Gavin Andresen

Bitcoin fees are too high, why would anyone ever use bitcoin now?

According to gavin anderson bitcoin fees are going to rise to $1.24 per transaction. That is over a 10% fee if I'm buying something that is 10 dollars or under.
Doesn't that make it vastly worse than any credit or debit card in history? I won't point out that credit cards often give cash back or rewards since understandably those are abstractly priced into the cost of the item, but a fee that high is ABSURD and puts bitcoin in a horrible light compared to any payment system currently in use.
Why are people not outraged? Wasn't bitcoin supposed to be freedom from high fees that go up all the time?
submitted by lowfeeasterix to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Here is Gavin Anderson's commit to try to increase the block size back in 2015. In the end you can see that Gavin closed the branch he was working on because constant changes to Bitcoin Core kept breaking his commit.

Here is Gavin Anderson's commit to try to increase the block size back in 2015. In the end you can see that Gavin closed the branch he was working on because constant changes to Bitcoin Core kept breaking his commit. submitted by plazman30 to btc [link] [comments]

Greg Maxwell claiming Gavin Anderson was not never actually left to manage Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto

Greg Maxwell claiming Gavin Anderson was not never actually left to manage Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto submitted by PleasureKevin to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

Greg Maxwell claiming Gavin Anderson was not never actually left to manage Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto

Greg Maxwell claiming Gavin Anderson was not never actually left to manage Bitcoin by Satoshi Nakamoto submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Here is Gavin Anderson's commit to try to increase the block size back in 2015. In the end you can see that Gavin closed the branch he was working on because constant changes to Bitcoin Core kept breaking his commit.

Here is Gavin Anderson's commit to try to increase the block size back in 2015. In the end you can see that Gavin closed the branch he was working on because constant changes to Bitcoin Core kept breaking his commit. submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

TIL -- Gavin Anderson has been cashing out of Bitcoins and investing in Stocks

From the FT article
"While Mr Andresen tries to prepare bitcoin for mass usage, he advises caution to investors. He holds thousands of bitcoins, enough to retire comfortably. But he has been cashing them in slowly, investing in stock market funds instead."
at this point
i) Early miners/innovators are cashing out. (Coinbase, Bitpay help out these people)
ii) Current miners are cashing out.
iii) The only new money is coming from technical laggards, naive idiots, and people who aren't generally smart with money or technology.
submitted by qroshan to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Gavin Anderson backing BCH, thoughts? /r/Bitcoin

Gavin Anderson backing BCH, thoughts? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

What is Gavin Anderson doing? Does he work for nChain? /r/Bitcoin

What is Gavin Anderson doing? Does he work for nChain? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Zimbabwe's back! ...but without bitcoin. Why aren't we (/r/bitcoin, Bitcoin Foundation, Gavin Anderson/Roger Ver, etc) lobbying for bitcoin to become their national currency?

Zimbabwe's back! ...but without bitcoin. Why aren't we (/bitcoin, Bitcoin Foundation, Gavin Anderson/Roger Ver, etc) lobbying for bitcoin to become their national currency? submitted by b_coin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

06-08 19:01 - 'It is the core devs that have forced us the into this high fee situation. It is exactly what Gavin Anderson and others warned about almost 2 years ago. / Please visit other sources of information other than this sub.' by /u/bitcoyn removed from /r/Bitcoin within 102-112min

'''
It is the core devs that have forced us the into this high fee situation. It is exactly what Gavin Anderson and others warned about almost 2 years ago.
Please visit other sources of information other than this sub.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: bitcoyn
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Now that the bitcoin foundation is failing should we count on gavin anderson being there in the future?

As a foundation employee is it a given that he will stick around in the future? Has he given any indication he'd work for free or for tips or whatever?
submitted by pyramidsam to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Didn't Gavin Anderson go to Australia like 2 years ago right when Bitcoin was starting it's huge run up? /r/Bitcoin

Didn't Gavin Anderson go to Australia like 2 years ago right when Bitcoin was starting it's huge run up? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Didn't Gavin Anderson go to Australia like 2 years ago right when Bitcoin was starting it's huge run up?

submitted by DannyDesert to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Panel in Barbados - Gavin Anderson / Roger Ver / Jim Harper

Bitcoin Panel in Barbados - Gavin Anderson / Roger Ver / Jim Harper submitted by bajanboost to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Basically what is now happening with BTC in one drawing

Basically what is now happening with BTC in one drawing submitted by mindgameproject to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Pelican Brief - part 4

....Or How Craig will prove he is Satoshi.

