Live Bitcoin price Real-Time BTC Updates, Mobile Friendly

Bitcoin Price Drops Below $1100 - Altcoins Take a Step Back - Bloq Launches Blockchain Lab, Joins Enterprise Ethereum

submitted by cryptocompare to cryptocompare [link] [comments]

Top 10 Richest People in the World, in Bitcoin

Bitcoin has been given the nickname “digital gold”. This is because of its characteristic as a store of wealth. Many big investors are resorting to Bitcoin as a good place to put their money. The reason for this is not just because it can be sustained, but also because of the high tendency of appreciation in value. Here we shall be considering the top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin.
We will take a look at their net worth, and how much that amounts to in Bitcoin. We will also consider their primary business and a little bit of their history. How they started out in the Bitcoin ecosystem and what they have achieved so far will also enable us to understand more about them.
So, here is a list of the top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin.
10. Matthew Roszark
Matthew Roszark is the founder of Tally Capital, and co-founder of Bloq. Roszark is widely known as the man who gave Richard Branson and Bill Clinton their first Bitcoins. Roszark made it early into the Bitcoin space and participated in the very first ICO in 2013. Although that wasn’t what it was called at the time.
Roszark has investments in 20 startups in the cryptocurrency ecosystem, some of which have gone ahead to do great things. Some of the startups that he invested in include Coinbase, Kraken and BTCC.
Roszark’s net worth is $1 billion, which amounts to 102,712.94 BTC (at the time of writing).
  1. Anthony Di Iorio
Anthony Di lorio is the founder of Jaxx and Decentral, and co-founder at Ethereum. Having studied a bit of economics and trying to find out the true essence of money after the recession of early 2000, Di lorio discovered Bitcoin and decided to explore. He started a Toronto Bitcoin-meetup, where he met his eventual co-founder of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin.
Di lorio contributed his personal funds towards the coding of Ethereum, and has since been involved in a number of other crypto assets. Some of them include Qtum, VeChain and ZCash.
Di lorio is a serial investor who commits to projects at an early stage, then after levelling up, he pulls his funds and moves on to something new. His net worth of $1 billion is the equivalent of 102,712.93 BTC.
  1. Michael Novogratz
This CEO of Galaxy Digital is also popular in the field of macro hedge fund management. Novogratz started investing in cryptocurrencies in 2013 and two years later he left his position at Fortress Investment Group to focus on crypto.
In the cryptocurrency industry, Novogratz is known as a seasoned trader who believes that the crypto market as it is today is a bubble. According to him, his aim is to make as much money as possible from the bubble before it bursts.
Novogratz is worth $1 billion which is the equivalent of 102,712.92 BTC
  1. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss
The Winklevoss twins arrived in the face of the public through the controversial law suit against Facebook for intellectual property theft. They eventually won the case and were paid $11 million in compensation.
With many Silicon Valley startups not wanting to get into Facebook’s black book, the twins seemed to not have where to invest their money. They were introduced to Bitcoin by Brooklyn-based investor David Azar in 2012, and found their new investment ecosystem.
Over the years, the astronomic rise in Bitcoin price has turned their $11 million investment to a $1 billion portfolio of 102,712.91 BTC.
  1. Matthew Mellon
Matthew Mellon’s money started as old money which he inherited from family sources. However, through his “crazy” investment approach, he has been able to build a fortune out of his family inheritance.
Having bought into Bitcoin some years ago, Mellon abandoned his early investments and sold his Bitcoins at some point. His attachment with the banking industry and the XRP feasibility attracted him to the coin.
Mellon spent $2 million to acquire XRP tokens a few years back. That investment has grown to $1 billion, in the equivalence of 102,712.90 BTC.
  1. Zhao Chaopeng
Zhao Chaopeng popularly known as CZ, is the founder of cryptocurrency exchange, Binance. Within one year of its launch, Binance became the largest cryptocurrency exchange in terms of volume.
The platform’s tokens were sold at a price of 10 cents during its ICO. At the time of writing, the price of the coin has risen to over $27 and CZ owns a huge volume of the coins.
In 2014, CZ sold his house in Shanghai, which was practically all he had, to go all out into Bitcoin. Today, his net worth is $1.3 billion, which is equivalent to 133,523.65 BTC.
  1. Brian Armstrong
Brian Armstrong is the CEO of Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in America. Coinbase was founded in 2012, and is the most patronized cryptocurrency exchange in the US. The exchange has also expanded, and is now available in many countries of the world.
In 2018, the exchange embarked on a financing round that saw it raise $300 million, and the company is now valued at $8 billion.
Armstrong’s net worth stands at $1.3 billion, with equates to 133,523.64 BTC.
  1. Jihan Wu
Johan Wu is the co-founder of Bitmain, a China-based Bitcoin mining giant. Together with Micree Zhan Ketuan, they have grown Bitmain to become a household name in the industry, and the main supplier of ASIC-chip miners. Wu is also popular for his open support of Bitcoin Cash.
Wu is estimated to be worth up to $1.5 billion, which translates in Bitcoin to 154,065.75 BTC.
  1. Chris Larsen
Chris Larsen is the co-founder of Ripple, a company which was founded in 2012 with Jed McCaleb, the founder of Mt Gox.
Larsen is regarded as a self-made billionaire, with the bulk of his wealth coming from cryptocurrency enterprises. Ripple boasts many top end customers in its portfolio. Among the list includes Bank of America, Santander and Mitsubishi Financial.
Larsen’s net worth is estimated at $1.5 billion, which is equivalent to 154,065.74 BTC.
  1. Micree Zhan Ketuan
Zhan is the co-founder of Bitmain technologies. Bitmain is regarded as the biggest Bitcoin mining company in China. The company is also known to specialize in the sale of ASIC-chip miners.
Zhan is an electrical engineer by training and is the builder of the ASIC chips on the Bitmain hardware. He is an acclaimed self-made billionaire whose source of wealth is the manufacturing and sales of cryptocurrency mining chips.
Zhan’s net worth is estimated at $2.7 billion, which when converted to Bitcoin is 215,692.05 BTC.
Conclusion
The dominant investment industry concept is evolutionary. At different eras of existence, different industries have produced different money magnates. Serial investors at the same time have found ways of aligning with the prevailing markets as the times change.
With the advent of Bitcoin and blockchain technology, the digital assets ecosystem appears to be making a strong statement in the wealth sector. The number of self made billionaires within this sector is a testimony to the impact of this concept in today’s world.
The top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin, parades some names that can stand side-by-side with money magnates of traditional industries. With more developments likely to emerge in the crypto ecosystem, it will not be surprising to see the number of crypto-made billionaire skyrocket in the near future.
https://medium.com/@4kingsocials/top-10-richest-people-in-the-world-in-bitcoin-94183268189b
submitted by OliAustin101 to CryptoNewsandTalk [link] [comments]

One API, Many Networks: BloqCloud v1.0 released

Today, we at Bloq, Inc. launched BloqCloud, as a platform for open network developers and teams who want to get on with building.
The vision is to streamline public network development, much like Twilio did for mobile integration – to take away the friction and hurdles that get in the way of building great multi-network apps.
Here are the services we are starting with: - Nodes-on-demand for Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum, and Ethereum Classic (BloqCloud Nodes) - APIs, indexed blockchain data, and event notification for Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash (BloqCloud Connect)
Upcoming services will include capabilities for accessing distributed computing and storage, all within the BloqCloud console.
Pay with crypto or credit card. Visa, MasterCard, BTC, BCH, ETH supported today. Lightning Network, Metronome and more coming soon.
Starting with “free”, there are tiers for every level of development cycle – from individual to enterprise.
BloqCloud will continue add services and compatible chains going forward. The medium term version, as an example, looks like: Use Lightning, ETH, or Visa/MC to pay for cloud storage, backed by #Sia or #Storj storage networks. No SIA or STORJ tokens needed by the consumer.
We wanted to build a crypto business & service, for crypto folks, by crypto folks... that is an easy 1st step into the crypto world, with the goal of on-boarding many more people into crypto.
Get started:
Site: https://bloq.cloud/ Signup: https://console.bloq.cloud/signup Pricing: https://bloq.cloud/pricing/ Docs: https://docs.bloq.cloud/
submitted by jgarzik to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

