journaux d'administration citant une litanie d'infractions, notamment:
«Gmaxwell s'est engagé dans la création de faux comptes en masse…» - Alhutch 00:05, 23 janvier 2006 (UTC)
«Menaces, insultes grossières, usurpations d'identité d'un administrateur», -Husnock 03:18, 25 janvier 2006 (UTC)
«Son comportement est scandaleux. Franchement, il est hors de contrôle à ce stade. Son comportement d'intimidation doit cesser.» - FearÉIREANN 19:36, 22 janvier 2006 (UTC)
«Sa liste de contributions est hors de propos. C'est du vandalisme. C'est un comportement auquel je m'attendrais d'un éditeur en furie, et franchement, c'est ce qu'est Gmaxwell.» - Splashtalk 20h00, 22 janvier 2006 (UTC)
«Prétend être un administrateur, menaçant de bloquer les personnes qui ne sont pas d'accord avec lui, fait régulièrement des attaques personnelles» - SlimVirgin (talk) 12h22, 22 janvier 2006 (UTC)
Il passe beaucoup de temps sur Reddit et d'autres forums à semer la peur sur les dangers des gros blocs, et il a été surpris en train de faire semblant d'être plusieurs comptes à la fois en train d'avoir de très longues discussions techniques sur Reddit destinées à submerger les nouveaux arrivants avec ce qui ressemble à un débat intellectuel contre une version de Bitcoin libéré de ses limites.
Qui d'autre est attaqué?
L'autre cible commune de la machine de guerre médiatique anti-BSV est Calvin Ayre: un milliardaire à la tête de l'empire du groupe Ayre. Calvin est un entrepreneur canadien et antiguais qui a lancé un incubateur Internet à Vancouver au tout début du boom Internet. Fils d'un éleveur, Ayre est surtout connu en dehors de l'économie Bitcoin pour la création et la professionnalisation de l'industrie du jeu sur Internet. Plus particulièrement, sous la marque Bodog, Ayre a aidé à moderniser les lois financières américaines obsolètes en poussant les limites dans les marchés gris qui existent où les dollars américains sont utilisés à travers les frontières pour s'engager dans un commerce juridiquement compliqué comme le jeu d'argent. Son travail dans ce domaine lui a valu une petite fortune et un passage sur la liste des «plus recherchés» du gouvernement des USA pour blanchiment d'argent. C'est un point sur lequel les petits-blocs aiment se concentrer, mais ils le sortent complètement de son contexte. Calvin a finalement plaidé coupable à une accusation mais a été le fer de lance de la modernisation des lois américaines qui existent aujourd'hui sur les marchés. Il est respecté pour son travail dans l'industrie du jeu, des médias et de la philanthropie. Calvin est le bienvenu aux États-Unis malgré la critique souvent citée selon laquelle il serait une sorte de hors-la-loi.
Calvin Ayre
Dans l'économie Bitcoin, Ayre est une figure de proue dans la gestion de nœuds Bitcoin honnêtes depuis plusieurs années sous les marques CoinGeek et TAAL, et il est un investisseur dans nChain ainsi que plusieurs startups de l'espace BSV. Bien qu'il soit probablement le plus gros investisseur à ce jour, il n'est pas le monopole que les petits-blocs laisseraient croire. Il est important de comprendre que des segments entiers de l'écosystème BSV existent complètement en dehors de son influence.
Twetch, par exemple, est une entreprise indépendante appartenant à l'écosystème BSV, célèbre pour ses attaques contre les médias sociaux centralisés qui abusent de la censure. Ils sont même connus pour se moquer des entreprises qui acceptent l'argent d'Ayre, en plaisantant que Calvin possède tout sauf Twetch. Bien sûr, ce n'est pas vrai. Un autre excellent exemple est l'investisseur / entrepreneur indépendant Jack Liu : ancien dirigeant de Circle et OKEX. Liu possède la marque de hackathons CambrianSV ainsi que des propriétés précieuses dans l'espace BSV telles que RelayX, Streamanity, Output Capital, FloatSV et Dimely.
Les autres acteurs clés sont MatterPool Mining et leur écosystème Mattercloud: une joint-venture entre des acteurs indépendants de l'écosystème BSV, avec des connexions directes aux protocoles BoostPOW et 21e8 et des relations avec des développeurs BSV indépendants.
Bien sûr, il existe également des marques précieuses financées par Ayre. Il s'agit notamment de la propriété partielle via l'investissement dans HandCash, Centi, TonicPow et Planaria Corp de Unwriter.
Une autre mesure importante à prendre en compte est la distribution de la puissance de hachage (autre nom pour la puissance de calcul du résau). Alors qu'au tout début de BSV, les entreprises appartenant à Ayre représentaient une quantité importante de hachage sur bitcoin, afin d'assurer sa survie, BSV est aujourd'hui en grande partie exploité par des mineurs concurrents de Ayre tels que Binance, F2Pool, OKEX et ViaBTC - dont aucun n'est «ami» de BSV ou d'Ayre, mais beaucoup se déclarent les ennemis. Ces mineurs soulignent bien la nature ouverte et sans permission de BSV qui permet à quiconque de participer, notamment à ses ennemis!
Ayre est un acteur important, mais en aucun cas un contrôleur de la direction de la blockchain ou des entreprises indépendantes dans l'économie BSV.
Mais pourquoi Craig poursuit-il des gens en justice ?
Tout d'abord, et c'est crucial, le procès le plus important de Craig est l'affaire Kleiman. Les autres cas existent uniquement à cause de la diffamation publique du Dr Wright. Le hashtag #CraigWrightIsAFraud circule largement, poussé en grande partie par un mélange de personnages anonymes sur Twitter. Plus particulièrement Magnus Granath AKA «Hodlonaut» a été averti qu'une accusation publique de fraude courait à son encontre. La carrière du Dr Wright est en informatique et en criminalistique numérique, donc le déclarer publiquement une fraude sans preuve cause un préjudice financier au Dr Wright dans son domaine d'expertise commerciale. Puisque «Hodlnaut» a refusé de cesser, on lui a envoyer une requête pour être vu au tribunal afin de pouvoir apporter les preuves de ses accusations. Cela a causé le célèbre podcasteur de petits-blocs Peter McCormack à mendier d'être poursuivi aussi - en augmentant la rhétorique diffamatoire contre le Dr Wright. À la demande de McCormack, il a lui aussi été attaqué en justice pour être vu au tribunal. Le Dr Wright à depuis abandonné tous ses procès pour diffamation à l'exception de celui contre McCormack qu'il souhaite continuer pour faire exemple.
Cela a aussi engendré la campagne #DelistBSV menée en grande partie par «CZ», le PDG charismatique de Binance-Exchange. Divers autres échanges comme Shapeshift et Kraken ont publié des sondages twitter demandant s'ils devaient emboîter le pas, et des petits-blocs bien organisés ont voté en masse pour retirer BSV de leurs échanges - citant la toxicité du Dr Wright pour avoir intenté des poursuites en diffamation contre Hodlonaut et McCormack. Finalement, BSV a été retiré de Binance, ShapeShift et Kraken. Il a également été noté publiquement par Coinbase et Gemini qu'ils ne soutiendraient pas cette version de bitcoin à la suite de ce drame public. Il faut noter qu'après 2 ans, Binance a retourné sa veste et est aujourd'hui devenu un des principaux mineurs de BSV.
Au fur et à mesure que les choses progressaient, le fondateur de bitcoin .com, Roger Ver, a également réalisé une vidéo publique déclarant Wright comme arnaqueur. C'était après avoir travaillé sournoisement avec les développeurs Bitcoin ABC pour coder des points de contrôle dans le logiciel ABC de Bitcoin Cash, divisant de manière permanente le réseau Bitcoin pour la deuxième et dernière fois - un acte auquel le Dr Wright s'était opposé et pour lequel Roger est également poursuivi par d'autres parties privées en Floride. Roger Ver a été averti que s'il continuait, des poursuites juridiques similaires se présenteraient à sa porte pour avoir diffamé le Dr Wright, mais il à décidé de poursuivre les accusations publiques jusqu'à ce qu'il soit également entendu devant le tribunal pour fournir une preuve de la fraude de Wright, sous peine de sanctions pour diffamation publique. Aucune preuve n'a jamais été fournit, mais le Dr Wright a depuis abandonné ses poursuites contre Roger Ver pour se concentrer sur son procès avec Kleiman et celui avec McCormack ainsi que son travail sur Bitcoin.
Et maintenant que se passe-t-il ?
Nous avons établi l'histoire du Bitcoin, de sa guerre civile, des attaques publiques contre Wright, Ayre et BSV. Au moment d'écrire ces lignes, nous pouvons revenir sur les attaques contre Thomas Lee, Tim Draper et Jimmy Wales pour avoir eu une proximité avec BSV. Malgré la pression sociale, le rapport technique Fundstrat de Lee a rendu un examen élogieux du protocole fixe et de l'évolutivité infinie de BSV. Lee et son équipe étaient heureux de prendre la parole lors des événements précédents de CoinGeek, même après le tollé public.
Pour la conférence CoinGeek 2020 à New York, McCormack, Hodlonaut, « Arthur Van Pelt » et d'autres acteurs tels que le Dan Held de Kraken et une cacophonie de trolls anonymes sur Twitter ont mis à profit leur expérience de la culture d'annulation à la bolchevique pour faire pression sur l'orateur Gary Vaynerchuk ainsi que d'autres orateurs prévus pour cette conférence, afin de les forcer à annuler leur participation. Cette attaque sociale contre BSV, Dr. Wright, Ayre et les autres entreprises qui utilisent le réseau BSV pourrait être un gigantesque cas de fraude à la consommation. Ils trompent activement les gens en leur faisant croire que le protocole fixe et l'évolutivité infinie de Bitcoin BSV sont en quelque sorte dangereux, alors qu'en fait, le protocole et le réseau sont imperméables à toutes les attaques, à l'exception de leur ingénierie sociale.
Bitcoin SV s'est développé professionnellement avec un portefeuille de brevets de protection de niveau mondial. Il est utilisé par des entreprises indépendantes afin d'apporter des innovations technologiques et possède un groupe décentralisé de nœuds honnêtes qui se font concurrence. Le réseau est fixe, sécurisé et en croissance grâce aux investissements de petites entreprises et de gestionnaires de capitaux. Les transactions sont instantanées avec des frais de 0.0002€ par transaction en moyenne, explosant tous les records de compétitivité de l'écosystème et permettant aux plus pauvres de la planète d'enfin accéder à l'économie digitale mondiale. Les mensonges sont basés sur une campagne massive de dénigrement perpétrée par les communautés d'autres cryptomonnaies qui craignent l'adoption mondiale de BSV comme outil de commerce et ce que cela signifiera pour eux. L'histoire ne sera pas gentille avec ces manipulateurs et leurs réseaux qui sont financés par les fraudes probables des échanges de crypto-monnaies off-shore, le (très probablement) frauduleux Tether Stablecoin, et l'économie des arnaques de "pump-and-dump" qui sous-tend 95% du volume de négociation de l'ensemble de l'économie cryptomonnaie actuelle.
C'est une guerre civile. Il y aura toujours des victimes, mais alors que BTC et BCH se concentrent sur les ragots et les affaires illicites, BSV veut que le monde entier soit plus libre, plus souverain et plus capable de coopérer sur le registre mondial de la vérité afin que les entrepreneurs du monde puissent s'engager à créer des entreprises ou de simples nano-services sont rendus possibles uniquement par Bitcoin. Bitcoin est un test d'intelligence. Au fil du temps, les personnes intelligentes pourront voir à travers le brouillard de distorsion de la réalité créé pour confondre les innocents et reconnaître cela pour ce que c'est, une attaque coordonnée pour tenter de supprimer une technologie qui à un potentiel unique dans l'histoire, et qui les rendrait obsolètes.