I will just advise that I am not a coder or anything technical, I'm just positing a hypothesis and would like some feedback/help from anybody that actually is a coder. I've read quite extensively into Bitcoin and have been around the scene around 5 years or so though - and I'm not easily fooled. I just need to know if my hypothesis is feasible technically, so I'll just roughly sketch it out for now.
Here is a quote from Craig regarding his key signing “proofs” that have been widely criticized:
.” In recent sessions, I have used a total of 10 private keys are associated with bitcoin addresses. These were loaded into Electrum, an SPV wallet. In one of the exercises, I signed messages that I will not detail on this post for a number of individuals. “
These private signings were for people such as Gavin Anderson, John Matonis etc,( who said they were convinced) culminating in a well documented (and disputed) signing for the BBC and Economist.Apparently, the BBC proof seemed to point to the very first transaction Satoshi made to Hal Finney of 10 BTC but no message transaction appeared to be there:
https://www.blockchain.com/btc/tx/828ef3b079f9c23829c56fe86e85b4a69d9e06e5b54ea597eef5fb3ffef509fe?show_adv=true
Here is a Medium article by Craig from 2018:
https://medium.com/@craig_10243/nsequence-and-p2p-exchange-9e4cbf32124c
I read this and the links at the bottom to research all about “NlockTime” etc. This was removed from BTC code on 16th April 2016 by the looks of it - from what I understand of Github. This would be exactly the time (within days either way) of the Gavin Andersen and other signings:
http://gavinandresen.ninja/satoshi
Now this is just too much to believe is a coincidence to my mind. Clearly one thing was likely a direct response to the other thing.
Hypothesis:
I think Craig saw what was being planned and thought “Bloody mongrel drongo baaarstards!”.....or similar and got straight on the phone to Gavin Andersen. There was an urgency about this – which I think is a clue.
The signings were not particularly about proving anything – they were about updating the terms of existing Nlocktime contracts with those that he already had them with. As the original code being removed was going to bugger them up, they had to co-sign to update them. Otherwise all the previous contracts/transactions that were planned to be executed/accepted on to the Blockchain at a later date would no longer be.
This would also indicate that Craig has been contracting those involved to do particular things for quite a while. This would also explain the apparent mystery of Craig stating he was forced to come out and do this with the BBC. The BBC proof was different to the private proofs though and was done for a very different reason. I believe this was probably the 10th of the private keys, though it could possibly be the 9th.
Anyway, the intention now is to put the code back to how it was, so early Nlocktime contracts can execute properly......so where does that leave us?
I think a message/transaction will appear on the Hal Finney block at a future time and it will say “I'm Gavin Andersen and my favourite number is 11 CSW” - or whatever the exact wording was. Similar messages will appear on other known Satoshi addresses. My guess is that there will be a big reveal in the Court case when maybe the 10th private key is used. I'm guessing that certain people I have mentioned may be called as witnesses to attest to what their messages were. It will be demonstrated by experts that only Satoshi could have done these things and it may or may not involve one last signing. What do we think.........possible?
Relevant things for technical people to consider I think, may include how certain things work such as raw transactions and Nlocktime and associated things and the fact that early Bitcoin code used "sequencing". This is just my layman's opinion though.
Any feedback would be much appreciated either in support of my hypothesis or in order to rule it out - either way I'm going to be more knowledgeable - so it's a win win!
Cheers
submitted by Henry_the_pelican to bitcoinsv [link] [comments]

Reasons to believe Julian Assange is in CIA custody and WikiLeaks under duress.