One API, Many Networks: BloqCloud v1.0 available today

Today we at Bloq, Inc. announced the general availability of BloqCloud as a platform for public network developers and teams who want to get on with building.
The vision is to streamline open network development, much like Twilio did for mobile integration – to take away the friction and hurdles that get in the way of building great multi-blockchain apps.
Here are the services we are starting with: - Nodes-on-demand for Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, Ethereum, and Ethereum Classic (BloqCloud Nodes) - APIs, indexed blockchain data, and event notification for Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash (BloqCloud Connect)
Upcoming services will include capabilities for accessing distributed computing and storage, all within the BloqCloud console.
Pay with crypto or credit card. Visa, MasterCard, BTC, BCH, ETH supported today. Lightning Network, Metronome and more coming soon.
The BloqCloud Connect service has a free tier (500 API requests per month, limited event/block/address monitoring). For $24/yr or $4/mo (“Starter”), you 10x the API requests and 4x the monitoring. BloqCloud accepts credit card and Bitcoin, with MET and Lightning soon.
BloqCloud will continue add services and compatible chains going forward.
Get started:
Site: https://bloq.cloud/ Signup: https://console.bloq.cloud/signup Pricing: https://bloq.cloud/pricing/ Docs: https://docs.bloq.cloud/
submitted by jgarzik to cryptodevs [link] [comments]

Top 10 Richest People in the World, in Bitcoin

Bitcoin has been given the nickname “digital gold”. This is because of its characteristic as a store of wealth. Many big investors are resorting to Bitcoin as a good place to put their money. The reason for this is not just because it can be sustained, but also because of the high tendency of appreciation in value. Here we shall be considering the top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin.
We will take a look at their net worth, and how much that amounts to in Bitcoin. We will also consider their primary business and a little bit of their history. How they started out in the Bitcoin ecosystem and what they have achieved so far will also enable us to understand more about them.
So, here is a list of the top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin.
10. Matthew Roszark
Matthew Roszark is the founder of Tally Capital, and co-founder of Bloq. Roszark is widely known as the man who gave Richard Branson and Bill Clinton their first Bitcoins. Roszark made it early into the Bitcoin space and participated in the very first ICO in 2013. Although that wasn’t what it was called at the time.
Roszark has investments in 20 startups in the cryptocurrency ecosystem, some of which have gone ahead to do great things. Some of the startups that he invested in include Coinbase, Kraken and BTCC.
Roszark’s net worth is $1 billion, which amounts to 102,712.94 BTC (at the time of writing).
  1. Anthony Di Iorio
Anthony Di lorio is the founder of Jaxx and Decentral, and co-founder at Ethereum. Having studied a bit of economics and trying to find out the true essence of money after the recession of early 2000, Di lorio discovered Bitcoin and decided to explore. He started a Toronto Bitcoin-meetup, where he met his eventual co-founder of Ethereum, Vitalik Buterin.
Di lorio contributed his personal funds towards the coding of Ethereum, and has since been involved in a number of other crypto assets. Some of them include Qtum, VeChain and ZCash.
Di lorio is a serial investor who commits to projects at an early stage, then after levelling up, he pulls his funds and moves on to something new. His net worth of $1 billion is the equivalent of 102,712.93 BTC.
  1. Michael Novogratz
This CEO of Galaxy Digital is also popular in the field of macro hedge fund management. Novogratz started investing in cryptocurrencies in 2013 and two years later he left his position at Fortress Investment Group to focus on crypto.
In the cryptocurrency industry, Novogratz is known as a seasoned trader who believes that the crypto market as it is today is a bubble. According to him, his aim is to make as much money as possible from the bubble before it bursts.
Novogratz is worth $1 billion which is the equivalent of 102,712.92 BTC
  1. Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss
The Winklevoss twins arrived in the face of the public through the controversial law suit against Facebook for intellectual property theft. They eventually won the case and were paid $11 million in compensation.
With many Silicon Valley startups not wanting to get into Facebook’s black book, the twins seemed to not have where to invest their money. They were introduced to Bitcoin by Brooklyn-based investor David Azar in 2012, and found their new investment ecosystem.
Over the years, the astronomic rise in Bitcoin price has turned their $11 million investment to a $1 billion portfolio of 102,712.91 BTC.
  1. Matthew Mellon
Matthew Mellon’s money started as old money which he inherited from family sources. However, through his “crazy” investment approach, he has been able to build a fortune out of his family inheritance.
Having bought into Bitcoin some years ago, Mellon abandoned his early investments and sold his Bitcoins at some point. His attachment with the banking industry and the XRP feasibility attracted him to the coin.
Mellon spent $2 million to acquire XRP tokens a few years back. That investment has grown to $1 billion, in the equivalence of 102,712.90 BTC.
  1. Zhao Chaopeng
Zhao Chaopeng popularly known as CZ, is the founder of cryptocurrency exchange, Binance. Within one year of its launch, Binance became the largest cryptocurrency exchange in terms of volume.
The platform’s tokens were sold at a price of 10 cents during its ICO. At the time of writing, the price of the coin has risen to over $27 and CZ owns a huge volume of the coins.
In 2014, CZ sold his house in Shanghai, which was practically all he had, to go all out into Bitcoin. Today, his net worth is $1.3 billion, which is equivalent to 133,523.65 BTC.
  1. Brian Armstrong
Brian Armstrong is the CEO of Coinbase, the largest cryptocurrency exchange in America. Coinbase was founded in 2012, and is the most patronized cryptocurrency exchange in the US. The exchange has also expanded, and is now available in many countries of the world.
In 2018, the exchange embarked on a financing round that saw it raise $300 million, and the company is now valued at $8 billion.
Armstrong’s net worth stands at $1.3 billion, with equates to 133,523.64 BTC.
  1. Jihan Wu
Johan Wu is the co-founder of Bitmain, a China-based Bitcoin mining giant. Together with Micree Zhan Ketuan, they have grown Bitmain to become a household name in the industry, and the main supplier of ASIC-chip miners. Wu is also popular for his open support of Bitcoin Cash.
Wu is estimated to be worth up to $1.5 billion, which translates in Bitcoin to 154,065.75 BTC.
  1. Chris Larsen
Chris Larsen is the co-founder of Ripple, a company which was founded in 2012 with Jed McCaleb, the founder of Mt Gox.
Larsen is regarded as a self-made billionaire, with the bulk of his wealth coming from cryptocurrency enterprises. Ripple boasts many top end customers in its portfolio. Among the list includes Bank of America, Santander and Mitsubishi Financial.
Larsen’s net worth is estimated at $1.5 billion, which is equivalent to 154,065.74 BTC.
  1. Micree Zhan Ketuan
Zhan is the co-founder of Bitmain technologies. Bitmain is regarded as the biggest Bitcoin mining company in China. The company is also known to specialize in the sale of ASIC-chip miners.
Zhan is an electrical engineer by training and is the builder of the ASIC chips on the Bitmain hardware. He is an acclaimed self-made billionaire whose source of wealth is the manufacturing and sales of cryptocurrency mining chips.
Zhan’s net worth is estimated at $2.7 billion, which when converted to Bitcoin is 215,692.05 BTC.
Conclusion
The dominant investment industry concept is evolutionary. At different eras of existence, different industries have produced different money magnates. Serial investors at the same time have found ways of aligning with the prevailing markets as the times change.
With the advent of Bitcoin and blockchain technology, the digital assets ecosystem appears to be making a strong statement in the wealth sector. The number of self made billionaires within this sector is a testimony to the impact of this concept in today’s world.
The top 10 richest people in the world, in Bitcoin, parades some names that can stand side-by-side with money magnates of traditional industries. With more developments likely to emerge in the crypto ecosystem, it will not be surprising to see the number of crypto-made billionaire skyrocket in the near future.
https://medium.com/@4kingsocials/top-10-richest-people-in-the-world-in-bitcoin-94183268189b
submitted by OliAustin101 to CryptocurrencyToday [link] [comments]

The Most Eventful Day in Bitcoin History

Bitcoin's network split called off

The proposed software upgrade or “hard fork” to occur on Nov. 16 was canceled on Nov. 8, due to disagreements between many prominent CEOs and key players in the Bitcoin space.
The SegWit 2X fork would have increased the block size from 1 to 2 megabytes and thereby double transaction capacity on the network. This upgrade was aimed at helping the scalability of Bitcoin. However, following a lack of consensus within the community, implementing the hard fork was suspended. In fact, it has always been a controversial topic — many Bitcoin companies have not actively supported the move. The main fear was that it would split the community into two branches.
Mike Belshe, CEO and co-founder of a major Bitcoin wallet provider BitGo, announced the cancellation in an email on November 8. One of the leaders of the Segwit2x project, he argued that the scaling proposal is too controversial to move forward:
Although we strongly believe in the need for a larger block size, there is something we believe is even more important: keeping the community together. Unfortunately, it is clear that we have not built sufficient consensus for a clean block size upgrade at this time. Continuing on the current path could divide the community and be a setback to Bitcoin’s growth.
BitGo’s Mike Belshe, Xapo’s Wences Casares, Bitmain’s Jihan Wu, Bloq’s Jeff Garzik, Blockchain’s Peter Smith and Shapeshift’s Erik Voorhees all signed the statement.
Quickly following this news, Bitcoin’s price hit an all-time high as people were glad that the community divide seemed over. However, that euphoria soon faded as the reality kicked in that fundamental issues with Bitcoin remained.