Des exemples d'applications Bitcoin que vous pouvez utiliser dès aujourd'hui ?
Les applications qui sont construites sur Bitcoin et interagissent entre elles par ce biais créent ce qu'on appelle le "Metanet". Si vous vous sentez prêt à faire le premier pas dans le futur vous êtes libres de tester les applications les plus populaires du Metanet sur https://metastore.app/apps?sort=money
Le site le plus populaire du Metanet à ce jour est Twetch, une version de twitter incensurable sur la blockchain que vous trouverez ici : bit.ly/twetchapp

_______________________
sources: inspiré de https://coingeek.com/the-war-on-bitcoin/
image : https://imgur.com/1Yb0Yle
Voici un schéma qui retrace les financements de Blockstream et révèle comment le groupe Bilderberg, la banque centrale américaine (FED) et Mastercard on pris le contrôle du réseau BTC afin de le soumettre à leur propre profit: https://imgur.com/eFApDVE
submitted by zhell_ to BitcoinSVFrance [link] [comments]

Investigation of (Dis-)Favor 1\3 questioning freedom of will (in Macro-society)

This item began as a simple idea to investigate "social construct" theory, a trendy theme in academia and identity politics. It turned into a staggeringly complex constellation of ideas, with surprises galore.
The idea occurs to me: validate (or not) 'social construction' of beauty. If not, then sense of beauty is innate (source is not one's society, but genetic or other episocial influences).
Natural Tendency towards Beauty in Humans: Evidence from Binocular Rivalry 2016 | plos (technical study)
Reading in Contemporary Aesthetics "Why Beauty Still Cannot Be Measured", by Ossi Naukkarinen, because beauty is a personal determination, and a metaphor of favor, but how is it determined? Example: which of these women looks beautiful to you? note: only descriptor for the AI search is "beautiful woman", AI learns about beauty by sifting mega-data; how effective is it? (achieves given goal?) AI results are socially constructed in the most explicit way possible! Beauty may not be measurable, but it can be selected (parsed) from non-beauty. Measurement is a comparison of some phenomenon to an abstract dimension. Selection is a go, no-go choice.
What is Nudge theory? This item straddles the fence between Macro and Micro societies, paradigmatic Nudges come from Macro sources, but include an option to choose without pressure to conform. Micro sources are always more direct; which side of the fence are you on, friend?. (Greener side, of course.)
What about searching for "good", images? note how often the WORD good is pictured. Good is a language construct that must be interpreted from the individual's perspective.
Ok, now search for "favor" images note that AI mostly interprets favor as a small gift, not as a preference (which is difficult to represent by image)
Well then, search for "preference", images note that the word preference happens to be used by a line of hair care products from L'Oreal, which dominates the returns... commerce rules!
social construct (def, search result)
validate (or not) 'social construction' of beauty
Is Socialism a social construct? (LoL) Socialism Defined (EVERY Country is Socialist!) 2.2k views Sep 29, 2019 Rokn'MrE
To (social) Construct, or Not to (social) Construct, is there a choice? (note most results are about gender)
Parsing gender
Discussion of gender is not my direction of choice in this part 1 investigation. I want to seek how an actor (esp. me) makes a choice, in a quest for freedom of will. Perhaps come back to gender in a future item.
person makes a choice, in a quest for freedom of will (selections available)
Exemplar Hyp (Harry) Frankfurt’s compatibilist theory of free will 2009 5pg.pdf
I notice my choice of article was partly determined, partly free, but parsing out those factors would be too much divergence from the goal here. But Truth (a two side coin) is my story, and I'm stickin' to it.
(previous link, compatibilism):
3 It explains our intuition that human beings, but not lower animals, have free will. Lower animals lack free will because they lack the second-order volitions which are constitutive of free will. (This item is unnecessary and probably not true; how do we know animals have no "second-order volitions"? Having no other language than "body", we can only surmise (guess) what their volitions are. Volitions come before actions, we cannot see them or interpret them in any way. Brain conditions might be interpreted with MRI scanning, but to put a subject in a scanning device is to prevent any other actions. Such measuring ruins the connection between mental state and volition being measured, except we can safely assume that every measurement of animals must default to the volition to escape the measuring device.)
That's the first-order, highlighted deviation from compatibility theory. Clarification of "second-order volition": a path from choice to action has an intermediate "middle-way" tunneling mode, contracting (taking on) a desire to make a choice, prior to making the choice. In order to prove freedom, one must establish the mental preference for an imagined outcome in order to prove that preference did come from within the person and was not forced by other external deciding factors (genetic factors are pre-determined).
incompatibilism Note: the approach is wrong by the universal assumption, IOW that the intersection of determined and free is zero. It's a supremacy position, or superposition principle (LoL), the error is in over-simplification. The Logic Argument (p.5) is not representative of reality, which is more nuanced. Therefore, Frankfurt's thesis is good (denial of incompatibilism), but not due to the case presented (superposition).
Take Frankfurt's case (p.4) of Black vs Jones4 to be analogy for State vs Individual. Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars (other sources exist, search for yourself)
The (myusername) determinism/free-will duality hypothesis (denial of incompatibilism due to non-zero intersection):
Most choices, including the choice of desires, are determined by contingencies of which one is the natural desire of the actor to optimize his/her outcomes ("best wishes"). Is a person always compelled to have best wishes? What is best depends on a person's mental state, which is usually determined by external factors, but those can vary in cogency (impact on behavior). Consider the choice to commit suicide, certainly not a trivial choice. (The Chosen means of execution (puns intended) is somewhat more trivial, but again, partly determined by external conditions.)
Some choices, nearly all trivial, are free because no interfering contingencies are apparent during the choosing interlude. It may happen in hindsight, that a past choice is observed to be a mistake, usually because some contingency was overlooked or unknown during the choosing. This observation should be remembered so as to avoid repeating a future choice like that mistake. Choices always have risks, including the choice to do nothing.
Different day, slightly different approach... parsing choice. 1 important choices that have many deep effects later, for instances a marriage partner, a new job, a new residence; 2 trivial choices which have minor effects, risks or physical involvement, for instances a choice of toothpaste at the market, to like or not a web-link or museum exhibit.
According to (myusername)'s determined/free paradigm, type 1 choices are nearly all determined by pre-existing conditions (not free). Type 2 choice is the arena of freedom. I suppose a person's low risk-aversion parameter could expand the envelope of freedom, but that's a characteristic that develops during maturation, one's history of choices and ensuing responses. Successful responses lead to more freedom, failures to less. So even when freedom exists, it accumulates a history (habits) which become a determinant.
Contracting the Social Construct Disorder (it's contagious) Take 1:
How does an actor (person in question who comes to an internal state, or inner-construct) interact with a community or society? Must it be IRL, or can virtual interaction suffice to construct internal states? And more to my point, must the interaction be two-way (containing feedback), or simply via broadcast medium? (broadcast includes published books, articles, records, radio, TV or Internet A/V shows, etc.)
Interaction with broadcast media can be summarized by: a choice, a degree of attention and focus (time spent on and attention given to item), a like/dislike or more complex reaction to item, having future behavior influenced by item, to continue a stream of behaviors (especially sequential item choices) as consequence of influence of item, to develop a complex of attitudes built upon stream of items (eg. just mentioned 'risk aversion parameter and habit).
Before going on, I notice that broadcast media is like Sunshine, Rain, and Grace. It is made available by participation in a community, and falls without curse or blessing, it's all there for the choosing (or ignoring), depending on the contingencies.
Mind control theory? (because mind is the inner source of volition... behavior, control the mind (easy), hence control the behaviors (difficult otherwise))
Mind control courtesy Tavistock Inst.
Construction of Favor (or any knowledge) upon Familiarity
What is Social Construction? (cntrlZ)
"For instance, trees are only differentiated from other plants by virtue of the fact that we have all learned to see them as "trees."
But we don't all know about trees to an equal degree. I know rather much about trees from my interaction with them: living among them, planting them, sawing them, moving them, burning them, etc., not from reading or talking about them. No doubt, there are many persons all over the world who have very little experience of trees, and cannot 'construct' treeness as well as me. Direct experience is more realistic and developed than social constructs.
Favor and Familiarity are interwoven by choice
I chose to live alone with trees and not alone with sea, or desert (for examples), because it was easier to go with trees. Was the choice free? I could have chosen city or suburb with even more ease than forest, so ease of choice was not the deciding factor, it was my preference of lonely forest over crowded urb that decided me. So maybe it wasn't really about trees, it was about independence or something else like that. When we choose, we may not understand the contingencies, but our decision (choice) may be due to habits or patterns that have developed in the maturity process. Habits are strong determinants, and they develop, according to Ian Plowman, 4 ways.
The cntrlZ article makes the case for 'Strong Social Construction' based on that 'knowing' which is all about language, certainly a social construct.
Within the social construction of language is the game. Outside the social construction is reality, the real world. (a list of social constructs follows)
That makes it clear. Experiences (direct ones) without resort to language are NOT social constructs. That observation makes another distinction clear: gender may be a social construct, as it's a language issue, but sex is not a social construct, it is a direct experience issue that develops in the maturation process: birth, infant, child, puberty, sexy adolescent, sexy adult, old (unsexy) adult, death. Prior to puberty, sex is incipient in its development, but comes to life, (like a flower blooms) after a decade or so. Knowing about sex as a child is by observation from outside (thru the looking glass), after puberty, it's direct experience, and much later, it's a fading memory.
Regarding Looking-glass self theory the notion of socially constructed identity (defining the self by differences/ affinities to others),
... the outcome of "taking the role of the other", the premise for which the self is actualized. Through interaction with others, we begin to develop an identity of our own as well as developing a capacity to empathize with others... Therefore, the concept of self-identity may be considered an example of a social construction.
... makes a spurious expansion of identity formation to include everyone (a unity), or nearly so. According to Reisman's Lonely Crowd, there is a triality of social nature, expounded by parsing people into tradition, inner, and other directed personalities. This theme was a scholar's response to the US trend toward consumerism and conformity to "norms", (local traditions, eg. "keeping up with the Joneses") mid-20th century. The social construct crowd would be Reisman's Other directed personality, which may truly be the majority, in USA certainly. However, the tradition-following and inner-directed personalities are a significant minority. Let's not ignore them (I'm in there.)
What is “Mob Mentality?”
Herd mentality | wkpd
Are All Personality Descriptions Social Constructions? Sep.2019 | psytdy
... that objective reality does not directly reveal itself to us, is true beyond a doubt.
The preceding statement author, JA Johnson, is way off (and his article is full of falseness). Objective reality IS direct experience, no more revealing modality exists. Denial of this obvious fact (just lied about above) is a redefinition of the term (a social construct). Experience is beyond language, thus beyond 'description'. However the following is a true reveal about (((Yews))) (the like of whom Dr. Johnson seems):
It is true that when we describe someone with socially undesirable traits... we are constructing for them a social reputation that might decrease their chance of success in life. This is precisely one of the concerns of (((social constructivists, like Dr. Johnson))), that certain categorizations (eg. a separate race) reduce power and status.
Proof that Truth is not a social construct (relative to culture, like morality absolutely is)... What do you believe in? Cultural Relativism
Conformity is a social construct (should be obvious, it's a social source of choices). What causes conformity? Social interactions, which traditionally occurred (Macro-version) in newspapers, magazines, cinema and radio programs. As culture changed the popular media to radio, TV and then to Internet, and church attendance fell out of vogue, the advertising industry became more powerful in defining social constructs. That's why Internet censorship is so important.