UPDATE (11/01/2017 - UK Date Format): Julian Assange is alive and still in the Embassy. He confirms WikiLeaks has not been compromised. Julian took questions from the Reddit AmA but answered them via live, current and interactive video. He did this very intentionally, and by so doing, was true to his word. Watch a recording of the live event here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rC2EjKYMCeg
On the 26th of September 2016 Secretary of State John Kerry (self admitted Skull and Bones member) visited Colombia. WikiLeaks reported that inside sources had confirmed that John Kerry also met with Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa in Ecuador to personally ask Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing documents about Clinton. This was initially fervently denied in the press only later to be confirmed by the Ecuadorian embassy who admitted cutting off Julian’s internet due to pressure from the US. Ecuador wanted to appear impartial.
For over four years, the Ecuadorian embassy has been under surveillance and Julian's human rights violated as he has been unlawfully detained termed "illegal arbitrary detention" by a recent UN ruling. During that time, it has been possible for intelligence agencies to gather critical information and build a detailed profile and plan to circumvent Julian's dead man's switch.
Both John Kerry and US intelligence agencies know perfectly well that cutting off Julian's internet would have no impact on the release of the leaked emails that are damaging to Hillary's campaign. It has been very clear for a long time that many US officials wanted Julian Assange dead, Hillary Clinton even has remarked, "can't we just drone the guy".
The cutting off of Julian's internet access was not for the purpose of preventing the leaks of the Podesta and Hillary emails. Unless intelligence agencies are truly inept, they know that media organisations already have the entire leaked email database and a schedule for release, they also know WikiLeaks staff would continue to leak regardless of Julian's ability to communicate.
Removing Assange would not be enough, they would need to circumvent his dead man's switch and then tarnish WikiLeaks reputation. Removing Assange's internet could have the effect of causing Assange to take steps that can be followed to prevent the automatic triggering of his DMS.
From the day Julian's internet was cut off, a series of peculiar and uncharacteristic events started to take place. The same day that Julian's internet was cut off, CBS reported that Pamela Anderson visited Assange and had "Tortured" him with a vegan sandwich. A few days before on the 14th, John Podesta tweeted "I bet the lobster risotto is better than the food at the Ecuadorian Embassy". Then on October the 16th the SHA-256 prerelease keys were issued on WikiLeaks twitter feed, although these events are odd and seemingly inconsequential, combined with John Kerry being in the UK from the 16th to the 17th sparked concern among the community for Julian's safety.
Assange supporters started to gather at the embassy to keep Assange safe and witness any foul play, some of these witnesses have claimed that a very swift police armed raid took place that lasted only 5 minutes while the crowd was kept under control and prevented from approaching, there have also been reports that they were prevented from taking photographs and that their phones were confiscated. A live periscope feed was also cut off. There have also been some reports of the presence of a mobile jamming van.
If Assange has been seized, any recognition by mainstream media would be detrimental to Hillary's campaign. A covert operation with media blackout would be the only effective way of seizing him at this time. On October the 18th Fox News said that Julian Assange would be "arrested soon, maybe in a matter of hours.". The was video was then promptly removed and articles relating to it have disappeared. However, one reddit user was able to find an alternative source and now the video can be found again on YouTube.
Although Julian's primary DMS (the release of insurance file encryption keys) did not activate, on October the 18th one of Julian's contingencies did activate, a script was activated that made https://file.wikileaks.org/file publicly visible and set all the file date and time stamps to 01/01/1984 (Orwell reference). This file repository contains many documents that had not been released prior.
Staffers Kristinn Hrafnsson and Sarah Harrison, have gone silent while the Ecuadorian embassy is refusing to provide any updates on Assange’s fate. There is a recorded call made to the embassy by a journalist where the receptionist refused to confirm that Julian was at the embassy, she also refused to confirm that Julian was even alive. Julian has not made an appearance at the window of the embassy since being cut off.