What does this mean for the future of Bitcoin?

Well, no one really knows, but here's a bit of insight as to what we think could happen.
In 2017, the Bitcoin network capacity hit the “invisible wall.” Fees skyrocketed, and Bitcoin became unreliable, with some users unable to get their transactions confirmed, even after days of waiting. Today, people are paying up to $25 USD for a transaction to be processed, which says a lot about the usefulness of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin usage stopped growing; its market share among other cryptocurrencies plummeted from 95 to 40 percent as many users, merchants, businesses and investors abandoned it.
The cancellation of SegWit 2X leaves two competing bitcoin chains now: Bitcoin SegWit 1X (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH). With SegWit, data is stored differently in each block, which improves the capacity of the blockchain, however only marginally compared to the capacity available with the Bitcoin Cash blockchain.
The improvement in capacity from SegWit 1X is 70 percent with no plans for any more significant updates within at least the next 18 to 24 months. The SegWit upgrade is a small capacity increase at best, and it's already showing it's not going to handle exponential growth or worldwide adoption.
Bitcoin Cash was born on August 1, 2017, as a result of a few major players from the very early days of Bitcoin becoming fed up with the direction the cryptocurrency was headed. Bitcoin Cash immediately raised the transaction capacity by 800 percent as part of a massive on-chain scaling approach. Currently, there is ample capacity for everyone's transactions, and huge developmental progress has been made to allow massive capacity increases up to 1000 times the current BTC SegWit network. This means low fees and fast confirmations for everyone.
However, Bitcoin cash is still quite far behind, so which bitcoin will win?

Let's start at the beginning...

In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, published a paper titled, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” Most people are aware of this, but the exact title needs to be repeated because today, even the most basic facets of Bitcoin are being challenged.
Regardless of “which side” of the scaling debate you are on, it should not be contested that Satoshi always planned for and advocated simple, on-chain scaling. (On-chain scaling is a term that basically means using the Bitcoin network itself to process all transactions.
Unfortunately, this is not the proposed plan of the Bitcoin network’s core development team. They intend to implement a supplementary technology called the “Lightning Network” to process the extra transactions that Bitcoin can't handle. Not yet proven to work, this technology is at least 18 to 24 months away from being ready. It also takes Bitcoin in a much more centralized direction as a small group of people will be running this secondary transaction layer, earning money from fees and controlling how it works.
Giving a small group of people this sort of control sounds pretty familiar, don't you think? Reminds us of a thing called the USD? We need to get away from this.
We KNOW that on-chain transactions work; they've worked for 9 years, and scaling on Bitcoin Cash is working.

Now to today...

It seems more and more users, merchants, businesses and investors are beginning to realize this. Today, we've seen the biggest “pump” in cryptocurrency history, with Bitcoin Cash going from a low at $1,280 USD to a high of $2,799 USD. Peaking at a whopping $41 Billion USD market cap, almost tripling in 36 hours, and to top it off, the trading volume was $11.5 billion USD in 24 hours.
We've never seen numbers like this, and it's happening for a reason. The potential for Bitcoin was so great; however, it went off in the wrong direction due to a small group of people who wanted to control it.
Today, Bitcoin Cash has made huge progress on the “flippening,” a term used by many in the community referring to the possible future event when Bitcoin Cash overtakes Bitcoin to become the most valuable cryptocurrency in terms of market capitalization.
If the flippening occurs, there's a very bright future for Bitcoin Cash. The aim is for it to become a world currency used by billions of people, one that does not discriminate based on levels of wealth, one that is equally usable to those earning $1 a day or companies earning billions.
Right now, one billion people are living in slums. They cannot hope to escape without some international form of trade. This can be achieved with access to secure and low cost money, which is what Bitcoin Cash delivers. We hope that in the next decade, Bitcoin Cash starts to offer hope and a way out of poverty.
*This article was written by one of the crypto consultants at decrypt
submitted by decrypt-how to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

225 Good YouTubers & 30 Bad Ones! (Help Me Verify)

I am finalizing my list for CryptoInfluence - The link is a beta version.
I've made several topics on this Reddit asking for input and received a tons of suggestions!
This site is an offshoot of my popular Socialbook.io platform which is used by YouTubers to help get Sponsorships/Partnerships from brands. Brands use the platform search for YouTubers to advertise their products. Once the list is narrowed down they view their profiles and can choose to purchase their advanced profiles in order to view their audience demographics & to contact them.
YouTubers get 50% of the price paid by brands to view their profiles & contact them. They keep 100% of whatever sponsorship deal they negotiate. This has been very successful so far. Up until recently the most popular searches were were Gaming & Fashion YouTubers.
Over the summer we never received any requests for Crypto Influencers. Now we get 12 a day, making Crypto YouTubers our top category!
The biggest complaint is that brands keep choosing the wrong ones and getting scammed. The Crypto Boom is so new that their are not very many "trusted" channels yet. There are no million+ channels. Most of the channels are a few months old between 1-20k subscribers. Its very difficult for them to choose.
The site should do 3 things:
1. Allow brands to easily find quality YouTubers to partner with. Leading to both sides to profit.
2. Blacklist the scammer channels, and keep them from monetizing their channels. (There will be a form to report Scammers)
3. Clear out my inbox ;-)
Below is the current list, sorted by number of subscribers (except the bottom 10 or so). Please help me verify any scammers. The ones I really need help with are at the very below. Also, if you know of any good channels that I don't have listed please let me know! Thanks a bunch!
When the site is done, the channels will be ranked via an algorithm that is less dependent upon subscriber numbers, and more dependent upon relevant content, activity, and audience engagement. This should be able to properly rank that "Good" channels from the more "Mediocre" ones. There will also be a sorter (similar to our advanced search) where you can re-list the channels based on audience demographics, country, language, average views, etc.
Legitimate Channels:
Scammer List:
Not Sure About:
submitted by GypsyGold to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Full English Transcript of Gavin's AMA on 8BTC, April 21st. (Part 1)