Who are the 'influencers' in society? (They used to be parents, teachers, peers... now it seems to be YouTubers, like PewDiePie. But an intentionally underplayed contingent of influencers is the predominantly Left-Leaning academia, who collectively promote Marxist preferences and political activism toward Socialist positions. Academia is pushing social construction because it provides an intellectual framework that denies the old (social injustice), and says ok to their preferred ideology, Cultural Marxism (new social "just us"; socially constructed ideas can be anything you want, their cogency depends on efficacy of publication).
Micro-Social Constructs are most cogent (due to conformity being human nature), discussed in part 2.
Bottom Line (part 1)
If you like freedom, and are serious about it, you must distance yourself from society, because it tries to reconstruct you according to the norm... conform!
Before you go, think about what is a hermit?, which should not be confused with Hermetic, name derived from Greek god Hermes. 7 Great Hermetic Principles – The Teachings of Thoth (illustrated)... same topic 2016
Investigation of (Dis-)Favor 2\3, Micro-Societies
Social Circles; Mates, Kin, Friends
note on Mates: school-, (prison) in-, marriage-, ship-, etc. note on my link choices, page rank has a strong influence
Social group (aka circle)
Is Conformity Human Nature? Don't blow this list off, if you want to understand social constructs. At least look at first item.
What is Social Proof?
Are Micro-societies any less 'constructing' than Macros? Or do some constructs exist for all realms, macro and micro? I think they are more constructing, because micros carry feedback, whereas macro is all absorption, individuals have negligible effects on society at large. They act in a statistical sense, with a few exceptions.
Concept vs Percept (concepts are stable mental recordings, and physical manifestations of them; percepts are changing sensations and reflexes which depend strongly on the situation, memories of which are variable too)
Favor, Good, and Beauty are words that belong in the same 'conceptual basket' (ward), they are alike, all refer to action 'like', as an affective (and affirmative) perception. Conversely for the word's opposites.
Perceptions are non-language reactions to stimuli, therefore not social constructs. They may be evoked into a social arena via language (or other virtual records), but these are only shadows of the perception, so what is evoked is drawn up from the receiver's own memories of perceptions.
Division of Labor (and role models) are Social Constructs
Sex is the most basic divider of labor, for all societies, especially the most primitive. As societies develop towards more technical, sex falls away from the divider, as natural talent and innate interest gain influence, until the basic operations of reproduction remain, the core division. What about rankings in the division?
natural tendency for dominance?
Are males naturally dominant in nature? | qra
(arguments opposing) Male Dominance (theory) with (bogus) "Explanations", by 2 feminist authors using Marxist ideology 2017 | verso While this blog seems to have obvious (to me) flaws, it does raise interesting ideas and references.
what attributes help males gain social status? Basic: status is competitive. It takes talent and effort to win.
To Raise Male Status (18 Rules) | @rctvmn (not because age 18 is best)
Dominance vs Prestige 2010 | psytdy Note: blatant bias toward Prestige via argument parsing Pride. (author is Jewish, maligns DJ Trump (nationalist), lauds John Lennon (globalist))
modes of thought: socially-controlled vs spontaneous
Major Component of Social-Construction: Public Education 3 Modes of Thought Jan.2019
Kaufman again: How Renaissance People Think 2011 | psytdy Note: We discussed concept vs percept, here Kaufman refers to fellow-Jew Seymour Epstein's dual modish rational vs experiential theory, same idea set.
polymath (short for Renaissance Man)
Favor-Goodness-Beauty paradigm
Favor is not favored in prior art, Truth takes Favor's place in the Transcendental Spectrum: Transcendentals 5pg.pdf
We have already seen the idea in part 1 that Truth is a disputed transcendental in the social-constructionism academic universe. Academics use the "universal fallacy" that their favored item is part of an incompatible pair, which by logic excludes everything not in their favor. They want to ignore the nuances in order to push an ideology toward a supremacy of thinking, just like in a totalitarian state.
Whereas the (myusername) principle of Truth, it has a dual nature, 1 relative to a society (democratic consensus); and 2 absolute to reality (math/science/technology). So 'Favor' is a better term because objective proof (no contest) is not required (except the meaning of objective that says 'objection!', meaning 'contest'). 'Favor' implies bias which is the subjective reaction that matches Goodness and Beauty better than 'Truth'.
Apply Truth-Goodness-Beauty paradigm to social construction
it is unconcerned with ontological issues...
because the aim of constructionists is to justify a collective "truth" of their own construction. A social construct is not absolute, it's anything a society wants it to be ("social proof"). That's a good description of tyranny... The Empowered Female Parasite 2014 (that's a surprising result, here is one not-surprising.)
Social Proof: established by culture media (mind control, a monopoly 2012 (scroll down long graphic), of the Juice 2015), go back to part 1, macrosocial constructs.
Does Appreciation of Beauty have any innate sources? (otherwise it's all a social construct) Neuroscience of Beauty; How does the brain appreciate art? 2011 | sciam (in brain)
Onward (Dis)-Favor Readers...
Investigation of (Dis-)Favor 3\3, House of Not-Friends
Contracting the Social Construct Disorder Take 2
Living outside the 'Normitory" (away from Dreamland (everybody's asleep), to where Nessun Dorma (nobody sleeps))
It so happens that an ethnic group which originated in eastern Mediterranean Middle-East evolved to specialize in intelligence, commerce, morally corrupt enterprises, and crime. Essential to their success was eugenic traditions that applied artificial selection to just those same specialties, which makes this ethnic group a formidable enemy. They have developed a very strong sense of in-groupness, and a vested interest in social construct studies. A unified collective is a more effective competitor than an inchoate population of diverse individuals.
This group has as ethnic traits: global dispersion (aka Diaspora), preference for urban environments (aka Cosmopolitan, or Globalist), covert inter-group rivalry (aka InfoWar), and deception (aka MOSSAD). This cosmopolitan group must operate covertly and deceptively, because those are effective tactics, and they are a small minority (2% of USA), therefore weak in the democratic sense.
Immoral Social Constructs enforced by 5th column subversives
wethefifth (political audio series)
serendipity: freethink
Another construct search, without gender reference
Is morality a social construct? If so, how can concepts such as 'good' exist? (note especially the links in top comment, to reddit posts)
"Good" can be understood as a variation of "Favor" as a direct experience (perception) of "like", rather than some idealized notion of an obvious social construct such as "greater good" (a theoretical derivation by interventionist actors-with-agendas trying to impose their own preferences upon others, IOW ideology hegemony pushers, for instance viz da wiz)
Cultural hegemony is the Chosen's mitzvah, that we all must go to Emerald City, land of Oz, where YHWH (impostor) rules.
Cultural hegemony
Concepts of Ideology, Hegemony, and Organic Intellectuals in Gramsci’s Marxism 1982
There is no universal morality. Morality is much like Beauty, in the mind of beholder (actor who holds to a specific moral code). Morality is a social construct, and varies between societies. (I think a fair definition of morality is a code of ethics which is community-specific.) For a society to sustain, it needs to be isolate from conflicting societies. If different societies, with different moralities must coexist, the natural tendency for actors in the same niche toward dominance will destroy or remake the subordinate societies, which reduces the conflicts.
Status Hierarchies: Do We Need Them? blog 2012 | psytd
a need for 'virtue signaling'? It's natural, and likely unavoidable, evidence pride displays.
Status Assignments: by birth (heredity) or merit (talent)?
Let's assume your morality values social effectiveness. The best path to that is to have talented persons dominant (meritocracy). Next we happen to know that talent is hereditary, but not perfectly so. Therefore birth (kinship, aka kingship) is only an indicator of talent, which is infrequent among low status groups, much higher among high status kinship groups. Thus we must conclude that awarding status by pedigree and family privilege is not the best way to effectiveness, but it often does work. What works best then, must be? a competitive system of merit-proving, with special attention to high-status families. (Helps if the natural tendency for snobbish repression is circumvented, for examples Han-style Civil Service Exams, and the Roman military promotion avenue, which occasionally led to top gun.)
Sustainable Competitive Advantages (aka moats): Network Effects 2019 | sEknα
Our Brain's Negative Bias 2003 | psytdA
Fear: it's the greatest (motivator) 2009 Owen Benjamin made a video about Fear over TIME 16 min.
Dominance Hierarchy employs FEAR to dominate
Dominance hierarchy | wkpd Social dominance theory | wkpd
scaring children is not ok, Sydney Watson blog 11 min
tools for social mobility and dominance (list)
9 Important Factors That Influence Social Mobility Social dominance orientation | wkpd SDO should theoretically be highly important to Jews, as their ethos tends strongly to emulate it among themselves and denigrate it towards outgroups (Goyim). Thus we should expect to see this field of study monopolized by Jewish scholars. Studying the Gentile: Fanciful Pseudoscience in the Service of Pathologizing the Covington Boys | OO
Contracting the Social Construct Disorder Take 3
Different day from Take 2. Re-consider interactions with a community or society: traditionally occurred locally, on Sunday meetings at church, parties, having a beer after work, town hall or children's group meetings, (eg. PTA, scouts) etc.
Re-consider "contracting". Original idea was meant to acquire, like a disease, not by design (choice), but determined by contingency (unlucky chance). Today, "contracting" means getting smaller, shrinking, like a cooling branding iron, or melting ice. Iron has several crystalline phases, the cooler, the more compact (more atomic order). Ice is contrary to most materials, as its crystalline structure is larger than its liquid phase, so as it melts (entropy always increases, going to less ordered) its atoms become more fluid. In both cases, the natural mode of change is toward ambient temperature. This trend (recursion to the mean) is maybe the most unbroken law of all physics.
Re-considering "Disorder"; original idea was meant as a mental disease, like ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder), IOW anomalous condition, out-of-order, (order being assumed normal) in the human behavior dimension. Today it means individuals out-of-line, like discontinuities in a crystal. (Discontinuities are what make metal harder.)
When all the atoms of a metal are aligned (continuous), the state is called "annealed". This is the softest condition. When the metal has been "work hardened" by hammering, or forging, it acquires discontinuities (crystalline order becomes mucked up). This is a harder state. Hardness is measured by forcing a small ball into a test material and measuring the resulting depression (dent). Discontinuities resist dents and every other kind of deforming force (decreased plasticity (weakness) means increased elasticity and maximum yield (resilience, see Young's Modulus, Indentation hardness, Impact Toughness and Moh's Hardness)).
Now make analogy of metal with society. Non-conformist individuals (like followers of Marginotions) make society (if he-he-heeded) more resistant to outside forces (like George Soros, or seekers of Tikkun Olam) trying to make a dent in the established order (tradition, Protestant Ethic).
Contracting the Social Construct Disorder Take 4
Different day Re-consider "contracting" again. Today, it means make-a-deal, as in commercial contract. This kind of contract is in flux nowadays, as the advent of bitcoin has introduced a mathematical means of authorizing legal agreements (aka contracts) in a distributed ledger that makes such agreements social in a very direct sense. The social part of "social construct" is present in a world wide network of participating computer operators, while the construct part is present in a software package (app) that is now called "smart", meaning has built-in security and ongoing timely operations, like confirmation checking. In this contract-paradigm, the "disorder" part is due to it being outside of previous power-holding elites who are chagrined by the prospect of losing some of their powers to the Internetwork, which is out of their control. IOW disorder for elites, and made-to-order for independents. (note on that quote)
Social Contract per britannica (briefly) per wkpd
explicit vs implicit contracts Differences Between Implicit & Explicit Agreements (law) 2017 more specific, social contracts Social Contract Theory UT (includes videos, glossary)
to be continued: fairness is a social construct (contrast with deterministic fate)
study notes (all 3 parts, this series)
Gentrification, Displacement and the Role of Public Investment: A Literature Review 2015 pdf
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Owen+Benjamin+made+video+about+Fear&atb=v81-4__&ia=videos
why is 'social construct' a popular theme?
https://www.success.com/8-daily-habits-to-build-your-mental-strength/
Pareto principle implications for marital harmony, a very brief summary of research by J Cacioppo)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_society
https://thejewishwars.blogspot.com/2019/03/aipac-traitor-jews-having-successfully.html
https://theevilofzionismexposedbyjews.weebly.com/14-what-zionist-and-anti-zionist-jews-have-said-about-education.html
submitted by acloudrift to AlternativeHypothesis [link] [comments]