WikiLeaks suggested in a tweet that its supporters were responsible for the DDOS attacks on the 21st. Neither Assange or WikiLeaks would ever insinuate such a thing. WikiLeaks deceptively tweeted a video of Michael Moore that was actually recorded in June. The video was posted on the 24th of October giving the impression that Michael Moore had been speaking with Assange in the embassy. Why would WikiLeaks do this when they know they are already under suspicion?
WikiLeaks have been using their Twitter account to give the appearance of his safety while providing no concrete evidence of his safety. They issued a poll asking what proof would satisfy the public that Julian was safe. WikiLeaks have yet to follow up on the conclusive result of a video or window appearance.
Julian Assange is known for his attention to detail and his consistently good spelling and grammar. Currently the twitter feed has very poor spelling, there are numerous uncharacteristic spelling errors, for example, an accomplished cryptographer knows how to correctly spell algorithm and so do WikiLeaks staff.
On the 21st of October, there was a massive widespread DDOS attack that disrupted US and EU internet. Also on the 21st of October London City Airport was evacuated. The next day (the 22nd), Gavin MacFayden is reported dead. WikiLeaks made a further blunder by stating his death as the 23rd.
There has been a number of high level WikiLeaks deaths recently too. John Jones QC - WikiLeaks U.N. lawyer died on April 16th 2016. Michael Ratner - WikiLeaks chief counsel died on May 11th 2016. Seth Rich - Employee of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) was fatally shot on July 10th 2016 and Gavin MacFadyen - WikiLeaks director died October 22nd 2016.
If WikiLeaks has been compromised, it is already preparing the scene for future discrepancy to seriously tarnish WikiLeaks reputation. Nothing WikiLeaks has shared since the 15th of October 2016 should be trusted until Julian has been fully verified as alive.
My speculative fears are that Julian has been seized and removed from the Embassy. His internet being cut not being related to the release of the emails, but rather as a component of a plan of 4 years in the making to as secretly as possible remove Assange from the embassy, circumvent his DMS and hijack WikiLeaks with the key team members silenced or under duress.
My fears would be confirmed by no future public (mass witnessing and recorded/televised) appearance of Julian Assange discussing recent topics. His death by whatever means after the US presidential election would be extremely suspect. Until proof of life, assume the following compromised:
SHA-256 verification Keys posted after the 15th. WikiLeaks submission process and/or platform. WikiLeaks twitter feed. Any WikiLeaks leaks after the 15th October 2016.
EDIT: (01/11/2016 - 17:18GMT) URL and spelling corrections.
EDIT: Update 16/12/2016
Why demanding proof that WikiLeaks is not compromised is necessary:
https://www.facebook.com/events/309760466089922/ (PoL Event @ Ecuadorian Embassy London 17th December 2016) – If you live in the UK please come and let’s get REAL PoL. Please circulate.
1) Still no PGP (GPG) signed short message from WikiLeaks. 2) RiseUp’s warning canary may be dead (RiseUp is believed to host WL Twitter email account) 3) Julian’s internet hasn’t been restored as promised 4) The pre-commitment file hashes released in October do not match the released insurance files 5) Julian’s Swedish defense lawyer Per Samuelson was denied access during case questioning. No one actually saw Julian through the whole process.
Additional points:
-UK disregard for international law -Capabilities of combined intelligence agencies -WikiLeaks down on October 17th -Mass censorship -WikiLeaks reposting old stuff -See timelines below
Various timelines, some with minor errors: https://www.reddit.com/WikileaksTimeline/wiki/index https://www.reddit.com/WhereIsAssange/comments/5dmr57/timeline_of_events_regarding_julian_assange_and/ https://regated.com/2016/11/julian-assange-missing/
[Still no PGP (GPG) signed short message from WikiLeaks] Watch this https://youtu.be/GSIDS_lvRv4 video for a simple and good explanation of public/private key cryptography. Here https://riseup.net/en/canary is an example of how a legitimate cryptographically capable organisation uses PGP to sign a message and prove authenticity. WikiLeaks has this setup too. Why do they not use it and prove they are not compromised?