Part 2
Part 3
Raw transcript on Google Docs (English+Chinese): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p3DWMfeGHBL6pk4Hu0efgQWGsUAdFNK6zLHubn5chJo/edit?usp=sharing
Translators/Organizers: emusher, kcbitcoin, nextblast, pangcong, Red Li, WangXiaoMeng. (Ranked in alphabetical order)
1.crypto888
Q: What is your relationship with Blockstream now? Are you in a Cold War? Your evaluation on BS was pretty high “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation.” But now, what’s your opinion on BS?
A: I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream.
We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
2. Ma_Ya
Q: 1) Why insist on hard fork at only 75%? You once explained that it is possible to be controlled by 5% if we set the threshold at 95%. I agree, but there should be some balance here. 75% means a high risk in splitting, isn’t it too aggressive? Is it better if we set it to 90%?
A: 1)The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network.
Q: 2) How to solve the potentially very large blocks problem Classic roadmap may cause, and furthur causing the centralization of nodes in the future?
A: 2)Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night).
I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second.
Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned.
Q: 3) Why do you not support the proposal of RBF by Satoshi, and even plan to remove it in Classic completely?
A: 3) Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time.
When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before.
Q: 4) . Your opinion on soft fork SegWit, sidechain, lighnting network. Are you for or against, please give brief reasons. Thanks.
A: 4) The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful.
I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good.
I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them.
Q: 5) Can you share your latest opinion on Brainwallet? It is hard for new users to use long and complex secure passphrase, but is it a good tool if it solves this problem?
A: 5) We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things.
We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
3. BiTeCui
Q: Gavin, do you have bitcoins now? What is your major job in MIT? Has FBI ever investigated on you? When do you think SHA256 might be outdated, it seems like it has been a bit unsafe?
A: Yes, a majority of my own person wealth is still in bitcoins -- more than a financial advisor would say is wise.
My job at MIT is to make Bitcoin better, in whatever way I think best. That is the same major job I had at the Bitcoin Foundation. Sometimes I think the best way to make Bitcoin better is to write some code, sometimes to write a blog post about what I see happening in the Bitcoin world, and sometimes to travel and speak to people.
The FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) has never investigated me, as far as I know. The closest thing to an investigation was an afternoon I spent at the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC. They were interested in how I and the other Bitcoin developers created the software and how much control we have over whether or not people choose to run the software that we create.
“Safe or unsafe” is not the way to think about cryptographic algorithms like SHA256. They do not suddenly go from being 100% secure for everything to completely insecure for everything. I think SHA256 will be safe enough to use in the all ways that Bitcoin is using it for at least ten years, and will be good enough to be used as the proof-of-work algorithm forever.
It is much more likely that ECDSA, the signature algorithm Bitcoin is using today, will start to become less safe in the next ten or twenty years, but developer are already working on replacements (like Schnorr signatures).
4. SanPangHenBang
Q: It’s a pleasure to meet you. I only have one question. Which company are you serving? or where do you get your salary?
A: The Media Lab at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) pays my salary; I don’t receive regular payments from anybody else.
I have received small amounts of stock options in exchange for being a techical advisor to several Bitcoin companies (Coinbase, BitPay, Bloq, Xapo, Digital Currency Group, CoinLab, TruCoin, Chain) which might be worth money some day if one or more of those companies do very well. I make it very clear to these companies that my priority is to make Bitcoin better, and my goal in being an advisor to them is to learn more about the problems they face as they try to bring Bitcoin to more of their customers.
And I am sometimes (once or twice a year) paid to speak at events.
5.SaTuoXi
Q: Would you mind share your opinion on lightning network? Is it complicated to implement? Does it need hard fork?
A: Lightning does not need a hard fork.
It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly.
I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
6. pangcong
Q: 1) There has been a lot of conferences related to blocksize limit. The two took place in HongKong in Decemeber of 2015 and Feberary of 2016 are the most important ones. Despite much opposition, it is undeniable that these two meetings basically determines the current status of Bitcoin. However, as the one of the original founders of Bitcoin, why did you choose to not attend these meetings? If you have ever attended and opposed gmax’s Core roadmap (SegWit Priority) in one of the meetings, we may be in a better situation now, and the 2M hard fork might have already begun. Can you explain your absence in the two meetings? Do you think the results of both meetings are orchestrated by blockstream?
A: 1) I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached.
A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015.
The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents.
I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit.
Q: 2) We have already known that gmax tries to limit the block size so as to get investment for his company. However, it is obvious that overthrowing Core is hard in the short term. What if Core continues to dominate the development of Bitcoin? Is it possible that blockstream core will never raise the blocksize limit because of their company interests?
A: 2) I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically.
He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time.
Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
7. HeiYanZhu
Q: I would like to ask your opinion on the current situation. It’s been two years, but a simple 2MB hard fork could not even be done. In Bitcoin land, two years are incredibly long. Isn’t this enough to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy?
A: I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things.
Q: How can a multi-billion network with millions of users and investors be choked by a handful of people? How can this be called decentrilized and open-source software anymore? It is so hard to get a simple 2MB hard fork, but SegWig and Lighting Network with thousands of lines of code change can be pushed through so fast. Is this normal? It is what you do to define if you are a good man, not what you say.
A: I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer.
The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning.
Q: The problem now is that everybody knows Classic is better, however, Core team has controlled the mining pools using their powers and polical approaches. This made them controll the vast majority of the hashpower, no matter what others propose. In addition, Chinese miners have little communication with the community, and do not care about the developement of the system. Very few of them knows what is going on in the Bitcoin land. They almost handed over their own power to the mining pool, so as long as Core controls the pools, Core controls the whole Bitcoin, no matter how good your Classic is. Under this circumstance, what is your plan?
A: Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy.
Q: From this scaling debate, do you think there is a huge problem with Bitcoin development? Does there exsit development centrilization? Does this situation need improvment? For example, estabilish a fund from Bitcoin as a fundation. It can be used for hiring developers and maintainers, so that we can solve the development issue once and for all.
A: I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks.
And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing).
I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features).
I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
8.jb9802
You are one of the most-repected person in Bitcoin world, I won’t miss the chance to ask some questions. First of all, I am a Classic supporter. I strongly believe that on-chain transcations should not be restrained artificially. Even if there are transcations that are willing to go through Lighting Network in the future, it should be because of a free market, not because of artificial restrication. Here are some of my questions:
Q: 1) For the past two years, you’ve been proposing to Core to scale Bitcoin. In the early days of the discussion, Core devs did agree that the blocksize should be raised. What do you think is the major reason for Core to stall scaling. Does there exist conflict of interest between Blockstream and scaling?
A: 1) There might be unconscious bias, but I think there is just a difference of opinion on priorities and timing.
Q: 2) One of the reason for the Chinese to refuse Classic is that Classic dev team is not technically capable enough for future Bitcoin development. I also noticed that Classic does have a less frequent code release compared to Core. In your opinion, is there any solution to these problems? Have you ever thought to invite capable Chinese programers to join Classic dev team?
A: 2) The great thing about open source software is if you don’t think the development team is good enough (or if you think they are working on the wrong things) you can take the software and hire a better team to improve it.
Classic is a simple 2MB patch on top of Core, so it is intentional that there are not a lot of releases of Classic.
The priority for Classic right now is to do things that make working on Classic better for developers than working on Core, with the goal of attracting more developers. You can expect to see some results in the next month or two.
I invite capable programmers from anywhere, including China, to help any of the teams working on open source Bitcoin software, whether that is Classic or Core or Unlimited or bitcore or btcd or ckpool or p2pool or bitcoinj.
Q: 3) Another reason for some of the Chinese not supporting Classic is that bigger blocks are more vulnerable to spam attacks. (However, I do think that smaller blocks are more vlunerable to spam attack, because smaller amount of money is needed to choke the blockchain.) What’s our opinion on this?
A: 3) The best response to a transaction spam attack is for the network to reject transactions that pay too little fees but to simply absorb any “spam” that is paying as much fees as regular transactions.
The goal for a transaction spammer is to disrupt the network; if there is room for extra transactions in blocks, then the network can just accept the spam (“thank you for the extra fees!”) and continue as if nothing out of the ordinary happened.
Nothing annoys a spammer more than a network that just absorbs the extra transactions with no harmful effects.
Q: 4) According to your understanding on lighting network and sidechains,if most Bitcoin transactions goes throught lighting network or sidechains, it possible that the fees paid on the these network cannot reach the main-chain miners, which leaves miners starving. If yes, how much percent do you think will be given to miners.
A: 4) I don’t know, it will depend on how often lightning network channels are opened and closed, and that depends on how people choose to use lightning.
Moving transactions off the main chain and on to the lightning network should mean less fees for miners, more for lightning network hubs. Hopefully it will also mean lower fees for users, which will make Bitcoin more popular, drive up the price, and make up for the lower transaction fees paid to miners.
Q: 5) The concept of lighting network and sidechains have been out of one or two years already, when do you think they will be fully deployed.
A: 5) Sidechains are already “fully deployed” (unless you mean the version of sidechains that doesn’t rely on some trusted gateways to move bitcoin on and off the sidechain, which won’t be fully deployed for at least a couple of years). I haven’t seen any reports of how successful they have been.
I think Lightning will take longer than people estimate. Seven months ago Adam Back said that the lightning network might be ready “as soon as six months from now” … but I would be surprised if there was a robust, ready-for-everybody-to-use lightning-capable wallet before 2018.
Q: 6)Regarding the hard fork, Core team has assumed that it will cause a chain-split. (Chinese miners are very intimitated by this assumption, I think this is the major reason why most of the Chinese mining pools are not switching to Classic). Do you think Bitcoin will have a chain-split?
A: 6) No, there will not be a chain split. I have not talked to a single mining pool operator, miner, exchange, or major bitcoin business who would be willing to mine a minority branch of the chain or accept bitcoins from a minority branch of the main chain.
Q: 7) From your point of view, do you think there is more Classic supporters or Core supporters in the U.S.?
A: 7) All of the online opinion pools that have been done show that a majority of people worldwide support raising the block size limit.
9. btcc123
Q: Which is more in line with the Satoshi’s original roadmap, Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core? How to make mining pools support and adopt Bitcoin Classic?
A: Bitcoin Classic is more in line with Satoshi’s original roadmap.
We can’t make the mining pools do anything they don’t want to do, but they are run by smart people who will do what they think is best for their businesses and Bitcoin.
10.KuHaiBian
Q: Do you have any solution for mining centralization? What do you think about the hard fork of changing mining algorithms?
A: I have a lot of thoughts on mining centralization; it would probably take ten or twenty pages to write them all down.
I am much less worried about mining centralization than most of the other developers, because Satoshi designed Bitcoin so miners make the most profit when they do what is best for Bitcoin. I have also seen how quickly mining pools come and go; people were worried that the DeepBit mining pool would become too big, then it was GHash.io…
And if a centralized mining pool does become too big and does something bad, the simplest solution is for businesses or people to get together and create or fund a competitor. Some of the big Bitcoin exchanges have been seriously considering doing exactly that to support raising the block size limit, and that is exactly the way the system is supposed to work-- if you don’t like what the miners are doing, then compete with them!
I think changing the mining algorithm is a complicated solution to a simple problem, and is not necessary.
11. ChaLi