Hello r/BTC! I wrote the post explaining the origins of Bitcoin Cash for people new to cryptocurrencies

I tried being as objective as possible, intentionally avoiding conspiracy theories and some of the uglier sides of the split. I typically try and write for people just getting into Bitcoin and crypto and found that many were confused with why there are "2 Bitcoins."
Currently traveling around Asia writing about crypto - please check out my site if you like my writing www.cryptoambit.com
Would also love to get some discussion going on the post. This was a pretty tough topic to tackle, given how complex the scaling debate and how far back it goes. I definitely oversimplified a lot - would love to hear thoughts!
Where Did Bitcoin Cash Come From?
Starting to wrap your head around Bitcoin and blockchain? What's this now? Coinbase just abruptly listed something called Bitcoin Cash that temporarily spiked to over $8,000 before they had to suspend trading due to overactivity. Well what the hell is Bitcoin Cash? Simple: it's a fork of Bitcoin. Proper response: what the fork are you talking about?
Before we get into exactly what a fork is and how it led to Bitcoin Cash, let's have the cryptocurrency equivalent of the "birds and the bees" talk and discuss how new cryptocurrencies are born.
Open Source Code
Ever wonder why there are so many different cryptocurrencies? This is because Bitcoin software is open-sourced. This means that any programmer can download the Bitcoin source code, make some tweaks and then release it on the internet as a completely new cryptocurrency - an "alt-coin." If that programmer can convince enough miners to dedicate computer resources to maintaining the new coin's blockchain, and if they can convince enough people that their Bitcoin offshoot has value, a new alt coin is born.
Altcoins have the same basic architecture as Bitcoin. They have miners that run software that maintains a shared history of the altcoin's transactions on a blockchain. These miners are paid in the altcoin as a reward for helping to maintain the blockchain and these rewards circulate new supply of the coin. From that basic framework, programmers get creative. They make new coins that improve speed (Litecoin), that are more anonymous and harder to track (Monero), that have a niche end user in mind (i.e. PotCoin), or that have functions far beyond just being a digital currency (i.e. Ethereum).
One of the most successful altcoins is Litecoin. An MIT graduate and Google software developer named Charlie Lee took the Bitcoin source-code and tweaked it. He made a more agile version of Bitcoin by making transaction speeds 4 times faster - new blocks of transactions are added to Litecoin's blockchain every 2.5 minutes compared to every 10 minutes with Bitcoin.
Bitcoin Cash however, was not spawned by some enterprising programmer taking the Bitcoin source-code and starting a new coin from scratch. Bitcoin Cash was created by a faction within the Bitcoin community which disagreed with how Bitcoin was evolving. They gained enough support to split the Bitcoin blockchain in two - the split that created Bitcoin Cash is called a hard fork.
The Scaling Debate
When the Bitcoin network is experiencing heavy traffic, transactions take longer to process and transaction fees paid to miners become more expensive. Transactions are processed once they are added into a new block by a miner - the size of a block is 1 megabyte (MB) which can only fit about 2,500 transactions per block. Blocks are added roughly every 10 minutes so when there are more than 2,500 transactions pending, people have to wait their turn. Miners pick which transactions to include in a new block. If someone wants to get their transaction processed quicker, they can elect to pay a higher fee so that a miner is more likely to select it. When the network is busy, the fee needed to get a transaction processed in a timely manner gets bid up higher and higher (if you use an exchange like Coinbase, they automatically suggest a fee that will get the transaction processed quickly - that fee fluctuates based on current demand on the network).
With the popularity of the Bitcoin network at all time highs, so are wait times and transaction fees. Sending $100 USD worth of Bitcoin can cost $30 and take hours to get processed when the network is busy. The development community that collectively updates and improves Bitcoin's open-source code has long known that this would be an issue once a certain level of adoption was reached. The best method for addressing these issues and scaling Bitcoin for a larger user base has been hotly debated for years and ultimately divided the community.
Club Blockchain
Analogy time.
Think of a block in the blockchain as the hottest club in town with limited space (1MB) - transactions are all the people standing in line to get into the club (get processed) and the miner is the bouncer who decides who gets in. Party goers pay a cover charge (transaction fee) to the bouncer to get into the club. The bouncer gives preference to those willing to pay a higher cover charge. When the line to get into the club gets long, people have to pay a higher cover charge to get in. The Bitcoin community came up with two methods to reduce the size of the line and get more people into Club Blockchain at once:
A Community Divided
So that's the debate - increase the blocksize or implement a solution that would get more transactions into a 1MB block (SegWit). Sound pretty technical and boring? Well, within the Bitcoin community, the debate got highly contentious and political.
Opponents to increasing the block size said that an increase would erode Bitcoin's most important feature: decentralization. Increasing the blocksize would greatly increase the computer memory needed, and therefore the cost required to have a computer that validates transactions in the Bitcoin network (a full node). This cost increase would price out most of the smaller operations, leaving the Bitcoin network in the hands of only the most powerful mining pools and companies that could afford it. If control of the Bitcoin network was in the hands of a few, it would be easier for a government or powerful entity to take it over. These opponents favored SegWit as the safest way to scale Bitcoin without compromising decentralization. Many in the SegWit camp were the developers and engineers who prioritized Bitcoin's security and decentralization over the network's ability to process transactions cheaply.
Proponents of increasing the block size argued that Bitcoin was no longer useful in commerce as originally intended in Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper. Since increasing the blocksize would be an immediate remedy to the congestion and high fees, and SegWit would take years to fully cure the issue, they saw a block size increase as the only option. Many in favor of increasing the block size were business owners and entrepreneurs who were transacting in Bitcoin on a regular basis, frustrated by the high fees.
When it became apparent that the majority of the community was in favor of moving foward with SegWit implementation, the wheels of the Bitcoin Cash hard fork were set in motion.
Hard Forks
A hard fork is the blockchain equivalent of a software update, reserved for serious changes to the network. The Bitcoin network is maintained by computers all over the world collectively updating the Bitcoin blockchain. They are all running software that enables this collaboration. When a significant change needs to be made to how the network functions (i.e. a change in the blocksize), a software update is written and pushed to the computers in the network - it is up to them to download the updated version.
If everyone in the network is on board with the change and they all implement it, they can all continue collectively maintaining the blockchain with the change in effect. However, if only half update and half do not, the network becomes out of sync. This causes a chain split, or fork - when the computers update, they begin maintaining a different blockchain from the ones that chose not to update.
This is why hard forks are a risky way of introducing changes to a blockchain network. If a change is proposed that not everyone is on board with, the network is at risk of becoming divided.
The Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork
The Bitcoin Cash hard fork was what's called a "contentious hard fork." The contingent in favor of increasing the block size knew that they were not going to get the majority of the network to go along with the upgrade. They just had to secure enough miners in the network to go along with the upgrade for their forked version of Bitcoin to maintain value. If they didn't have enough miner support, there would be no one to maintain the network and the 8MB block size version of Bitcoin would have died a quick death.
On August 1st 2017, the Bitcoin Cash hard fork happened. A software update including the 8MB blocksize was pushed to the network and it garnered enough support from the mining community. Bitcoin users were told that however many Bitcoins they held at the time of the fork, they now had an equal amount of Bitcoin Cash. Why? Well, remember when I said Litecoin is basically a copy of the Bitcoin source code with some tweaks? Bitcoin Cash is also a tweaked version of the Bitcoin code but, unlike Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash also copied the original Bitcoin blockchain.
This means that Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash have a shared transaction history up to August 1. If the Bitcoin blockchain listed your address as having 1 Bitcoin on August 1, the forked Bitcoin Cash blockchain would indicate the same thing. After August 1, the miners in the network that upgraded to the 8MB began maintaing the Bitcoin Cash blockchain while the miners who did not upgrade continued maintaining the original Bitcoin blockchain - on that date, the Bitcoin blockchain "forked" into two.
After The Fork
At the time of the fork, no one was really sure what was going to happen with Bitcoin Cash. It was dismissed by many as a gimmick that would be worthless in a matter of months. At the same time, since every person holding Bitcoin was gifted an equal amount of Bitcoin Cash, many people had an automatic interest in its value. At the time of the hard fork, the value of Bitcoin Cash set by the free market was around $300 dollars, compared to Bitcoin's $2,700 price tag.
Despite many detractors, there was also a vocal group of Bitcoin Cash supporters who began calling for "The Flippening" - a prediction that Bitcoin Cash would overtake the original Bitcoin in value. They argued that Bitcoin had lost its way and was no longer useable as a currency due to its high fees - they claimed that Bitcoin Cash was the "real Bitcoin" since it was more in line with Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision. People reacted to these projections and, during the month of August Bitcoin Cash's value was bid up 300% to $900. This price hike was short lived and the value soon returned to $300.
Once again, in November 2017, calls for The Flippening grew louder when an initiative to scale Bitcoin (called Segwit2x, not to be confused with SegWit, goddam its all so confusing) was called off due to lack of consensus in the community. Bitcoin Cash supporters cited this initiative's failure as further evidence that Bitcoin would never scale. The movement gained steam when programmer Gavin Anderson - who Satoshi Nakamoto left as Bitcoin's lead developer before he disappeared - stated that Bitcoin Cash more closely resembled the project he began working on in 2010. Bitcoin Cash's value shot up to $1,800 while Bitcoin's fell from $7,500 to $5,800. Bitcoin Cash settled around $1,200 while Bitcoin rebounded and continued its ascent to it's 2017 peak of $20,000.
The latest Bitcoin Cash boom came on December 20th 2017 when Coinbase, the most popular cryptocurrency exchange, made a surprise announcement that it would enable Bitcoin Cash trading. People looking to cash in on the latest coming of "The Flippening" flooded Coinbase with buy orders, bidding the price up as high as $9,000 - this coincided with a 10% dip in Bitcoin as it fell below $12,000. Unable to handle the traffic, Coinbase temporarily halted trading, freezing the price at $8,000. When Coinbase resumed trading, the price fell back below $3,000. Amid heavy criticism, Coinbase had to launch an internal investigation into potential insider trading, since the price in Bitcoin Cash started soaring before it was announced that Coinbase would support Bitcoin Cash trading.
Is Bitcoin Cash Actually Better?
Currently, transacting in Bitcoin Cash is significantly cheaper than Bitcoin, with average transaction fees at $0.32 vs $26.27 at the time of this writing. Since more transactions can be included in a single block, transactions will also get included in a block and processed quicker. However, the Bitcoin Cash network only handles about 12% of the daily transactions that Bitcoin is saddled with. Its difficult to know how exactly the Bitcoin Cash network would respond if faced with a heavier load. At this point, it is just too early to tell.
What's Bitcoin's Plan?
SegWit has been implemented within the Bitcoin network through what's called a soft fork - contrary to a hard fork, soft fork changes can be rolled out to the network without causing a chain split. However, the potential benefits of Segwit will not be realized until SegWit is activated by those using the Bitcoin network. To go back to our earlier analogy, in order for Segwit to "make the transactions skinnier", the applications that generate Bitcoin transactions need to weave it into their systems. Coinbase, for example, has not yet done this so the thousands of daily transactions they send over the Bitcoin Blockchain are "fat" and do not help alleviate the congestion. For the fruits of SegWit to be realized, it will need heavier levels of adoption amongst Bitcoin exchanges and wallet developers - something the Bitcoin core developers will continue to push for in 2018.
SegWit adoption is phase 1 in Bitcoin's long term plan for scalability. Once SegWit has been adopted, Bitcoin will focus on implementing what's called the Lightning Network. The Lightning Network is a "layer 2" solution that will enable thousands of Bitcoin transactions to take place outside of the Bitcoin blockchain with minimal fees - at regular intervals, the sum of those transactions will settle on the Bitcoin blockchain. A full explanation of how Lightning works merits another post but many in the Bitcoin development community see great promise in it.
It is going to take time to implement these solutions and, given Bitcoin's explosion in popularity, the network will remain congested in the near future. This means fees and wait times will remain high for now. Further adoption of SegWit and a successful roll out of The Lightning Network will be needed to quiet Bitcoin's doubters. In the meantime, Bitcoin more effectively functions as a "store of value" and is better suited for moving large amounts of value and is unsuitable for small transactions.
Who Will Win?
Bitcoin's current issues with speed and transactions fees are a function of its popularity. A common metaphor used to described the current state of Bitcoin is "the restaurant that no one goes to anymore because its too crowded."
Many on the internet are pronouncing Bitcoin dead because of these issues. A look back into Bitcoin's short history are filled with proclamations of its demise; to date, none of those predictions have come true. Bitcoin, at its core is a technology - technologies don't remain as they are so long as there are people dedicated to pushing them forward. Bitcoin has highly talented and dedicated developers around the world committed to improving it - as long as they exist, Bitcoin has a chance.
Enough people have also disagreed with the direction that the Bitcoin developers have taken the project. Those people have put their efforts and support behind Bitcoin Cash. The success of Bitcoin Cash will equally depend on their ability to move the project forward.
So who will win? No one knows and anyone telling you that they do, probably has an agenda. Maybe they coexist, maybe neither exists 10 years from now. The whole point of Bitcoin was to give people the option of a currency that exists outside of governments. Turns out, it also spawned thousands of options outside of Bitcoin itself - Bitcoin Cash is one of many. Freedom to choose will never be a bad thing so its up to people to do their own diligence an support the projects that most closely align with their own beliefs and values. Ultimately, the free market will decide.
submitted by CryptigoVespucci to btc [link] [comments]

Just finished this write-up explaining the Bitcoin/Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork To Newbies