WikiLeaks could easily do this. They have their private key. The public has WikiLeaks public key. Even if Julian isn’t in possession of the key, WL most certainly is, no excuse for WL not to prove themselves. This has been heavily requested of WikiLeaks. I’d like to hear from the individuals who claim that their requests were removed (please leave comments). Of all the red flags, not posting a PGP signed message is by far the most damming. If we are to believe that the person in the audio recording at the FCM 2016 is Julian Assange, then what he says about the keys is missing the point. If he himself is not in possession of the key, then WikiLeaks will be. If WikiLeaks use the key to prove themselves, then we know they are not compromised. By extension, we will also be assured that Julian is safe as an uncompromised WikiLeaks would be in a position to confirm his safety and be believed. This audio file includes everything that he says regarding PGP keys: http://picosong.com/UyVw/ (I am not convinced this is Julian).
[RiseUp’s warning canary may be dead (RiseUp is believed to host WL Twitter email account)] RiseUp is an activist ISP providing secure services to activists. Its mission is to support liberatory social change via fighting social control and mass surveillance through distribution of secure tools (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riseup). RiseUp use a warrant canary as a means to protect their users in case RiseUp are ever issued with a NSL or gag order etc (https://riseup.net/en/canary). This is renewed quarterly, assuming no warrant has been issued. However, this is now considerably overdue so the assumption is that the canary is dead, and just like the canaries used in coal mines, everyone should get the hell out of there when it dies. https://theintercept.com/2016/11/29/something-happened-to-activist-email-provider-riseup-but-it-hasnt-been-compromised/. I would be grateful if someone could provide a source for the WikiLeaks twitter email account being hosted by RiseUp.
[Julian’s internet hasn’t been restored as promised] https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787889195507417088 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/788099178832420865 On the 26th of September 2016 Secretary of State John Kerry visited Colombia. WikiLeaks reported that inside sources had confirmed that John Kerry also met with Ecuadorean President Rafael Correa in Ecuador to personally ask Ecuador to stop Assange from publishing documents about Clinton. This was initially fervently denied in the press only later to be confirmed by the Ecuadorian Embassy who admitted cutting off Julian’s internet due to pressure from the US. Ecuador wanted to appear impartial.
Both John Kerry and US intelligence agencies knew perfectly well that cutting off Julian's internet would have no impact on the release of the leaked emails that were damaging to Hillary's campaign. The cutting off of Julian's internet access was not for the purpose of preventing the leaks of the Podesta and Hillary emails. Unless intelligence agencies are truly inept, they knew that media organisations already have the entire leaked email database and a schedule for release, they also knew WikiLeaks staff would continue to leak regardless of Julian's ability to communicate.
Now it is long after the election and Ecuador have still not restored Julian’s internet. Ecuador have no grounds to continue to restrict Julian’s internet. It does nothing apart from increase tensions and raise suspicion. Ecuador have always been supportive of Julian. However, after John Kerry applied pressure on Ecuador, that whole dynamic changed. Ecuador cut Julian's Internet. He then essentially threatened Ecuador, the UK and John Kerry by submitting those pre-commitment file hashes on Twitter. Since then we have only seen hostility towards Julian from all three parties. Ecuador didn't restore his internet and didn't let his lawyer interview him and no one actually saw him. The U.K. Denied him access to Gavin's funeral and denied him access to medical treatment. The UK also continually disregard the UN. The dynamic now is totally different. He has no political friends. It seems that both the UK and Ecuador are now working against Julian and Wikileaks. An environment where a collaborated siege would be feasible.
Finally, many have speculated about mobile signals being blocked at the Embassy. I can confirm that there is 4G signal right outside the Embassy door. I was there, with my phone, and tested it. There is no reason to think Julian cannot use a MiFi device (or similar) connected to a cellular network.
[The pre-commitment file hashes released in October do not match the released insurance files] Here are the October tweets with the file hashes:
https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787777344740163584 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787781046519693316 https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/787781519951720449
These 3 pre-commitment Twitter posts are SHA-256 file hashes. SHA-256 file hashes are 64 characters long. They are not encryption keys for insurance files. They simply are a mathematical formula for verifying that later released files are genuine and have not been altered.