Q: Last time you came to China, you said you want to "make a different". I know that in USA the opposition political party often hold this concept, in order to prevent the other party being totally dominant. Bitcoin is born with a deep "make a different" nature inside. But in Chinese culture, it is often interpreted as split “just for the sake of splitting”, can you speak your mind on what is your meaning of "make a different"?
A: I started my career in Silicon Valley, where there is a lot of competition but also a lot of cooperation. The most successful companies find a way to be different than their competitors; it is not a coincidence that perhaps the most successful company in the world (Apple Computer) had the slogan “think different.”
As Bitcoin gets bigger (and I think we all agree we want Bitcoin to get bigger!) it is natural for it to split and specialize; we have already seen that happening, with lots of choices for different wallets, different exchanges, different mining chips, different mining pool software.
12. bluestar
Q: 1) The development of XT and Classic confirmed my thoughts that it is nearly impossible to use a new version of bitcoin to replace the current bitcoin Core controlled by Blockstream. I think we will have to live with the power of Blockstream for a sufficient long time. It means we will see the deployment of SegWit and Lighting network. If it really comes to that point, what will you do? Will you also leave like Mike Hearn?
A: 1) With the development of Blockchain, bitcoin will grow bigger and bigger without any doubts, And also there will be more and more companies related to the bitcoin network. When it comes to money, there will be a lot of fights between these companies. Is it possible to form some kind of committee to avoid harmful fights between these companies and also the situation that a single company controlling the direction of the bitcoin development? Is there any one doing this kind of job right now?
Q: 2) My final question would be, do you really think it is possible that we can have a decentralized currency? Learning from the history, it seems like every thing will become centralized as long as it involves human. Do you have any picture for a decentralized currency or even a society? Thanks.
A: 2) I think you might be surprised at what most people are running a year or three from now. Perhaps it will be a future version of Bitcoin Core, but I think there is a very good chance another project will be more successful.
I remember when “everybody” was running Internet Explorer or Firefox, and people thought Google was crazy to think that Chrome would ever be a popular web browser. It took four years for Chrome to become the most popular web browser.
In any case, I plan on working on Bitcoin related projects for at least another few years. Eventually it will become boring or I will decide I need to take a couple of years of and think about what I want to do next.
As for fights between companies: there are always fights between companies, in every technology. There are organizations like the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) that try to create committees so engineers at companies can spend more time cooperating and less time fighting; I’m told by people who participate in IETF meetings that they are usually helpful and create useful standards more often than not.
Finally, yes, I do think we can have a “decentralized-enough” currency. A currency that might be controlled at particular times by a small set of people or companies, but that gives everybody else the ability to take control if those people or businesses misbehave.
13. satoshi
Hi Gavin, I have some questions:
Q: 1) I noticed there are some new names added to the classic team list. Most people here only know you and Jeff. Can you briefly introduce some others to the Chinese community?
A: 1)
Tom Zander has been acting as lead developer, and is an experienced C++ developer who worked previously on the Qt and Debian open source projects.
Pedro Pinheiro is on loan from Blockchain.info, and has mostly worked on continuous integration and testing for Classic.
Jon Rumion joined recently, and has been working on things that will make life for developers more pleasant (I don’t want to be more specific, I don’t want to announce things before they are finished in case they don’t work out).
Jeff has been very busy starting up Bloq, so he hasn’t been very active with Classic recently. I’ve also been very busy traveling (Barbados, Idaho, London and a very quick trip to Beijing) so haven’t been writing much code recently.
Q: 2) if bitcoin classic succeeded (>75% threshold), what role would you play in the team after the 2MB upgrade finished, as a leader, a code contributor, a consultant, or something else?
A: 2)Contributor and consultant-- I am trying not to be leader of any software project right now, I want to leave that to other people who are better at managing and scheduling and recruiting and all of the other things that need to be done to lead a software project.
Q: 3) if bitcoin classic end up failed to achieve mainstream adoption (<75% 2018), will you continue the endeavor of encouraging on-chain scaling and garden-style growth of bitcoin?
A: 3) Yes. If BIP109 does not happen, I will still be pushing to get a good on-chain solution to happen as soon as possible.
Q: 4) Have you encountered any threat in your life, because people would think you obviously have many bitcoins, like what happened to Hal Finney (RIP), or because some people have different ideas about what bitcoin's future should be?
A: 4) No, I don’t think I have received any death threats. It upsets me that other people have.
Somebody did threaten to release my and my wife’s social security numbers and other identity information if I did not pay them some bitcoins a couple of years ago. I didn’t pay, they did release our information, and that has been a little inconvenient at times.
Q: 5) Roger Ver (Bitcoin Jesus) said bitcoin would worth thousands of dollars. Do you have similar thoughts? If not, what is your opinion on bitcoin price in future?
A: 5) I learned long ago to give up trying to predict the price of stocks, currencies, or Bitcoin. I think the price of Bitcoin will be higher in ten years, but I might be wrong.
Q: 6) You've been to China. What's your impression about the country, people, and the culture here? Thank you!
A: 6) I had a very quick trip to Beijing a few weeks ago-- not nearly long enough to get a good impression of the country or the culture.
I had just enough time to walk around a little bit one morning, past the Forbidden City and walk around Tianmen Square. There are a LOT of people in China, I think the line to go into the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall was the longest I have ever seen!
Beijing reminded me a little bit of London, with an interesting mix of the very old with the very new. The next time I am in China I hope I can spend at least a few weeks and see much more of the country; I like to be in a place long enough so that I really can start to understand the people and cultures.
14. Pussinboots
Q: Dear Gavin, How could I contact you, we have an excellent team and good plans. please confirm your linkedin.
A: Best contact for me is [email protected] : but I get lots of email, please excuse me if your messages get lost in the flood.
15. satoshi
Q: Gavin, you've been both core and classic code contributor. Are there any major differences between the two teams, concerning code testing (quality control) and the release process of new versions?
A: Testing and release processes are the same; a release candidate is created and tested, and once sufficiently tested, a final release is created, cryptographically signed by several developers, and then made available for download.
The development process for Classic will be a little bit different, with a ‘develop’ branch where code will be pulled more quickly and then either fixed or reverted based on how testing goes. The goal is to create a more developer-friendly process, with pull requests either accepted or rejected fairly quickly.
16. tan90d
I am a bitcoin enthusiast and a coin holder. I thank you for your great contribution to bitcoin. Please allow me to state some of my views before asking:
  1. I'm on board with classic
  2. I support the vision to make bitcoin a powerful currency that could compete with Visa
  3. I support segwit, so I'll endorse whichever version of bitcoin implementation that upgrades to segwit, regardless of block size.
  4. I disagree with those who argue bitcoin main blockchain should be a settlement network with small blocks. My view is that on the main chain btc should function properly as a currency, as well as a network for settlement.
  5. I'm against the deployment of LN on top of small block sized blockchain. Rather, it should be built on a chain with bigger blocks.
  6. I also won’t agree with the deployment of many sidechains on top of small size block chain. Rather, those sidechains should be on chain with bigger blocks.
With that said, below are my questions:
Q: 1) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 1) If the block limit is not raised, then no, I don’t think transaction fees will be that high.
Q: 2) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 2) Yes, the vision is lots of transactions, each paying a very small fee, adding up to a big total for the miners.
Q: 3) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, do you think POW would fail in future, because the mining industry might be accounted too low value compared with that of the bitcoin total market, so that big miners could threaten btc market and gain profit by shorting?
*The questioner further explained his concern.
Currently, its about ~1.1 billion CNY worth of mining facilities protecting ~42 billion CNY worth (6.5 Billion USD) of bitcoin market. The ratio is ~3%. If bitcoin market cap continues to grow and we adopt layered development plan, the mining portion may decrease, pushing the ratio go even down to <1%, meaning we are using very small money protecting an huge expensive system. For example, in 2020 if bitcoin market cap is ~100 billion CNY, someone may attempt to spend ~1 billion CNY bribe/manipulate miners to attack the network, thus making a great fortune by shorting bitcoin and destroying the ecosystem.
A: 3) Very good question, I have asked that myself. I have asked people if they know if there have been other cases where people destroyed a company or a market to make money by shorting it -- as far as I know, that does not happen. Maybe because it is impossible to take a large short position and remain anonymous, so even if you were successful, you would be arrested for doing whatever you did to destroy the company or market (e.g. blow up a factory to destroy a company, or double-spend fraud to try to destroy Bitcoin).
Q: 4) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, will the blocks become too big that kill decentralization?
A: 4) No, if you look at how many transactions the typical Internet connection can support, and how many transactions even a smart phone can validate per second, we can support many more transactions today with the hardware and network connections we have now.
And hardware and network connections are getting faster all the time.
Q: 5) In theory, even if we scale bitcoin with just LN and sidechains, the main chain still needs blocks with size over 100M, in order to process the trading volume matching Visa's network. So does core have any on-chain scaling plan other than 2MB? Or Core does not plan to evolve bitcoin into something capable of challenging visa?
A: 5) Some of the Core developer talk about a “flexcap” solution to the block size limit, but there is no specific proposal.
I think it would be best to eliminate the limit all together. That sounds crazy, but the most successful Internet protocols have no hard upper limits (there is no hard limit to how large a web page may be, for example), and no protocol limit is true to Satoshi’s original design.
Q: 6) If (the majority of) hash rate managed to switch to Classic in 2018, will the bitcoin community witness the deployment of LN in two years (~2018)?
A: 6) The bottleneck with Lightning Network will be wallet support, not support down at the Bitcoin protocol level. So I don’t think the deployment schedule of LN will be affected much whether Classic is adopted or not.
Q: 7) If (majority) hash rate upgraded to blocks with segwit features in 2017 as specified in core's roadmap, would classic propose plans to work on top of that (blocks with segwit)? Or insist developing simplified segwit blocks as described in classic's roadmap?
A: 7) Classic will follow majority hash rate. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else.
Q: 8) If most hash rate is still on core's side before 2018, will you be disappointed with bitcoin, and announce that bitcoin has failed like what Mike did, and sell all your stashed coins at some acceptable price?
A: 8) No-- I have said that I think if the block size limit takes longer to resolve, that is bad for Bitcoin in the short term, but smart engineers will work around whatever road blocks you put in front of them. I see Bitcoin as a long-term project.
Q: 9) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 9) I think Blockstream might lose some employees, but otherwise I don’t think it will matter much. They are still producing interesting technology that might become a successful business.
Q: 10) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 10) I don’t think Blockstream’s fate depends on whether or not BIP109 is adopted. It depends much more on whether or not they find customers willing to pay for the technology that they are developing.
Q: 11) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of companies that support classic, such as Coinbse, bitpay, and Blockchain.info?
A: 11) We have already seen companies like Kraken support alternative currencies (Kraken supports Litecoin and Ether); if there is no on-chain scaling solution accepted by the network, I think we will see more companies “hedging their bets” by supporting other currencies that have a simpler road map for supporting more transactions.
Q: 12) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, will that hinder the development of sidechain tech? What will happen to companies like Rockroot(Rootstock?) ?
A: 12) No, I think the best use of sidechains is for things that might be too risky for the main network (like Rootstock) or are narrowly focused on a small number of Bitcoin users. I don’t think hash rate supporting Classic will have any effect on that.
Q: 13) Between the two versions of bitcoin client, which one is more conducive to mining industry, classic or core?
A: 13) I have been working to make Classic better for the mining industry, but right now they are almost identical so it would be dishonest to say one is significantly better than the other.
17. Alfred
Q: Gavin, can you describe what was in your mind when you first learned bitcoin?
A: I was skeptical that it could actually work! I had to read everything I could about it, and then read the source code before I started to think that maybe it could actually be successful and was not a scam.
submitted by kcbitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