I tried being as objective as possible, intentionally avoiding conspiracy theories and some of the uglier sides of the split. I typically try and write for people just getting into Bitcoin and crypto and found that many were confused with why there are "2 Bitcoins."
Currently traveling around Asia writing about crypto - please check out my site if you like my writing www.cryptoambit.com
Would also love to get some discussion going on the post. This was a pretty tough topic to tackle, given how complex the scaling debate and how far back it goes. I definitely oversimplified a lot - would love to hear thoughts!
Where Did Bitcoin Cash Come From?
Starting to wrap your head around Bitcoin and blockchain? What's this now? Coinbase just abruptly listed something called Bitcoin Cash that temporarily spiked to over $8,000 before they had to suspend trading due to overactivity. Well what the hell is Bitcoin Cash? Simple: it's a fork of Bitcoin. Proper response: what the fork are you talking about?
Before we get into exactly what a fork is and how it led to Bitcoin Cash, let's have the cryptocurrency equivalent of the "birds and the bees" talk and discuss how new cryptocurrencies are born.
Open Source Code
Ever wonder why there are so many different cryptocurrencies? This is because Bitcoin software is open-sourced. This means that any programmer can download the Bitcoin source code, make some tweaks and then release it on the internet as a completely new cryptocurrency - an "alt-coin." If that programmer can convince enough miners to dedicate computer resources to maintaining the new coin's blockchain, and if they can convince enough people that their Bitcoin offshoot has value, a new alt coin is born.
Altcoins have the same basic architecture as Bitcoin. They have miners that run software that maintains a shared history of the altcoin's transactions on a blockchain. These miners are paid in the altcoin as a reward for helping to maintain the blockchain and these rewards circulate new supply of the coin. From that basic framework, programmers get creative. They make new coins that improve speed (Litecoin), that are more anonymous and harder to track (Monero), that have a niche end user in mind (i.e. PotCoin), or that have functions far beyond just being a digital currency (i.e. Ethereum).
One of the most successful altcoins is Litecoin. An MIT graduate and Google software developer named Charlie Lee took the Bitcoin source-code and tweaked it. He made a more agile version of Bitcoin by making transaction speeds 4 times faster - new blocks of transactions are added to Litecoin's blockchain every 2.5 minutes compared to every 10 minutes with Bitcoin.
Bitcoin Cash however, was not spawned by some enterprising programmer taking the Bitcoin source-code and starting a new coin from scratch. Bitcoin Cash was created by a faction within the Bitcoin community which disagreed with how Bitcoin was evolving. They gained enough support to split the Bitcoin blockchain in two - the split that created Bitcoin Cash is called a hard fork.
The Scaling Debate
When the Bitcoin network is experiencing heavy traffic, transactions take longer to process and transaction fees paid to miners become more expensive. Transactions are processed once they are added into a new block by a miner - the size of a block is 1 megabyte (MB) which can only fit about 2,500 transactions per block. Blocks are added roughly every 10 minutes so when there are more than 2,500 transactions pending, people have to wait their turn. Miners pick which transactions to include in a new block. If someone wants to get their transaction processed quicker, they can elect to pay a higher fee so that a miner is more likely to select it. When the network is busy, the fee needed to get a transaction processed in a timely manner gets bid up higher and higher (if you use an exchange like Coinbase, they automatically suggest a fee that will get the transaction processed quickly - that fee fluctuates based on current demand on the network).
With the popularity of the Bitcoin network at all time highs, so are wait times and transaction fees. Sending $100 USD worth of Bitcoin can cost $30 and take hours to get processed when the network is busy. The development community that collectively updates and improves Bitcoin's open-source code has long known that this would be an issue once a certain level of adoption was reached. The best method for addressing these issues and scaling Bitcoin for a larger user base has been hotly debated for years and ultimately divided the community.
Club Blockchain
Analogy time.
Think of a block in the blockchain as the hottest club in town with limited space (1MB) - transactions are all the people standing in line to get into the club (get processed) and the miner is the bouncer who decides who gets in. Party goers pay a cover charge (transaction fee) to the bouncer to get into the club. The bouncer gives preference to those willing to pay a higher cover charge. When the line to get into the club gets long, people have to pay a higher cover charge to get in. The Bitcoin community came up with two methods to reduce the size of the line and get more people into Club Blockchain at once:
A Community Divided
So that's the debate - increase the blocksize or implement a solution that would get more transactions into a 1MB block (SegWit). Sound pretty technical and boring? Well, within the Bitcoin community, the debate got highly contentious and political.
Opponents to increasing the block size said that an increase would erode Bitcoin's most important feature: decentralization. Increasing the blocksize would greatly increase the computer memory needed, and therefore the cost required to have a computer that validates transactions in the Bitcoin network (a full node). This cost increase would price out most of the smaller operations, leaving the Bitcoin network in the hands of only the most powerful mining pools and companies that could afford it. If control of the Bitcoin network was in the hands of a few, it would be easier for a government or powerful entity to take it over. These opponents favored SegWit as the safest way to scale Bitcoin without compromising decentralization. Many in the SegWit camp were the developers and engineers who prioritized Bitcoin's security and decentralization over the network's ability to process transactions cheaply.
Proponents of increasing the block size argued that Bitcoin was no longer useful in commerce as originally intended in Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper. Since increasing the blocksize would be an immediate remedy to the congestion and high fees, and SegWit would take years to fully cure the issue, they saw a block size increase as the only option. Many in favor of increasing the block size were business owners and entrepreneurs who were transacting in Bitcoin on a regular basis, frustrated by the high fees.
When it became apparent that the majority of the community was in favor of moving foward with SegWit implementation, the wheels of the Bitcoin Cash hard fork were set in motion.
Hard Forks
A hard fork is the blockchain equivalent of a software update, reserved for serious changes to the network. The Bitcoin network is maintained by computers all over the world collectively updating the Bitcoin blockchain. They are all running software that enables this collaboration. When a significant change needs to be made to how the network functions (i.e. a change in the blocksize), a software update is written and pushed to the computers in the network - it is up to them to download the updated version.
If everyone in the network is on board with the change and they all implement it, they can all continue collectively maintaining the blockchain with the change in effect. However, if only half update and half do not, the network becomes out of sync. This causes a chain split, or fork - when the computers update, they begin maintaining a different blockchain from the ones that chose not to update.
This is why hard forks are a risky way of introducing changes to a blockchain network. If a change is proposed that not everyone is on board with, the network is at risk of becoming divided.
The Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork
The Bitcoin Cash hard fork was what's called a "contentious hard fork." The contingent in favor of increasing the block size knew that they were not going to get the majority of the network to go along with the upgrade. They just had to secure enough miners in the network to go along with the upgrade for their forked version of Bitcoin to maintain value. If they didn't have enough miner support, there would be no one to maintain the network and the 8MB block size version of Bitcoin would have died a quick death.
On August 1st 2017, the Bitcoin Cash hard fork happened. A software update including the 8MB blocksize was pushed to the network and it garnered enough support from the mining community. Bitcoin users were told that however many Bitcoins they held at the time of the fork, they now had an equal amount of Bitcoin Cash. Why? Well, remember when I said Litecoin is basically a copy of the Bitcoin source code with some tweaks? Bitcoin Cash is also a tweaked version of the Bitcoin code but, unlike Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash also copied the original Bitcoin blockchain.
This means that Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash have a shared transaction history up to August 1. If the Bitcoin blockchain listed your address as having 1 Bitcoin on August 1, the forked Bitcoin Cash blockchain would indicate the same thing. After August 1, the miners in the network that upgraded to the 8MB began maintaing the Bitcoin Cash blockchain while the miners who did not upgrade continued maintaining the original Bitcoin blockchain - on that date, the Bitcoin blockchain "forked" into two.
After The Fork
At the time of the fork, no one was really sure what was going to happen with Bitcoin Cash. It was dismissed by many as a gimmick that would be worthless in a matter of months. At the same time, since every person holding Bitcoin was gifted an equal amount of Bitcoin Cash, many people had an automatic interest in its value. At the time of the hard fork, the value of Bitcoin Cash set by the free market was around $300 dollars, compared to Bitcoin's $2,700 price tag.
Despite many detractors, there was also a vocal group of Bitcoin Cash supporters who began calling for "The Flippening" - a prediction that Bitcoin Cash would overtake the original Bitcoin in value. They argued that Bitcoin had lost its way and was no longer useable as a currency due to its high fees - they claimed that Bitcoin Cash was the "real Bitcoin" since it was more in line with Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision. People reacted to these projections and, during the month of August Bitcoin Cash's value was bid up 300% to $900. This price hike was short lived and the value soon returned to $300.
Once again, in November 2017, calls for The Flippening grew louder when an initiative to scale Bitcoin (called Segwit2x, not to be confused with SegWit, goddam its all so confusing) was called off due to lack of consensus in the community. Bitcoin Cash supporters cited this initiative's failure as further evidence that Bitcoin would never scale. The movement gained steam when programmer Gavin Anderson - who Satoshi Nakamoto left as Bitcoin's lead developer before he disappeared - stated that Bitcoin Cash more closely resembled the project he began working on in 2010. Bitcoin Cash's value shot up to $1,800 while Bitcoin's fell from $7,500 to $5,800. Bitcoin Cash settled around $1,200 while Bitcoin rebounded and continued its ascent to it's 2017 peak of $20,000.
The latest Bitcoin Cash boom came on December 20th 2017 when Coinbase, the most popular cryptocurrency exchange, made a surprise announcement that it would enable Bitcoin Cash trading. People looking to cash in on the latest coming of "The Flippening" flooded Coinbase with buy orders, bidding the price up as high as $9,000 - this coincided with a 10% dip in Bitcoin as it fell below $12,000. Unable to handle the traffic, Coinbase temporarily halted trading, freezing the price at $8,000. When Coinbase resumed trading, the price fell back below $3,000. Amid heavy criticism, Coinbase had to launch an internal investigation into potential insider trading, since the price in Bitcoin Cash started soaring before it was announced that Coinbase would support Bitcoin Cash trading.
Is Bitcoin Cash Actually Better?
Currently, transacting in Bitcoin Cash is significantly cheaper than Bitcoin, with average transaction fees at $0.32 vs $26.27 at the time of this writing. Since more transactions can be included in a single block, transactions will also get included in a block and processed quicker. However, the Bitcoin Cash network only handles about 12% of the daily transactions that Bitcoin is saddled with. Its difficult to know how exactly the Bitcoin Cash network would respond if faced with a heavier load. At this point, it is just too early to tell.
What's Bitcoin's Plan?
SegWit has been implemented within the Bitcoin network through what's called a soft fork - contrary to a hard fork, soft fork changes can be rolled out to the network without causing a chain split. However, the potential benefits of Segwit will not be realized until SegWit is activated by those using the Bitcoin network. To go back to our earlier analogy, in order for Segwit to "make the transactions skinnier", the applications that generate Bitcoin transactions need to weave it into their systems. Coinbase, for example, has not yet done this so the thousands of daily transactions they send over the Bitcoin Blockchain are "fat" and do not help alleviate the congestion. For the fruits of SegWit to be realized, it will need heavier levels of adoption amongst Bitcoin exchanges and wallet developers - something the Bitcoin core developers will continue to push for in 2018.
SegWit adoption is phase 1 in Bitcoin's long term plan for scalability. Once SegWit has been adopted, Bitcoin will focus on implementing what's called the Lightning Network. The Lightning Network is a "layer 2" solution that will enable thousands of Bitcoin transactions to take place outside of the Bitcoin blockchain with minimal fees - at regular intervals, the sum of those transactions will settle on the Bitcoin blockchain. A full explanation of how Lightning works merits another post but many in the Bitcoin development community see great promise in it.
It is going to take time to implement these solutions and, given Bitcoin's explosion in popularity, the network will remain congested in the near future. This means fees and wait times will remain high for now. Further adoption of SegWit and a successful roll out of The Lightning Network will be needed to quiet Bitcoin's doubters. In the meantime, Bitcoin more effectively functions as a "store of value" and is better suited for moving large amounts of value and is unsuitable for small transactions.
Who Will Win?
Bitcoin's current issues with speed and transactions fees are a function of its popularity. A common metaphor used to described the current state of Bitcoin is "the restaurant that no one goes to anymore because its too crowded."
Many on the internet are pronouncing Bitcoin dead because of these issues. A look back into Bitcoin's short history are filled with proclamations of its demise; to date, none of those predictions have come true. Bitcoin, at its core is a technology - technologies don't remain as they are so long as there are people dedicated to pushing them forward. Bitcoin has highly talented and dedicated developers around the world committed to improving it - as long as they exist, Bitcoin has a chance.
Enough people have also disagreed with the direction that the Bitcoin developers have taken the project. Those people have put their efforts and support behind Bitcoin Cash. The success of Bitcoin Cash will equally depend on their ability to move the project forward.
So who will win? No one knows and anyone telling you that they do, probably has an agenda. Maybe they coexist, maybe neither exists 10 years from now. The whole point of Bitcoin was to give people the option of a currency that exists outside of governments. Turns out, it also spawned thousands of options outside of Bitcoin itself - Bitcoin Cash is one of many. Freedom to choose will never be a bad thing so its up to people to do their own diligence an support the projects that most closely align with their own beliefs and values. Ultimately, the free market will decide.
submitted by CryptigoVespucci to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

An explanation of the Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork for Newbies