These hashes were released because Julian felt threatened and in increased danger. They specifically targeted the UK FCO, Ecuador and John Kerry. All of whom are key players in his current predicament. On November 7th, WikiLeaks released 3 new insurance files. These files names match the names given in the pre-commitment hash tweets:
2016-11-07_WL-Insurance_EC.aes256 2016-11-07_WL-Insurance_UK.aes256 2016-11-07_WL-Insurance_US.aes256
EC = Ecuador, UK = UK FCO, US = John Kerry. Soon after these files were released, the 3 files hashes were compared to the 3 hashes posted on the 16th of October. They did not match. When this was brought to WikiLeaks attention, WikiLeaks released the following statement in a tweet: https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/798997378552299521
“NOTE: When we release pre-commitment hashes they are for decrypted files (obviously). Mr. Assange appreciates the concern.”
This firstly proved that the hashes and the insurance files were related (a fact that was already clear). Secondly, it was a lie, as it implied historical use of pre-commitment hashes in this manner. Thirdly, the (obviously) comment was also a deception and an insult to supporters. It was not obvious to anyone, not even to our crypto guys in /cryptography/, on the contrary, they thought it highly suspicious. Additionally, what they suggest would be absolutely pointless. Pointless as a threat, as the UK, Ecuador and John Kerry would have no practical way of identifying the documents to confirm the threat. There's absolutely no scenario where an uncompromised WikiLeaks would either post bad file hashes or altered insurance files.
[Julian’s Swedish defense lawyer Per Samuelson was denied access during case questioning] This is highly unusual and very suspicious. Also, Jennifer Robinson was not in the room with Assange. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYR0Pw9LfUQ&feature=youtu.be&t=9m55s and neither was the chief prosecutor http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37972528 “Swedish chief prosecutor Ingrid Isgren will not speak to Mr Assange directly”.
[UK disregard for international law] The UK threat is very real. Back in August 2012 the UK was poised to break international law citing the Diplomatic and Consular Premises Act of 1987 as a basis for entering the Embassy and arresting Assange (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-19259623). It all became very public, very quickly and fortunately never happened (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/ecuado9488996/Ecuadors-president-raiding-embassy-to-snatch-Julian-Assange-suicidal.html). I expressed my concern at the time that the UK shouldn’t have even been contemplating such action, let alone threatening it in writing to Ecuador. More recently, the UK disregarded the UN ruling that Julian Assange was being arbitrarily detained (https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/04/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-friday-un-investigation). The UK appealed, and then finally lost their appeal in November (https://www.rt.com/news/368746-un-ruling-free-assange/). Julian has also been refused to leave the Embassy with a police escort for medical treatment as well as denied to attend Gavin MacFadyen’s funeral. The UK’s behaviour is appalling and clearly has no respect for international law. The reported raid on the Embassy during the latter part of October seems more plausible when taken in the context of past behavior.
This is the Britain I now live in: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/investigatory-powers-bill-act-snoopers-charter-browsing-history-what-does-it-mean-a7436251.html. I never used to be ashamed to be British.
[Combined capabilities of intelligence agencies] We know much about the combined powers of the intelligence agencies. We know what they are capable of, thanks to the leaks of Edward Snowden. The combined powers of the NSA, CIA and the UK’s GCHQ are capable of pulling off such a massive takeover of Wikileaks. We know the NSA works with other US intelligence agencies, we know that the NSA works with GCHQ.
We know about Tempora, we know about JTRIG, we know about PRISM, we know about HAVOK. We know that websites can be altered on the fly, we know that real-time voice profiling is trivial for these agencies. We know that censorship is happening.
https://usnewsghost.wordpress.com/2014/07/15/new-july-14-edward-snowden-nsa-leaks-gchq-attacks-and-censors-internet-nsa-leaks-recent/ http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gchqs-favourite-memes-and-sexual-slang-reveals-a-shared-culture-with-trolls-and-hackers-9608065.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program)