The Most Eventful Day in Bitcoin History

Bitcoin's network split called off

The proposed software upgrade or “hard fork” to occur on Nov. 16 was canceled on Nov. 8, due to disagreements between many prominent CEOs and key players in the Bitcoin space.
The SegWit 2X fork would have increased the block size from 1 to 2 megabytes and thereby double transaction capacity on the network. This upgrade was aimed at helping the scalability of Bitcoin. However, following a lack of consensus within the community, implementing the hard fork was suspended. In fact, it has always been a controversial topic — many Bitcoin companies have not actively supported the move. The main fear was that it would split the community into two branches.
Mike Belshe, CEO and co-founder of a major Bitcoin wallet provider BitGo, announced the cancellation in an email on November 8. One of the leaders of the Segwit2x project, he argued that the scaling proposal is too controversial to move forward:
Although we strongly believe in the need for a larger block size, there is something we believe is even more important: keeping the community together. Unfortunately, it is clear that we have not built sufficient consensus for a clean block size upgrade at this time. Continuing on the current path could divide the community and be a setback to Bitcoin’s growth.
BitGo’s Mike Belshe, Xapo’s Wences Casares, Bitmain’s Jihan Wu, Bloq’s Jeff Garzik, Blockchain’s Peter Smith and Shapeshift’s Erik Voorhees all signed the statement.
Quickly following this news, Bitcoin’s price hit an all-time high as people were glad that the community divide seemed over. However, that euphoria soon faded as the reality kicked in that fundamental issues with Bitcoin remained.

What does this mean for the future of Bitcoin?

Well, no one really knows, but here's a bit of insight as to what we think could happen.
In 2017, the Bitcoin network capacity hit the “invisible wall.” Fees skyrocketed, and Bitcoin became unreliable, with some users unable to get their transactions confirmed, even after days of waiting. Today, people are paying up to $25 USD for a transaction to be processed, which says a lot about the usefulness of Bitcoin.
Bitcoin usage stopped growing; its market share among other cryptocurrencies plummeted from 95 to 40 percent as many users, merchants, businesses and investors abandoned it.
The cancellation of SegWit 2X leaves two competing bitcoin chains now: Bitcoin SegWit 1X (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCH).
With SegWit, data is stored differently in each block, which improves the capacity of the blockchain, however only marginally compared to the capacity available with the Bitcoin Cash blockchain.
The improvement in capacity from SegWit 1X is 70 percent with no plans for any more significant updates within at least the next 18 to 24 months. The SegWit upgrade is a small capacity increase at best, and it's already showing it's not going to handle exponential growth or worldwide adoption.
Bitcoin Cash was born on August 1, 2017, as a result of a few major players from the very early days of Bitcoin becoming fed up with the direction the cryptocurrency was headed. Bitcoin Cash immediately raised the transaction capacity by 800 percent as part of a massive on-chain scaling approach. Currently, there is ample capacity for everyone's transactions, and huge developmental progress has been made to allow massive capacity increases up to 1000 times the current BTC SegWit network. This means low fees and fast confirmations for everyone.
However, Bitcoin cash is still quite far behind, so which bitcoin will win?

Let's start at the beginning...

In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator of Bitcoin, published a paper titled, “Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.” Most people are aware of this, but the exact title needs to be repeated because today, even the most basic facets of Bitcoin are being challenged.
Regardless of “which side” of the scaling debate you are on, it should not be contested that Satoshi always planned for and advocated simple, on-chain scaling. (On-chain scaling is a term that basically means using the Bitcoin network itself to process all transactions.
Unfortunately, this is not the proposed plan of the Bitcoin network’s core development team. They intend to implement a supplementary technology called the “Lightning Network” to process the extra transactions that Bitcoin can't handle. Not yet proven to work, this technology is at least 18 to 24 months away from being ready. It also takes Bitcoin in a much more centralized direction as a small group of people will be running this secondary transaction layer, earning money from fees and controlling how it works.
Giving a small group of people this sort of control sounds pretty familiar, don't you think? Reminds us of a thing called the USD? We need to get away from this.
We KNOW that on-chain transactions work; they've worked for 9 years, and scaling on Bitcoin Cash is working.