If you're new to cryptocurrencies, it can be confusing to try and understand why there is Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash. This post details the Bitcoin Cash hard fork in simple language.
I'm currently traveling around Asia writing about crypto - please check out my site if you like my writing www.cryptoambit.com
Would also love to get some discussion going on the post. This was a pretty tough topic to tackle, given how complex the scaling debate and how far back it goes. I definitely oversimplified a lot - would love to hear thoughts!
Where Did Bitcoin Cash Come From?
Starting to wrap your head around Bitcoin and blockchain? What's this now? Coinbase just abruptly listed something called Bitcoin Cash that temporarily spiked to over $8,000 before they had to suspend trading due to overactivity. Well what the hell is Bitcoin Cash? Simple: it's a fork of Bitcoin. Proper response: what the fork are you talking about?
Before we get into exactly what a fork is and how it led to Bitcoin Cash, let's have the cryptocurrency equivalent of the "birds and the bees" talk and discuss how new cryptocurrencies are born.
Open Source Code
Ever wonder why there are so many different cryptocurrencies? This is because Bitcoin software is open-sourced. This means that any programmer can download the Bitcoin source code, make some tweaks and then release it on the internet as a completely new cryptocurrency - an "alt-coin." If that programmer can convince enough miners to dedicate computer resources to maintaining the new coin's blockchain, and if they can convince enough people that their Bitcoin offshoot has value, a new alt coin is born.
Altcoins have the same basic architecture as Bitcoin. They have miners that run software that maintains a shared history of the altcoin's transactions on a blockchain. These miners are paid in the altcoin as a reward for helping to maintain the blockchain and these rewards circulate new supply of the coin. From that basic framework, programmers get creative. They make new coins that improve speed (Litecoin), that are more anonymous and harder to track (Monero), that have a niche end user in mind (i.e. PotCoin), or that have functions far beyond just being a digital currency (i.e. Ethereum).
One of the most successful altcoins is Litecoin. An MIT graduate and Google software developer named Charlie Lee took the Bitcoin source-code and tweaked it. He made a more agile version of Bitcoin by making transaction speeds 4 times faster - new blocks of transactions are added to Litecoin's blockchain every 2.5 minutes compared to every 10 minutes with Bitcoin.
Bitcoin Cash however, was not spawned by some enterprising programmer taking the Bitcoin source-code and starting a new coin from scratch. Bitcoin Cash was created by a faction within the Bitcoin community which disagreed with how Bitcoin was evolving. They gained enough support to split the Bitcoin blockchain in two - the split that created Bitcoin Cash is called a hard fork.
The Scaling Debate
When the Bitcoin network is experiencing heavy traffic, transactions take longer to process and transaction fees paid to miners become more expensive. Transactions are processed once they are added into a new block by a miner - the size of a block is 1 megabyte (MB) which can only fit about 2,500 transactions per block. Blocks are added roughly every 10 minutes so when there are more than 2,500 transactions pending, people have to wait their turn. Miners pick which transactions to include in a new block. If someone wants to get their transaction processed quicker, they can elect to pay a higher fee so that a miner is more likely to select it. When the network is busy, the fee needed to get a transaction processed in a timely manner gets bid up higher and higher (if you use an exchange like Coinbase, they automatically suggest a fee that will get the transaction processed quickly - that fee fluctuates based on current demand on the network).
With the popularity of the Bitcoin network at all time highs, so are wait times and transaction fees. Sending $100 USD worth of Bitcoin can cost $30 and take hours to get processed when the network is busy. The development community that collectively updates and improves Bitcoin's open-source code has long known that this would be an issue once a certain level of adoption was reached. The best method for addressing these issues and scaling Bitcoin for a larger user base has been hotly debated for years and ultimately divided the community.
Club Blockchain
Analogy time.
Think of a block in the blockchain as the hottest club in town with limited space (1MB) - transactions are all the people standing in line to get into the club (get processed) and the miner is the bouncer who decides who gets in. Party goers pay a cover charge (transaction fee) to the bouncer to get into the club. The bouncer gives preference to those willing to pay a higher cover charge. When the line to get into the club gets long, people have to pay a higher cover charge to get in. The Bitcoin community came up with two methods to reduce the size of the line and get more people into Club Blockchain at once:
A Community Divided
So that's the debate - increase the blocksize or implement a solution that would get more transactions into a 1MB block (SegWit). Sound pretty technical and boring? Well, within the Bitcoin community, the debate got highly contentious and political.
Opponents to increasing the block size said that an increase would erode Bitcoin's most important feature: decentralization. Increasing the blocksize would greatly increase the computer memory needed, and therefore the cost required to have a computer that validates transactions in the Bitcoin network (a full node). This cost increase would price out most of the smaller operations, leaving the Bitcoin network in the hands of only the most powerful mining pools and companies that could afford it. If control of the Bitcoin network was in the hands of a few, it would be easier for a government or powerful entity to take it over. These opponents favored SegWit as the safest way to scale Bitcoin without compromising decentralization. Many in the SegWit camp were the developers and engineers who prioritized Bitcoin's security and decentralization over the network's ability to process transactions cheaply.
Proponents of increasing the block size argued that Bitcoin was no longer useful in commerce as originally intended in Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper. Since increasing the blocksize would be an immediate remedy to the congestion and high fees, and SegWit would take years to fully cure the issue, they saw a block size increase as the only option. Many in favor of increasing the block size were business owners and entrepreneurs who were transacting in Bitcoin on a regular basis, frustrated by the high fees.
When it became apparent that the majority of the community was in favor of moving foward with SegWit implementation, the wheels of the Bitcoin Cash hard fork were set in motion.
Hard Forks
A hard fork is the blockchain equivalent of a software update, reserved for serious changes to the network. The Bitcoin network is maintained by computers all over the world collectively updating the Bitcoin blockchain. They are all running software that enables this collaboration. When a significant change needs to be made to how the network functions (i.e. a change in the blocksize), a software update is written and pushed to the computers in the network - it is up to them to download the updated version.
If everyone in the network is on board with the change and they all implement it, they can all continue collectively maintaining the blockchain with the change in effect. However, if only half update and half do not, the network becomes out of sync. This causes a chain split, or fork - when the computers update, they begin maintaining a different blockchain from the ones that chose not to update.
This is why hard forks are a risky way of introducing changes to a blockchain network. If a change is proposed that not everyone is on board with, the network is at risk of becoming divided.
The Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork
The Bitcoin Cash hard fork was what's called a "contentious hard fork." The contingent in favor of increasing the block size knew that they were not going to get the majority of the network to go along with the upgrade. They just had to secure enough miners in the network to go along with the upgrade for their forked version of Bitcoin to maintain value. If they didn't have enough miner support, there would be no one to maintain the network and the 8MB block size version of Bitcoin would have died a quick death.
On August 1st 2017, the Bitcoin Cash hard fork happened. A software update including the 8MB blocksize was pushed to the network and it garnered enough support from the mining community. Bitcoin users were told that however many Bitcoins they held at the time of the fork, they now had an equal amount of Bitcoin Cash. Why? Well, remember when I said Litecoin is basically a copy of the Bitcoin source code with some tweaks? Bitcoin Cash is also a tweaked version of the Bitcoin code but, unlike Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash also copied the original Bitcoin blockchain.
This means that Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash have a shared transaction history up to August 1. If the Bitcoin blockchain listed your address as having 1 Bitcoin on August 1, the forked Bitcoin Cash blockchain would indicate the same thing. After August 1, the miners in the network that upgraded to the 8MB began maintaing the Bitcoin Cash blockchain while the miners who did not upgrade continued maintaining the original Bitcoin blockchain - on that date, the Bitcoin blockchain "forked" into two.
After The Fork
At the time of the fork, no one was really sure what was going to happen with Bitcoin Cash. It was dismissed by many as a gimmick that would be worthless in a matter of months. At the same time, since every person holding Bitcoin was gifted an equal amount of Bitcoin Cash, many people had an automatic interest in its value. At the time of the hard fork, the value of Bitcoin Cash set by the free market was around $300 dollars, compared to Bitcoin's $2,700 price tag.
Despite many detractors, there was also a vocal group of Bitcoin Cash supporters who began calling for "The Flippening" - a prediction that Bitcoin Cash would overtake the original Bitcoin in value. They argued that Bitcoin had lost its way and was no longer useable as a currency due to its high fees - they claimed that Bitcoin Cash was the "real Bitcoin" since it was more in line with Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision. People reacted to these projections and, during the month of August Bitcoin Cash's value was bid up 300% to $900. This price hike was short lived and the value soon returned to $300.
Once again, in November 2017, calls for The Flippening grew louder when an initiative to scale Bitcoin (called Segwit2x, not to be confused with SegWit, goddam its all so confusing) was called off due to lack of consensus in the community. Bitcoin Cash supporters cited this initiative's failure as further evidence that Bitcoin would never scale. The movement gained steam when programmer Gavin Anderson - who Satoshi Nakamoto left as Bitcoin's lead developer before he disappeared - stated that Bitcoin Cash more closely resembled the project he began working on in 2010. Bitcoin Cash's value shot up to $1,800 while Bitcoin's fell from $7,500 to $5,800. Bitcoin Cash settled around $1,200 while Bitcoin rebounded and continued its ascent to it's 2017 peak of $20,000.
The latest Bitcoin Cash boom came on December 20th 2017 when Coinbase, the most popular cryptocurrency exchange, made a surprise announcement that it would enable Bitcoin Cash trading. People looking to cash in on the latest coming of "The Flippening" flooded Coinbase with buy orders, bidding the price up as high as $9,000 - this coincided with a 10% dip in Bitcoin as it fell below $12,000. Unable to handle the traffic, Coinbase temporarily halted trading, freezing the price at $8,000. When Coinbase resumed trading, the price fell back below $3,000. Amid heavy criticism, Coinbase had to launch an internal investigation into potential insider trading, since the price in Bitcoin Cash started soaring before it was announced that Coinbase would support Bitcoin Cash trading.
Is Bitcoin Cash Actually Better?
Currently, transacting in Bitcoin Cash is significantly cheaper than Bitcoin, with average transaction fees at $0.32 vs $26.27 at the time of this writing. Since more transactions can be included in a single block, transactions will also get included in a block and processed quicker. However, the Bitcoin Cash network only handles about 12% of the daily transactions that Bitcoin is saddled with. Its difficult to know how exactly the Bitcoin Cash network would respond if faced with a heavier load. At this point, it is just too early to tell.
What's Bitcoin's Plan?
SegWit has been implemented within the Bitcoin network through what's called a soft fork - contrary to a hard fork, soft fork changes can be rolled out to the network without causing a chain split. However, the potential benefits of Segwit will not be realized until SegWit is activated by those using the Bitcoin network. To go back to our earlier analogy, in order for Segwit to "make the transactions skinnier", the applications that generate Bitcoin transactions need to weave it into their systems. Coinbase, for example, has not yet done this so the thousands of daily transactions they send over the Bitcoin Blockchain are "fat" and do not help alleviate the congestion. For the fruits of SegWit to be realized, it will need heavier levels of adoption amongst Bitcoin exchanges and wallet developers - something the Bitcoin core developers will continue to push for in 2018.
SegWit adoption is phase 1 in Bitcoin's long term plan for scalability. Once SegWit has been adopted, Bitcoin will focus on implementing what's called the Lightning Network. The Lightning Network is a "layer 2" solution that will enable thousands of Bitcoin transactions to take place outside of the Bitcoin blockchain with minimal fees - at regular intervals, the sum of those transactions will settle on the Bitcoin blockchain. A full explanation of how Lightning works merits another post but many in the Bitcoin development community see great promise in it.
It is going to take time to implement these solutions and, given Bitcoin's explosion in popularity, the network will remain congested in the near future. This means fees and wait times will remain high for now. Further adoption of SegWit and a successful roll out of The Lightning Network will be needed to quiet Bitcoin's doubters. In the meantime, Bitcoin more effectively functions as a "store of value" and is better suited for moving large amounts of value and is unsuitable for small transactions.
Who Will Win?
Bitcoin's current issues with speed and transactions fees are a function of its popularity. A common metaphor used to described the current state of Bitcoin is "the restaurant that no one goes to anymore because its too crowded."
Many on the internet are pronouncing Bitcoin dead because of these issues. A look back into Bitcoin's short history are filled with proclamations of its demise; to date, none of those predictions have come true. Bitcoin, at its core is a technology - technologies don't remain as they are so long as there are people dedicated to pushing them forward. Bitcoin has highly talented and dedicated developers around the world committed to improving it - as long as they exist, Bitcoin has a chance.
Enough people have also disagreed with the direction that the Bitcoin developers have taken the project. Those people have put their efforts and support behind Bitcoin Cash. The success of Bitcoin Cash will equally depend on their ability to move the project forward.
So who will win? No one knows and anyone telling you that they do, probably has an agenda. Maybe they coexist, maybe neither exists 10 years from now. The whole point of Bitcoin was to give people the option of a currency that exists outside of governments. Turns out, it also spawned thousands of options outside of Bitcoin itself - Bitcoin Cash is one of many. Freedom to choose will never be a bad thing so its up to people to do their own diligence an support the projects that most closely align with their own beliefs and values. Ultimately, the free market will decide.
submitted by CryptigoVespucci to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

The distortion of BitPay: thoughts on how the growth of BitPay is bootstrapping a bitcoin economy into a world with very different motivations than those of bitcoin enthusiasts

As the praises of bitcoin get sung and articles crop up about "bitcoin being used to purchase TESLA roadsters" I think it's worth thinking about things a bit deeper. My thesis is that BitPay is really distorting things in bitcoin land:
A merchant can "accept" bitcoin via bitpay, and get immediate U.S. dollars rather than BTC from the sale. This is a no-brainer to merchants, because the fee from bitpay is comparable or even much less than a fee for a debit/credit card transaction, and allows a new (comically affluent) demographic to buy products.
Likewise it allows those with treasure troves of ~cryptocurrency~ to buy real stuff without all of the exchange hassle.
Great, right? Well, kind of. A few problems though:
  1. Given bitcoin's volatility and the instability / regulatory grey area all exchanges operate in, bitpay has an insane business model. It's easy to imagine them completely exploding in a more pronounced/prolonged crash and/or in the event that there are major exchange disruptions. Exchange disruptions are already common and more are all but inevitable, and all it will take is a combination of declining BTC prices and hiccups on an exchange for everyone involved in the consumer <-> vendor <-> bitpay triangle to get burned. Seriously, if a bank freezes the link between an exchange and bitpay, and somebody "buys a Tesla for bitcoins" through bitpay's service, shit will hit the fan.
  2. This kind of commerce is bootstrapped, "artificial" use of bitcoin which doesn't align with its true values. The vendor doesn't want bitcoin, they want USD, and the only reason there are people with 6-figures worth of BTC sloshing around is because they're either (a) early adopters/miners who have value derived from the expectation of a vibrant BTC economy in the future or (b) are buying in now with similar expectations about the future BTC economy but are exposing themselves to risks and fees to get BTC. They're only buying and transacting in BTC because they find it interesting or desire to for non-purely economic reasons and not because it presents any real convenience or value for them to them to do so.
Basically, bitpay is creating a "market" for bitcoin that is fueled by speculation about a future paradigm where bitcoin is intrinsically worth obtaining and/or using for standard e-commerce transactions, but right now it's sitting on a mountain of speculation.
That doesn't make the speculation inherently bad or false, but the growth in the bitcoin market attributable to bitpay is growth that's not correlated with the things that need to happen for bitcoin to succeed. On some level it raises awareness and builds infrastructure, but it's doing so in a way that doesn't necessarily highlight the real utility of cryptocurrencies.
Also, a hugely important fact: every time somebody "uses" bitpay they are in effect selling bitcoin. That $100,000 car purchase meant $100,000 worth of coins dumped on the market and exchanged for EEEEEEEVIL FIAT.
The true bitcoin economy (read: where bitcoins are preferable to cash/credit/debit right now) remains limited to dark corners of e-commerce: drugs/black markets, other anonymous transactions, and money transfers, particularly internationally. Right now those are the ONLY parts of the economy where bitcoin is superior NOW as opposed to speculatively superior at some point in the future.
submitted by thesealocust to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Guest Post 001: What is this Bitcoin / Bitcoin Cash split?