The NSA has a remit to be 10 years ahead of the curve. We have commercial products that can be purchased off the shelf today that can easily manipulate audio and video. Just imagine what the NSA and the military are capable of.
Real time facial manipulation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ohmajJTcpNk Signs of editing: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2O9t_TEE1aw. Both Julian Assange and John Pilger are not filmed together at any time during the interview. There is also no establishing shot. It is also claimed that Assange’s audio is spliced and edited. No recent events mentioned by Assange, only Pilger. Unfortunately, this interview is not sufficient proof of life.
What the NSA can’t do, is that they cannot break PGP encryption. This has been expressed by Glenn Greenwald who was one of the journalists that Edward Snowden leaked to. He commented that he knows how secure PGP is because the NSA keep moaning about not being able to crack it in their documents he is reading. This is another reason why a signed PGP message can be the only true proof that WL isn’t compromised. Mathematics cannot lie, people can and do. A compromised WL can’t sign a message without the private key. Edward Snowden revealed that in 2013 the NSA were capable of 3 trillion password attempts per second. As it is now almost 2017, that number will likely be multiple times higher (anywhere between 9 to 15 trillion attempts per second would be my guess based on Moore’s law).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Threat_Research_Intelligence_Group https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempora https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PRISM_(surveillance_program) https://www.schneier.com/gchq-catalog/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_Communications_Headquarters
[WikiLeaks down on October 17th] The alleged raid on the Embassy supposedly took place on the 17th just after 1am GMT. On Monday the 17th of October 2016 WikiLeaks website was reported down (http://www.isitdownrightnow.com/wikileaks.org.html expand the comments) https://postimg.org/image/6t68fe4kj/. The internet was alive with reports of mass censorship around this time. This all coincides with when the alleged WikiLeaks takeover occurred. It also coincides with John Kerry being in the UK.
[Christine Assange audio only radio interview] Julian's family had their identities changed quite a few years ago after receiving death threats. It is odd that his mother has now revealed herself to a news agency. If you do a YouTube search for Christine Assange (her original name), you'll find all the videos are older than 3 years. She's in hiding, not openly talking on radio shows (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange scroll down to the personal life section).
[WikiLeaks bitcoin account was emptied on the 18th of November] Interestingly it was after the bitcoin account was emptied that the encoded message in the blockchain was left. Why would WikiLeaks go to all that trouble when they could just sign a message with their PGP key? Is it because bitcoin accounts can be cracked and the PGP keys can’t?
[Mass censorship] Facebook is censoring this event (https://www.facebook.com/events/309760466089922/). It has been advertised for weeks now any only a handful of people are attending. Recently Wikileaks was live on FB. 50% of the viewers (roughly 2.5k) were commenting #PoL, #Whereisassange, RIP etc. The live event was only a prerecorded video being played in loop. Once it concluded, the whole Live event along with all the comments including the comments asking for PoL and PGP signed message were deleted. It was as if it never took place. When Julian’s DMS had supposedly been activated, I saw posts in threads being deleted within minutes. Supposedly with encryption keys, but it all happened too fast for anyone to collate. I took PDF printouts of the pages and then later noticed that posts and entire links were taken down. I have PDF's of pages that now no longer exist. I've been following this since mid-October and seen the censorship first hand. I know many people here on reddit witnessed the same (please comment with your experiences).
[WikiLeaks reposting old stuff] There are many examples of this already mentioned in the timelines. One for example is the Palantir Technologies report. Palantir Technologies prepared a report on how to destroy WikiLeaks that was leaked in 2011. The proposal was submitted to Bank of America through its outside law firm, Hunton & Williams. Palantir later apologised for their involvement. But WikiLeaks has recently regurgitated it as if it was new. There are many examples of this. I have watched as WikiLeaks have increasingly destroyed their credibility.
submitted by neonnexus to conspiracy [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] If whining bitcoin companies really want to solve the high transaction fee “problem”, they could ...