Now to today...

It seems more and more users, merchants, businesses and investors are beginning to realize this. Today, we've seen the biggest “pump” in cryptocurrency history, with Bitcoin Cash going from a low at $1,280 USD to a high of $2,799 USD. Peaking at a whopping $41 Billion USD market cap, almost tripling in 36 hours, and to top it off, the trading volume was $11.5 billion USD in 24 hours.
We've never seen numbers like this, and it's happening for a reason. The potential for Bitcoin was so great; however, it went off in the wrong direction due to a small group of people who wanted to control it.
Today, Bitcoin Cash has made huge progress on the “flippening,” a term used by many in the community referring to the possible future event when Bitcoin Cash overtakes Bitcoin to become the most valuable cryptocurrency in terms of market capitalization.
If the flippening occurs, there's a very bright future for Bitcoin Cash. The aim is for it to become a world currency used by billions of people, one that does not discriminate based on levels of wealth, one that is equally usable to those earning $1 a day or companies earning billions.
Right now, one billion people are living in slums. They cannot hope to escape without some international form of trade. This can be achieved with access to secure and low cost money, which is what Bitcoin Cash delivers. We hope that in the next decade, Bitcoin Cash starts to offer hope and a way out of poverty.
*This insight was written by one of the crypto consultants at decrypt
submitted by decrypt-how to btc [link] [comments]

Can YOU Name ONE Exchange That Will List SegWit2X as Bitcoin BTC, POST Hard Fork?

As far as I am aware, ALL exchanges have agreed to list incumbent Bitcoin as BTC post the Hard Fork in November.
Is it because ALL the exchanges are betting on incumbent Bitcoin winning the battle of the Forks? What do they know, that we don’t?
Is this the final ‘Nail in the Coffin’ for B2X, being listed as just another free Alt Coin?
Could it be because SegWit2X futures are valued at less than 0.2BTC?
How long will miners mine at a loss, before moving back to incumbent BTC, if the futures markets are accurate, and price of SegWit2X (aka B2X) remains at, or below 0.2BTC? Will it be a matter of hours, days or weeks?
Has the market lost faith in Jeff Garzik, the main developer for SegWit2X, & the New York Agreement?
Bloq CEO Jeff Garzik, the main developer for SegWt2X, has been busy recently, getting his Alt Coin Metronome ready for launch. "It's sort of a best-of-all-worlds cryptocurrency," Garzik said. Does this mean that it is even better than Bitcoin BTC?
At launch, 2 million Metronome are being set aside for Bloq, with 8 million MTN being sold to the public. Am I right? This is a very clever way to raise money?
Source: https://www.coindesk.com/jeff-garzik-startup-bloq-launch-new-cryptocurrency-token-sale/
Bitcoins BTC Dominance Hit 55.9% Today - Source: https://coinmarketcap.com/
Please add any exchange that has agreed to list SegWit2X as Bitcoin BTC in the comments below.
This is an educational post, & is based on my current knowledge, which is limited. I could be wrong. Please carry out your own research.
submitted by BTCBCCBCH to btc [link] [comments]