Currently traveling around Asia writing about crypto - please check out my site if you like my writing www.cryptoambit.com
Where Did Bitcoin Cash Come From?
Starting to wrap your head around Bitcoin and blockchain? What's this now? Coinbase just abruptly listed something called Bitcoin Cash that temporarily spiked to over $8,000 before they had to suspend trading due to overactivity. Well what the hell is Bitcoin Cash? Simple: it's a fork of Bitcoin. Proper response: what the fork are you talking about?
Before we get into exactly what a fork is and how it led to Bitcoin Cash, let's have the cryptocurrency equivalent of the "birds and the bees" talk and discuss how new cryptocurrencies are born.
Open Source Code
Ever wonder why there are so many different cryptocurrencies? This is because Bitcoin software is open-sourced. This means that any programmer can download the Bitcoin source code, make some tweaks and then release it on the internet as a completely new cryptocurrency - an "alt-coin." If that programmer can convince enough miners to dedicate computer resources to maintaining the new coin's blockchain, and if they can convince enough people that their Bitcoin offshoot has value, a new alt coin is born.
Altcoins have the same basic architecture as Bitcoin. They have miners that run software that maintains a shared history of the altcoin's transactions on a blockchain. These miners are paid in the altcoin as a reward for helping to maintain the blockchain and these rewards circulate new supply of the coin. From that basic framework, programmers get creative. They make new coins that improve speed (Litecoin), that are more anonymous and harder to track (Monero), that have a niche end user in mind (i.e. PotCoin), or that have functions far beyond just being a digital currency (i.e. Ethereum).
One of the most successful altcoins is Litecoin. An MIT graduate and Google software developer named Charlie Lee took the Bitcoin source-code and tweaked it. He made a more agile version of Bitcoin by making transaction speeds 4 times faster - new blocks of transactions are added to Litecoin's blockchain every 2.5 minutes compared to every 10 minutes with Bitcoin.
Bitcoin Cash however, was not spawned by some enterprising programmer taking the Bitcoin source-code and starting a new coin from scratch. Bitcoin Cash was created by a faction within the Bitcoin community which disagreed with how Bitcoin was evolving. They gained enough support to split the Bitcoin blockchain in two - the split that created Bitcoin Cash is called a hard fork.
The Scaling Debate
When the Bitcoin network is experiencing heavy traffic, transactions take longer to process and transaction fees paid to miners become more expensive. Transactions are processed once they are added into a new block by a miner - the size of a block is 1 megabyte (MB) which can only fit about 2,500 transactions per block. Blocks are added roughly every 10 minutes so when there are more than 2,500 transactions pending, people have to wait their turn. Miners pick which transactions to include in a new block. If someone wants to get their transaction processed quicker, they can elect to pay a higher fee so that a miner is more likely to select it. When the network is busy, the fee needed to get a transaction processed in a timely manner gets bid up higher and higher (if you use an exchange like Coinbase, they automatically suggest a fee that will get the transaction processed quickly - that fee fluctuates based on current demand on the network).
With the popularity of the Bitcoin network at all time highs, so are wait times and transaction fees. Sending $100 USD worth of Bitcoin can cost $30 and take hours to get processed when the network is busy. The development community that collectively updates and improves Bitcoin's open-source code has long known that this would be an issue once a certain level of adoption was reached. The best method for addressing these issues and scaling Bitcoin for a larger user base has been hotly debated for years and ultimately divided the community.
Club Blockchain
Analogy time.
Think of a block in the blockchain as the hottest club in town with limited space (1MB) - transactions are all the people standing in line to get into the club (get processed) and the miner is the bouncer who decides who gets in. Party goers pay a cover charge (transaction fee) to the bouncer to get into the club. The bouncer gives preference to those willing to pay a higher cover charge. When the line to get into the club gets long, people have to pay a higher cover charge to get in. The Bitcoin community came up with two methods to reduce the size of the line and get more people into Club Blockchain at once:
A Community Divided
So that's the debate - increase the blocksize or implement a solution that would get more transactions into a 1MB block (SegWit). Sound pretty technical and boring? Well, within the Bitcoin community, the debate got highly contentious and political.
Opponents to increasing the block size said that an increase would erode Bitcoin's most important feature: decentralization. Increasing the blocksize would greatly increase the computer memory needed, and therefore the cost required to have a computer that validates transactions in the Bitcoin network (a full node). This cost increase would price out most of the smaller operations, leaving the Bitcoin network in the hands of only the most powerful mining pools and companies that could afford it. If control of the Bitcoin network was in the hands of a few, it would be easier for a government or powerful entity to take it over. These opponents favored SegWit as the safest way to scale Bitcoin without compromising decentralization. Many in the SegWit camp were the developers and engineers who prioritized Bitcoin's security and decentralization over the network's ability to process transactions cheaply.
Proponents of increasing the block size argued that Bitcoin was no longer useful in commerce as originally intended in Satoshi Nakamoto's white paper. Since increasing the blocksize would be an immediate remedy to the congestion and high fees, and SegWit would take years to fully cure the issue, they saw a block size increase as the only option. Many in favor of increasing the block size were business owners and entrepreneurs who were transacting in Bitcoin on a regular basis, frustrated by the high fees.
When it became apparent that the majority of the community was in favor of moving foward with SegWit implementation, the wheels of the Bitcoin Cash hard fork were set in motion.
Hard Forks
A hard fork is the blockchain equivalent of a software update, reserved for serious changes to the network. The Bitcoin network is maintained by computers all over the world collectively updating the Bitcoin blockchain. They are all running software that enables this collaboration. When a significant change needs to be made to how the network functions (i.e. a change in the blocksize), a software update is written and pushed to the computers in the network - it is up to them to download the updated version.
If everyone in the network is on board with the change and they all implement it, they can all continue collectively maintaining the blockchain with the change in effect. However, if only half update and half do not, the network becomes out of sync. This causes a chain split, or fork - when the computers update, they begin maintaining a different blockchain from the ones that chose not to update.
This is why hard forks are a risky way of introducing changes to a blockchain network. If a change is proposed that not everyone is on board with, the network is at risk of becoming divided.
The Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork
The Bitcoin Cash hard fork was what's called a "contentious hard fork." The contingent in favor of increasing the block size knew that they were not going to get the majority of the network to go along with the upgrade. They just had to secure enough miners in the network to go along with the upgrade for their forked version of Bitcoin to maintain value. If they didn't have enough miner support, there would be no one to maintain the network and the 8MB block size version of Bitcoin would have died a quick death.
On August 1st 2017, the Bitcoin Cash hard fork happened. A software update including the 8MB blocksize was pushed to the network and it garnered enough support from the mining community. Bitcoin users were told that however many Bitcoins they held at the time of the fork, they now had an equal amount of Bitcoin Cash. Why? Well, remember when I said Litecoin is basically a copy of the Bitcoin source code with some tweaks? Bitcoin Cash is also a tweaked version of the Bitcoin code but, unlike Litecoin, Bitcoin Cash also copied the original Bitcoin blockchain.
This means that Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash have a shared transaction history up to August 1. If the Bitcoin blockchain listed your address as having 1 Bitcoin on August 1, the forked Bitcoin Cash blockchain would indicate the same thing. After August 1, the miners in the network that upgraded to the 8MB began maintaing the Bitcoin Cash blockchain while the miners who did not upgrade continued maintaining the original Bitcoin blockchain - on that date, the Bitcoin blockchain "forked" into two.
After The Fork
At the time of the fork, no one was really sure what was going to happen with Bitcoin Cash. It was dismissed by many as a gimmick that would be worthless in a matter of months. At the same time, since every person holding Bitcoin was gifted an equal amount of Bitcoin Cash, many people had an automatic interest in its value. At the time of the hard fork, the value of Bitcoin Cash set by the free market was around $300 dollars, compared to Bitcoin's $2,700 price tag.
Despite many detractors, there was also a vocal group of Bitcoin Cash supporters who began calling for "The Flippening" - a prediction that Bitcoin Cash would overtake the original Bitcoin in value. They argued that Bitcoin had lost its way and was no longer useable as a currency due to its high fees - they claimed that Bitcoin Cash was the "real Bitcoin" since it was more in line with Satoshi Nakamoto's original vision. People reacted to these projections and, during the month of August Bitcoin Cash's value was bid up 300% to $900. This price hike was short lived and the value soon returned to $300.
Once again, in November 2017, calls for The Flippening grew louder when an initiative to scale Bitcoin (called Segwit2x, not to be confused with SegWit, goddam its all so confusing) was called off due to lack of consensus in the community. Bitcoin Cash supporters cited this initiative's failure as further evidence that Bitcoin would never scale. The movement gained steam when programmer Gavin Anderson - who Satoshi Nakamoto left as Bitcoin's lead developer before he disappeared - stated that Bitcoin Cash more closely resembled the project he began working on in 2010. Bitcoin Cash's value shot up to $1,800 while Bitcoin's fell from $7,500 to $5,800. Bitcoin Cash settled around $1,200 while Bitcoin rebounded and continued its ascent to it's 2017 peak of $20,000.
The latest Bitcoin Cash boom came on December 20th 2017 when Coinbase, the most popular cryptocurrency exchange, made a surprise announcement that it would enable Bitcoin Cash trading. People looking to cash in on the latest coming of "The Flippening" flooded Coinbase with buy orders, bidding the price up as high as $9,000 - this coincided with a 10% dip in Bitcoin as it fell below $12,000. Unable to handle the traffic, Coinbase temporarily halted trading, freezing the price at $8,000. When Coinbase resumed trading, the price fell back below $3,000. Amid heavy criticism, Coinbase had to launch an internal investigation into potential insider trading, since the price in Bitcoin Cash started soaring before it was announced that Coinbase would support Bitcoin Cash trading.
Is Bitcoin Cash Actually Better?
Currently, transacting in Bitcoin Cash is significantly cheaper than Bitcoin, with average transaction fees at $0.32 vs $26.27 at the time of this writing. Since more transactions can be included in a single block, transactions will also get included in a block and processed quicker. However, the Bitcoin Cash network only handles about 12% of the daily transactions that Bitcoin is saddled with. Its difficult to know how exactly the Bitcoin Cash network would respond if faced with a heavier load. At this point, it is just too early to tell.
What's Bitcoin's Plan?
SegWit has been implemented within the Bitcoin network through what's called a soft fork - contrary to a hard fork, soft fork changes can be rolled out to the network without causing a chain split. However, the potential benefits of Segwit will not be realized until SegWit is activated by those using the Bitcoin network. To go back to our earlier analogy, in order for Segwit to "make the transactions skinnier", the applications that generate Bitcoin transactions need to weave it into their systems. Coinbase, for example, has not yet done this so the thousands of daily transactions they send over the Bitcoin Blockchain are "fat" and do not help alleviate the congestion. For the fruits of SegWit to be realized, it will need heavier levels of adoption amongst Bitcoin exchanges and wallet developers - something the Bitcoin core developers will continue to push for in 2018.
SegWit adoption is phase 1 in Bitcoin's long term plan for scalability. Once SegWit has been adopted, Bitcoin will focus on implementing what's called the Lightning Network. The Lightning Network is a "layer 2" solution that will enable thousands of Bitcoin transactions to take place outside of the Bitcoin blockchain with minimal fees - at regular intervals, the sum of those transactions will settle on the Bitcoin blockchain. A full explanation of how Lightning works merits another post but many in the Bitcoin development community see great promise in it.
It is going to take time to implement these solutions and, given Bitcoin's explosion in popularity, the network will remain congested in the near future. This means fees and wait times will remain high for now. Further adoption of SegWit and a successful roll out of The Lightning Network will be needed to quiet Bitcoin's doubters. In the meantime, Bitcoin more effectively functions as a "store of value" and is better suited for moving large amounts of value and is unsuitable for small transactions.
Who Will Win?
Bitcoin's current issues with speed and transactions fees are a function of its popularity. A common metaphor used to described the current state of Bitcoin is "the restaurant that no one goes to anymore because its too crowded."
Many on the internet are pronouncing Bitcoin dead because of these issues. A look back into Bitcoin's short history are filled with proclamations of its demise; to date, none of those predictions have come true. Bitcoin, at its core is a technology - technologies don't remain as they are so long as there are people dedicated to pushing them forward. Bitcoin has highly talented and dedicated developers around the world committed to improving it - as long as they exist, Bitcoin has a chance.
Enough people have also disagreed with the direction that the Bitcoin developers have taken the project. Those people have put their efforts and support behind Bitcoin Cash. The success of Bitcoin Cash will equally depend on their ability to move the project forward.
So who will win? No one knows and anyone telling you that they do, probably has an agenda. Maybe they coexist, maybe neither exists 10 years from now. The whole point of Bitcoin was to give people the option of a currency that exists outside of governments. Turns out, it also spawned thousands of options outside of Bitcoin itself - Bitcoin Cash is one of many. Freedom to choose will never be a bad thing so its up to people to do their own diligence an support the projects that most closely align with their own beliefs and values. Ultimately, the free market will decide.
submitted by CryptigoVespucci to BitcoinExplained [link] [comments]

Cryptocurrency trenches: Are bitcoin & blockchain really transformative?

Today, I interviewed Phil Raymond. He co-chairs CRYPSA, hosts the New York Bitcoin Event and is keynote speaker at Cryptocurrency Conferences. He sits on the New Money Systems board of Lifeboat Foundation and is a top Bitcoin writer at Quora.

For the people who don’t know you, what can you tell about yourself?

I was originally a hardware design engineer, creating electronic memory systems for computers and a few consumer products. Later, I started a company that designed and manufactured local area network devices for the smart building controls industry.
Back at college, I studied hardware engineering, of course. But I was always fascinated with encryption, compression and error correction. I studied under Gilles Brassard (inventor of Quantum Cryptography), and I met Claude Shannon (the father of information theory) and David Chaum (founder of DigiCash). In the early days of email, I latched onto PGP, RSA and the public key infrastructure that enables internet commerce. I realized that these concepts would enable transformative products and services, and that they would radically benefit consumers.
Nine years ago, Satoshi hit the scene with a solution to the Double-Spend problem. In a very brief whitepaper, he articulated the blockchain and even introduced a test platform which used a blockchain as a distributed consensus mechanism for digital cash that required no central nexus or authoritative bookkeeper. He called it “Bitcoin”.
I was fortunate to appreciate the tectonic importance of Satoshi’s gift to mankind. The blockchain and Bitcoin are easily misunderstood or dismissed today, but they are no less important than the internet or public key cryptography. They will radically change how we work, play, spend money and how we interact with each other. Ultimately, they will redefine the relationship between citizens and their governments, because these concept allow us to redefine trust and democracy in a way that more closely matches our goals and ideals.
I was involved in cryptocurrency early on, even in the pre-PayPal days of DigiCash and Digital Gold.
So, what do I do today?
I co-chair the Cryptocurrency Standards Association, a loose-knit collaborative of researchers, journalists, enthusiasts and vendors. I host the New York Bitcoin Event and more recently, I am keynote speaker at Cryptocurrency Conferences. I also sit on the New Money Systems board at Lifeboat Foundation. I am a top Bitcoin writer at Quora and editor of the Blog, AWildDuck.com

What is blockchain and, how does it work?

We hear a lot about the blockchain. We also hear a lot of misconceptions about its purpose and benefits. Some have said that it represents a threat to banks or to governments. Nonsense! It is time for a simple, non-political, and non-economic definition…

What is a Blockchain?