The following post by Bitcoin_Bug is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7lvtzq
The original post's content was as follows:
https://twitter.com/nvk/status/944960680842575872
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

The true current state of Bitcoin

Blockstream was not created to cripple and takeover Bitcoin, and then force users onto their own solutions which they could profit off of. Blockstream is not interested in profit.
Blockstream's sole reason of existence is to control/cripple Bitcoin for the government, or big banks, or both.
The U.S. government is extremely corrupt. Reddit accidentally identified Eglin Air Force Base as the most Reddit addicted "city". This blog post was later removed, and then eventually restored, probably so as not to raise suspicion. The U.S. government, specifically the CIA, has a long history of using propaganda methods to sway the opinion of the masses. Operation Mockingbird was a large scale CIA program that attempted to manipulate news media for propaganda purposes. It's likely the CIA still uses these techniques, as Anderson Cooper, primary anchor of CNN news, was revealed to have interned at the CIA in college.
Do not underestimate the corruption of the U.S. government. Operation Northwoods was a proposed false flag operation against the Cuban government that called for the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or other U.S. government operatives to commit acts of terrorism against American civilians and military targets, blaming it on the Cuban government, and using it to justify a war against Cuba.
Right before Satoshi disappeared, Gavin Andresen was invited to speak at the CIA. He got an invitation directly from In-Q-Tel (the CIA's venture capitalist funding arm). Gavin admits that In-Q-Tel reached out to him directly in this video. (Please read this post by cryptorebel for more information)
I believe that Blockstream is somehow connected to the CIA, and is a "front" for their operation to control/limit Bitcoin. Mark my words, Blockstream is not simply a corporation that has a "different vision" for how to scale Bitcoin, and Blockstream is also not a "greedy" corporation that wishes to profit off Bitcoin. They exist SOLELY to cripple and control Bitcoin.
Let's also not forget Blockstream's real ties to the Bilderberg group.
UASF and NO2X were obvious astroturfing campaigns. Many were real shills, but there were also a huge amount of "useful idiots" that lacked the critical thinking skills to understand that what they were fighting for was bullshit.
The U.S. government is fighting a war on cash, and wishes to eventually remove the $100 bill from circulation. The government is not happy that people are able to use cash anonymously to pay each other. The government wants to be in control of all the finances of every single citizen, which is why we are slowly moving towards a cashless society.
THIS is why the government hates Bitcoin and is actively trying to turn it into a settlement layer instead of a Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.
Bitcoin once had that power to change the world. Bitcoin Cash exists to do just that.
The reason Bitcoin Cash is attacked so much is because it is a MAJOR threat. You don't see people attacking Dogecoin so vehemently. Dogecoin is not a threat. Bitcoin Cash is a threat and has the power to change life as we know it.
submitted by BitAlien to btc [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]

Bitcoin’s existential threat: ASIC manufacturers in China

Bitcoin’s existential threat: ASIC manufacturers in China submitted by btc_space to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Triangulation 103: Gavin Andresen - YouTube BITCOIN $100K BUBBLE Banking Collapse 2020? Ethereum Code Review Gavin Anderson Grabs a Sturgeon For a Friend Devices For Bitcoin - YouTube Gavin Andresen on BitCoin and Virtual Currency 04/04/2011

Gavin Anderson Chief Scientist › Bitcoin Foundation . Gavin Anderson Details. Gavin Andresen is a software developer best known for his involvement with Bitcoin. He is based in Amherst, Massachusetts. Originally a developer of 3D graphics and virtual reality software, he became involved in developing products for the Bitcoin market in 2010 and was declared by Satoshi Nakamoto as the lead ... Bitcoin scientist backs founder's claim Jump to media player Gavin Andresen, chief scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, speaks about the revelation that an Australian businessman was the founder ... All Bitcoin; Gavin Andresen talks about Bitcoins at CIA HQ; Gavin Andresen talks about Bitcoins at CIA HQ. September 19, 2012 Bitcoin, News colbert 0. Here’s a video where Gavin Andresen, the tecnical lead for Bitcoins, talks about Bitcoins at CIA HQ. He was invited to the CIA HQ by the Venture Capital Firm In-Q-Tel. Leave a comment Cancel reply. Save my name, email, and website in this ... Gavin Andresen, the leading maintainer of the Bitcoin software, claims that over the past two years, the most interesting developments in the cryptocurrency ecosystem have been carried out on the… View Gavin Andresen’s profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. Gavin has 9 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Gavin’s ...

[index] [44882] [22824] [50782] [24815] [16471] [16392] [14367] [11502] [19268] [39618]

Triangulation 103: Gavin Andresen - YouTube

This is our dear, and now late, friend Gavin Anderson on one of the fishing trips in our portfolio of fishing trips. Gavin Andresen, Principal of the BitCoin Virtual Currency Project, talks with EconTalk host Russ Roberts about BitCoin, an innovative attempt to create a decentralized electronic currency. Gavin Andersen Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation The team behind a new affordable multisig bitcoin wallet say their product has security features that make it almost immune to hacking attacks ... With so much positive new coming out for Bitcoin Cash BCH its almost hard to keep up! We look at top BCH stories in the News now! We look at top BCH stories in the News now! Subscribe Here: http ... Gavin Andresen, chief scientist at the Bitcoin Foundation, speaks about Craig Wright, who has publicly identified himself as Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin.

#