A blockchain is a distributed approach to bookkeeping. Because it opens and distributes the ledger among all participants, it offers an empowering, efficient and trusted way for disparate parties to reach consensus. It is “empowering”, because conclusions built on a blockchain can be constructed in a way that is inherently fair, transparent and resistant to manipulation. At scale, it is also massively redundant. This further leads to a hardened network which can resist loss whether caused by accident, faulty infrastructure or attack.
This is why blockchain-backed systems are generating excitement. Implemented as distributed and permissionless, they take uncertainty out of accounting, voting, legislation or research, and replace it with trust and security. Benefits are bestowed without the need for central authority or arbitration. The blockchain not only solves a fundamental transaction challenge, it addresses communication and arbitration problems that have bedeviled thinkers since the ancient Egyptians.

Related explanations:

What is a cryptocurrency and, how does it work?

Cryptocurrency is a blockchain-based token that has achieved a two-sided network and is used like money in payment for goods, services or debts. It is not simply traded by investors, hoarders and speculators (although these trades dominate the early adoption phase) — and it is not simply used as an asset-backed payment instrument like a gift card or debit card. (Those are instruments are tied to dollars or the solvency of banks and retailers). Rather, a cryptocurrency is traded with the potential to be the money itself. It’s value floats freely with supply and demand.
It is important to distinguish cryptocurrency from ICOs (Initial Coin Offerings) and other digital tokens. Cryptocurrency always refers to Bitcoin or other altcoins that are built on an open source, transparent and permissionless blockchain. They have no proprietary code or features, and every transaction from the very start of time is open to public scrutiny.
A cryptocurrency might have a functional purpose like some ICOs (That is, they might be used for something other than a payment instrument). But they are never associated with Airdrops, multi-level trading, or promotions that generate benefits to early adopters or those who refer. These gimmicks never apply to genuine cryptocurrencies. They are concepts from the marketers who hawk ICOs. Those are digital products for speculators and not a cryptocurrency.

How do they work?

Cryptocurrencies work by permitting trust without any central authority keeping the books. Instead of a bank or retailer tracking your ownership of coins, a network of miners act as a giant network of distributed accounts. Their activity maintains the transaction logs, attests to the validity of transactions and keeps track of who owns what.

Here are some really interesting facts about miners:

(a) Anyone can be a miner. There are no restrictions on joining the party
(b) Eventually, everyone will be a miner, whether they realize it or not. That is, it will become a part of every wallet. The reason that everyone will become a miner, is because the rewards will eventually run out. When they do, the spread of mining to all parties is the glue that will keep transactions fast, free and trusted.
(c) Miners don’t “see” that they are writing, validating, publishing and guaranteeing validity of the books. From their perspective, they are participating in a massive networked gaming community. They race other gamers, trying to solve a math puzzle, while seeking little rewards as they go along.

Do you see future where we will adopt cryptocurrencies at international scale and, why?

It is inevitable! Someday, Cryptocurrencies will replace government issued currencies. I am certain of this. Why is this? Because Bitcoin is not only good for consumers, vendors, banks, lenders, creditors and NGOs — it is especially good for governments.
Today, some legislators and politicians fear that cryptocurrency will undermine a country’s control over its own monetary policy. This is true. Indeed, governments will lose that control. And this is good.
A government no more needs control over monetary policy as it does over telecommunications or the package delivery services. We are conditioned to believe that value comes from a trusted party, and this makes it hard to give up our assumption that governments must control the creation of wealth. But, in fact, nations are much healthier if they must balance their books like any individual, business, NGO, club, state or municipality. They can still borrow, of course. But they will no longer be able to print funny money and continuously hoist their debts onto unborn generations.

Why did bitcoin reach such a high value??

Bitcoin had a significant rise in 2017. From $1000 to almost $20,000 per BTC unit. During that time, the subject spread like wildfire — and so, of course did investor interest. News stories flourished and these led to functional studies by banks, vendors, exchanges, and settlement houses. But, more than 95% of trades were made by investors, day traders, hoarders and speculators, and this leads to a volatile commodity. (Not a bubble, but a very rapidly changing value). This exchange value makes for great dinner-table discussion. It also makes some very rich and poor traders. But, in the end, it is quite meaningless.
In the end, 1 BTC will always be worth 1 BTC. When the exchange rate fluctuates relative to the dollar or some other currency, you will wonder what good or bad news affected the value of the dollar. You will not wonder about Bitcoin, because goods and services will be quoted and exchanged in Bitcoin, and the value to your household will not fluctuate rapidly.

What is the best cryptocurrency out there and, why?

Bitcoin is the only viable long-term cryptocurrency. Others, like Ethereum, may survive or even flourish, but this is because they serve other markets, and are not trying to be simply money.

The reason that Bitcoin will not be dethroned as the future of money, is:

Developers that I work with view every altcoin as a beta test platform for Bitcoin. Any improvement, new feature or clever innovation can be backed into Bitcoin. It’s a messy exercise in democracy, but ultimate, it only requires that the new code is accepted by a majority of miners — or championed by rising user awareness.

Do you think ETFs will be possible?

Sure. This will happen. Some government bodies will be against it and some will be for it. But either way, it is fait accompli. Eventually, every country will be dragged into the party. In any democracy or capitalist country, there is no reasonable basis for government or regulators to forbid citizens from creating securities out of any commodity or asset. Cryptocurrencies do not present any unique issues for brokers and traditional exchanges. They can be easily securitized or partitioned into derivatives. Sure, some of these instruments will amplify risk, but in the end, the public will create and market whatever instruments they wish.

Do you think decentralization will be inevitable and, why?

Yes. Decentralization is inevitable, because it addresses the goal of fairness, accountability and capitalism. It has always been a viable solution, but without a mechanism to enable applications.
Trust built on decentralized consensus (especially money) creates a fair, transparent, fluid network. It keeps governments honest.
Contrary to early pundits, decentralized cryptocurrency does not lessen a government’s ability to tax, spend or enforce tax collection. Additionally, it does not facilitate crime. These are early myths from analysts who did not fully understand or appreciate the blockchain.
But, cryptocurrency will certainly change the social contract between a government, its citizens and its creditors. Walls will come tumbling down, and this benefits everyone.

Do you think we are making history and, why?

Yes indeed. Just like the steam hammer, the telephone, the internal combustion engine, the transistor and the internet, our grandchildren will look back on the 20-teens and 2020s, and ask what it was like to witness a revolution is real time. The advent of cryptocurrency is a bit harder to grasp at first. But it is just as transformative; just as beneficial; just as important to our future.

Can you name some of the projects who will have huge impact in society and, why?

Voting, Real estate (deeds, transfers, liens), contracts, multisig consensus (related to anything), peer review (in any field), medicine, genetics, law (adjudication & arbitration), sports (scoring and consensus) — and hundreds of fields that we cannot yet imagine.

What advice can you give to the people who are starting their own project on the blockchain?

Keep your eye on the fundamental things that make the blockchain credible and beneficial. That is, Be very skeptical of any implementation that is not:
If you are involved in a project that uses a new coin or token, ask yourself if the problem could be addressed by Bitcoin or Ethereum. If so, why bother with the new coin? It certainly cannot be as fair, transparent, vetted and scalable.

Where should people start when they want to begin to learn how blockchain works?

What resources can you share with us, besides the ones that you already share?

I write a lot of articles about the revolution under our feet. With irreverent modesty, I refer you to my own articles:
WildDuck I write under the pen name, “Ellery” [View articles]
• LinkedIn Blockchain columnist: Dozens of published articles. Additionally,
• Lifeboat Board member, Columnist [View articles]
• Quora Most active author Bitcoin & blockchain [1000 articles as “Ellery”]
Sophos Bitcoin wallet security [View article]

What is the next milestone to the blockchain?

In the past few months, we have seen the gradual roll out of Lightning Network. It successfully addressed critical infrastructure problems associated with of transaction speed, cost, and other issues affecting scalability.
There are several minor issues to be addressed, mostly related to security, malleability, and testability. But I am most interested in two long term issues that must eventually be addressed:

1. Energy Consumption Caused by Proof of Work

The blockchain is the engine of Bitcoin and all other fair cryptocurrencies. Currently, Bitcoin’s blockchain is based on a distributed consensus mechanism called Proof of Work [POW]. It is fair, but it is very expensive. If solar power and other cheap energy sources spread across the world, the economics of POW guarantee that all the new, inexpensive energy will be diverted into mining and will not free humanity from fossil fuels and massive cash payments across borders.
We must replace the current Proof-of-Work mechanism with one that does not suck up every available kilowatt. Currently, POW is the scalability elephant in the room. Other cryptocurrencies have introduced alternate consensus mechanisms, but, in my opinion, they are either centralized or unfair.
Fortunately, other fair, distributed consensus mechanisms are on the horizon. You can read more about it here:

2. Dwindling of Mining Rewards and the Alignment of Goals

Every user must eventually become a miner. This will align the interests of stakeholders, incentive validators (what is now called miners), and enhance Satoshi’s vision of a fair, decentralized system of accounting and consensus.

What motivates you?

I am very fortunate to have discovered a calling and a career that fires my passion in every way. I recognized the importance of the blockchain and Bitcoin very early, and as an amateur writer, I realized that I could dispel myths that were bound to arise. The biggest myths about cryptocurrency, and Bitcoin in particular, are:
Absolutely none of this is true. But it makes for great press and it leads to a state of fear, which helps to mislead the public. I try hard to counter such misunderstanding and irrational fear in my articles, presentations and consulting.

What’s your definition of success?

Cryptocurrency transactions fall into two classes:

1. Transactions driven by money exchange or investment (speculators, hoarders, day traders)
2. Transactions driven by commerce (purchases, sales, debt settlement, staff salaries, interbank transfers, bonding shipments).
Today, the first category accounts for 95% or more of all Bitcoin transactions.
The first stage of “success” will be the time at which the fraction of Bitcoin transactions in Category 2 exceeds those in Category one. This will be the day that Bitcoin stops fluctuating and becomes a serious economic instrument.
Later a 2nd success will arrive when citizens of the world begin to shift their accumulated wealth and credit from legacy, national currencies to Bitcoin.

What you think of work/life balance?

With any career or project, there is always a risk of abandoning family responsibilities or the need to relax. I find my work to be both rewarding and relaxing (my career in cryptocurrencies and blockchain). But, I still spend more than half of my time with family and friends. For me, the balance is crucial to leading a fulfilling life.
Many of these friends are interested in the same things as me, and i always try to learn from those with different interests and skills.

What is the best advice you can give to the people who are reading this?

Don’t get sucked into ICOs. They are scams
More about this:
(a) Is every ICOs a scam?
(b) ICOs & altcoins rise and fall, but Bitcoin endures
-Philip Raymond
Phil Blockchain columnist: Dozens of published articles. Additionally, Admin/Moderator of Largest Bitcoin group; 30,000+…bitcoinreferee.com
Thanks for reading. If you have thoughts on this, be sure to leave a comment.
If you found this article helpful, smash the clap 👏 button.
You can follow me on twitter for more.
submitted by Different_Code to u/Different_Code [link] [comments]

Mining Bitcoin in 2020 For Only $0.05 Per KwH at Warrior ... Alec Steele - YouTube How To Calculate Bitcoin Mining Profitability - Innosilicon T3 57TH BTC Miner Profitability Why are there giant concrete tunnels in the desert? - YouTube World Dangerous Dump Truck Operator Skill - Biggest Heavy ...

Stagnierende Bitcoin-Kurse stellen die Miner langfristig vor Probleme. Die Umsätze sinken seit geraumer Zeit kontinuierlich. Trotzdem steigt seit Anfang des Jahres die Hash Rate wieder sichtbar an. Die Gründe dafür sind vielfältig. Der Artikel wurde zuletzt aktualisiert am 26. Mai 2019 05:05 Uhr von Tanja Giese. Es ist ein ständiges Auf und Ab im Bitcoin Mining. Fallende Preise führen zu ... Align Commerce is a next generation Payment Service Provider (PSP) for global commerce. We enable businesses and payment platforms to send and receive payments in local currency via a simple, friction-less and inexpensive manner by using the block chain as a new settlement rail. What is Bitcoin? Bitcoin is the most well-known of all cryptocurrencies and was the first one to be established, having been created in January 2009 by a pseudonym by the name of Satoshi Nakamoto. Realistically, it is still the only cryptocurrency that the average person could name. single entity mining power public log selfish miner bitcoin network More (7+) Weibo: We further show that the Bitcoin mining protocol will never be safe against attacks by a selfish mining pool that commands more than 1/3 of the total mining power of the network . Abstract: The Bitcoin cryptocurrency records its transactions in a public log called the blockchain. Its security rests critically ... Instead, Craig is a passionate advocate for the big block Bitcoin vision, calling for global professionalization, legalization and utilization of Bitcoin for use in all levels of commerce. The response to Craig’s passion and his claims has been to attack his reputation and plaster the internet with the “Faketoshi” moniker. When simple bullying failed against Dr. Wright, attacks were ...

[index] [16305] [3559] [50266] [2398] [40229] [8584] [37416] [13875] [34364] [1203]

Mining Bitcoin in 2020 For Only $0.05 Per KwH at Warrior ...

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. Mining bitcoin in 2020 for only $0.05 per Kwh at warrior mining! Check the video to know how to mine bitcoin easily at a very low electricity cost. Start min... Bitcoin mining difficulty drops a historical 16%, bitcoin hashrate down 45%. Bitcoin mining difficulty explained in this video. Start mining bitcoins in the warrior mining btc mining farm: https ... Flat Earth debunker that uses science, reason and logical thinking to promote the proven natural history of Life, the Earth and Universe. For promotional enquiries please email this address ... My name's Alec Steele and here you'll find near-daily videos documenting the process of building some awesome projects here in the shop. As a blacksmith, mos...

#