When US Entrepreneur Meets Chinese Crypto Group Chat

When US Entrepreneur Meets Chinese Crypto Group Chat
If you happened to read my previous post, you would know WeChat group chats plays a phenomenal role to connect the Chinese crypto circle. The night of July 12th, a unique interview took place in one of those WeChat groups. You may even say the first of its kind.
On the one end is my friend Matthew Roszak, co-founder and chairman of Bloq; on the other, there are 499 women--all of them blockchain entrepreneurs and journalists from different parts of China.
I worked as the host of the event. Questions were collected from all members in advance. During the next hour and half, we discussed with Matt his experience as an investor, his insights on the future of blockchain, and the launch of his latest project, Metronome.
https://preview.redd.it/m1o89yit3cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=3203cb1edb87872caf7a7468e19fc6fd07d1d86f
Here is the complete interview. I have tried to keep it as close to the chat history as possible, though minor tweaks were made for easier reading. Enjoy!
Matt: So cool to be here -- and talk about my favorite subject in the world :-)
Bianca: It is my favorite subject as well and glad to do this with one of my favorite people in this field.
Matt: I am so thrilled you asked me to be a part of this special chat -- ever since you produced that blockchain documentary, your star has been rising higher and higher -- congrats Bianca! I see so many amazing women entrepreneurs on this channel -- super impressive!
Bianca: Many incoming questions. We have selected a few. First of all: You’re an experienced blockchain investor. How did you start investing in cryptocurrency? By contrast, what’s your view on the future of Wall Street?
Matt: When I started out I was so inspired by bitcoin -- it was a true innovation, an invention (on the scale of a Nobel prize for Satoshi) and became a social movement.
https://preview.redd.it/ea30tjsv3cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=77a71ff0c873ced7e782c7e5759d9fbec3e63b74
I initially invested in bitcoin, then invested in over 20 companies in the blockchain space -- bridges, roads and tunnels -- think wallets, exchanges, miners, payment processors, software layers, etc. -- that helped me create a mental roadmap on this space back in 2012/2013. More importantly, I met some of the most amazing entrepreneurs in this ecosystem -- folks like CZ at Binance, Ted at Xapo, Charlie at Litecoin, Bobby at BTCC and even my co-founder Jeff Garzik.
My co-founder Jeff is a rare bird -- he worked on the Linix kernel with Linus Torvalds (creator of Linux) -- and worked on the Bitcoin kernel with Satoshi -- these are two of the most important open source projects in history -- so grateful to have him on my team and as my dear friend…
I hosted dinners in every city I traveled to -- about 20-40 people -- that helped me build great relationships and guide my thesis in this space.
I thought Wall Street/institutional investors would have been in crypto more substantially by now -- there is very little institutional money in our space -- the infrastructure to accommodate them, namely custody platforms, is being built however not in the format nor risk tolerance they are comfortable with -- that will change and we will see a lot of money flowing in by the end of this year with 2019 being a breakout year for institutional adoption.
Bianca: You participated in the first ICOs. What are the lessons you learned from those experiences?
Matt: I originally was a bitcoin maximalist -- I was lucky to change that thinking as it would have made me miss other networks like Ethereum, Qtum EOS and many others -- this space is a movie, and not a static picture -- the innovation is rapidly developing and it creates unprecedented opportunities for entrepreneurs and investors.
Another key point is that I am an investor, and not a trader -- so I buy and hold for the most part -- and that discipline has served me well.
https://preview.redd.it/oy765oi04cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=c29c40c6633f7a6c04bf9d1a36aab7bf39c13109
Bianca: Compared to bitcoin or ETH, what are some innovations of Metronome?
Matt: From a tech standpoint, Metronome (MET) is an autonomous network -- meaning there is no author or founder influence or control on the code since its launch -- autonomous networks will be some of the most powerful and valuable networks in all of crypto -- they are also very hard to build as we saw first hand with the DAO, which broke ETH in half -- that project was way different, very complicated and poorly built, hence it's fate -- but getting autonomous networks right is in many ways a key part of this decentralized future we are all building and investing in.
The other key tech component is that MET is the world's first cross-chain crypto -- meaning MET is born on Ethereum but will be able to move to any other EVM (Ethereum Virtual Machine) -- think ETC, QTUM, RSK/BTC, etc. -- like a boxcar on a railroad that you can move to another track -- this creates a new dimension and relationship between the user and MET where you self govern where your MET resides -- we even called our whitepaper an Owner's Manual :-)
I do not think people will be moving their MET around from track to track, but from a longevity and durability standpoint -- it has staying power even if ETH or any other underlying rail goes away in the future (as you can move it).
So we created MET as an expression of many years of watching the crypto space and believed there was room for more innovation.
The other thing that I am proud of is that the proceeds from the auction didn't go to a foundation or a company, they went into code (a smart contract) -- and all that smart contract does is provide liquidity and price support to the MET community through a decentralized exchanger -- all engineered for the benefit of the MET users/community.
https://preview.redd.it/gtn3zeu24cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=08239f7dda379e731db99b5da3fc68bfa564aa8d
Bianca: Talking about the auction, Metronome used the descending price model during Initial Supply. Did you observe a lower auction price (for instance, due to buyers using bots to do last-minute biddings), thus bringing fewer funds to the pool than you had expected?
Matt: The auction raised about $12MM USD in proceeds during the most difficult week in crypto in 7 months -- we are very proud of the fact that the network launched, the system works, and there were no security issues -- the future is incredibly bright for Metronome!
Most other projects raise money and launch several years out -- MET was made alive at launch! -- again, very difficult to build and create these systems -- I am so proud of the team!
Bianca: What are the differences between working at private equity and crypto investment? How do you normally evaluate a blockchain project?
Matt: OMG sooooo different -- private equity (and even traditional venture) and crypto are two different planets.
The common denominator in how you approach people in PE or VC or crypto is people -- you always back people -- no whitepaper or product roadmap is going to build themselves.
We are in the early days, so great people are raising lots of money with just a whitepaper -- pretty soon the bar will be raised to ensure projects have a working product/protocol -- the bar will raised even further to have users and utility and metrics on that network.
With the total crypto market cap of $250 billion, we are still in the stone ages for crypto -- we have a lot of building and adoption ahead of us -- feels like early Internet or early mobile days -- big fun ahead!
https://preview.redd.it/av8sxmu44cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=4c9f925974372f126dadb4c545a436a241dde879
Bianca: Vitalik just commented “I definitely hope centralized exchanges go burn in hell.” What’s your take on centralized exchanges such as Bitfinex, Binance, and Fcoin?
Matt: Oh boy, good question -- well I think we are watching the evolution of all of this -- we need certain infrastructure to get from A to B in crypto adoption -- even centralized exchanges and wallets -- they are not for everybody but serve an important purpose and address a market need for folks that have no clue how to manage private keys.
In the exchange space I love watching innovators like CZ and team at Binance -- they created an incredible platform, with a tokenized model that many are trying to emulate -- imitation is the greatest form of flattery ;-) they also have a strategy on how to construct a decentralized exchange.
So if you are not innovating and looking to decentralize, your business model may be at risk in the future -- however decentralized applications like this are hard to build and rely on infrastructure and tech that has not been built or not ready for prime time -- decentralization is a journey.
https://preview.redd.it/jbyfe7l64cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=54fdc23caa27b1fac15e0d3770282a03b87bb5e4
Bianca: Many governments are tightening on crypto regulations. Where do you think the government policy on crypto can go?
Matt: Historically technology innovation has always outpaced regulations -- we are seeing that play out big time in crypto.
I am inspired by what Singapore, Switzerland, Malta, Barbados and other countries are doing to attract projects and innovation to their boards in our industry.
Lots of jurisdictional arbitrage is playing out -- countries smell the crypto ;-) and want to bring jobs, innovation and investment to their borders.
This happened before with online gaming, hedge funds, etc. -- however with crypto, these networks can be trillion dollar blood vessels of value.
Bianca: Given the current market situation, what suggestions do you have for investors, entrepreneurs, and service providers?
Matt: Never has a technology frontier like crypto had the potential to impact power centers like Wall Street and Silicon Valley -- that is and will continue to be tested with crypto.
MONEY = POWER (old adage)
MONEY = TECHNOLOGY (with crypto)
TECHNOLOGY = POWER (new adage)
https://preview.redd.it/suyc16f84cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=7a4a906d87a9d519569f60ed3e2ef37f0d265de6
Bianca: Any story you can share when you sent bitcoins to Clinton and Branson? What were their attitudes towards crypto and blockchain?
Matt: Several years back bitcoin was so abstract to people outside of our industry -- I used to always keep a physical bitcoin on me to use as a conversation starter -- I love the Kialara physical bitcoins -- they are works of art and exposes a cool reaction when I give them to people -- the physicality always helps in a discussion over dinner or a drink -- gives tangible to the intangible ;-)
I was fortunate to meet some great people and try to open their minds to this new technology frontier -- I gave bitcoin to: Richard Branson, Bill Clinton, Steve Wozniak, Robin Wright and many more -- Branson is an inspiration for me in how he conducts business and gives so much back to society and the environment.
Bianca: Last question from the group member: do you think the market value of many digital coins will return to zero?
Matt: My sense is that about 90%+ will go to zero -- I think BTC and ETH will continue to do very well as they are the two "gateway cryptos" for new money (institutions) coming into this ecosystem -- that logic will spread to the top 10-20 large and mid-cap cryptos -- speculative network effects will kick in -- we are still in the investment and speculative phase crypto (like it or not) -- once there is real utility, transactions and throughput, we will see which networks wil remain for the long haul -- the potential here is tens of trillions of value -- we have a long way to go…
https://preview.redd.it/6kwrwjja4cd11.png?width=350&format=png&auto=webp&s=b91c4a9be963b771ac8879ef8da9ac4b2343bd95
Bianca: Before you go, would you like to share your feelings today? Do you have any other words for the ladies in the 499 WeChat Group? :)
Matt: Once more, I am so honored to spend time with you all -- super impressed by the women in this group -- this is the best time to build, invest and be a part of one of the most important societal shifts in history!
submitted by ox3tv to u/ox3tv [link] [comments]

why I'm still convinced btc > eth

disclaimer: I've never held an altcoin except for the ripple giveaway thread and that was taken back by them after I didn't log on for a while(My fault but meh).
I've always been interested in ethereum and how it is "turing complete" . Mostly I am impressed with Vitalik Buterin. I think he is a much better all around guy than any of the bitcore people (since Gavin and Garzik are doing their own thing now). So I don' t mean to disparage ethereum but I have my doubts about it.
Doubt 1:
I think that proof of stake might be a more elegant and less barbaric method of transaction, but I think that our proof of work mining is more robust. Consider for instance that with proof of stake it is assumed that the more stake someone has the more they care about how much it is worth and therefore the more they care about doing what is good for the network. But what if that isn't the case? In the bitcoin world if enough malicious miners act together despite it tanking the price because of what they are doing... we have a defense against that. Changing the proof of work (Or orphaning their blocks possibly) .
Another disclaimer: I'm not an expert or as well researched in ethereum so some of this may be wrong. I know ethereum isn't proof of stake yet, but it is in the plans.
doubt 2: Already we have a "deflationary" currency with bitcoin because it's supply is not centrally managed for increased adoption and growth so instead it is assumed that it will eventually become deflationary since growth and adoption will outpace the supply. This introduces an incentive to hoard. I don't think this is a bad thing... but what happens if you increase this incentive even further? I think that is what proof of stake does. It creates an incentive for coins to be held and this increases the deflationary aspect which will probably ultimately increase volatility. During growth stages volatility is fine and it has even been claimed that volatility is beneficial because it makes us aware not to invest more than we can lose.
doubt 3 Smart contracts are overhyped. After reading a little here and there about smart contracts I am convinced that one of the most knowledgeable people in the space is Gideon Greenspan. He has written several articles about it.
But in the hype-filled world of blockchains, smart contracts are all the rage, so why ever not? Well, the problem is, while we now know of three strong use cases for permissioned bitcoin-style blockchains (provenance, company recordkeeping and lightweight finance), we've yet to find the equivalent for Ethereum smart contracts.
It's not that people don't understand what they want smart contracts to do. Rather, it's that so many of these ideas are simply impossible. When smart people hear the term "smart contracts", their imaginations tend to run wild. They conjure up dreams of autonomous intelligent software, going off into the world, taking data along for the ride. Unfortunately, the reality of smart contracts is more mundane.
doubt 4
Many of the features ethereum promises bitcoin will probably be able to deliver anyway. Rootstock for instance.
Rootstock is another project for advanced smart contracts on a blockchain, and has gathered a lot of talented coders. It purports to do everything that Ethereum does, but without the cryptocurrency Ether
There is also Jeff Garzik's Bloq which runs smart contracts like an 'Ethereum plug-in for Bitcoin'
doubt 5
There is a guy named Chris Odom that was involved with Open transactions and now Stash. He makes a very convincing case that voting pools will be the cheapest way to run smart contracts. Ethereum will be too expensive and it will be more for the "censorship resistance" aspect. Perhaps I am understimating how popular that aspect will be.
doubt 6
Even though I see that a handful of people with very bad personalities and leadership qualities (Gregory Maxwell, Luke Jr, Peter Todd mainly) are essentially in control of what miners are downloading and running I think it is ultimately a self correcting problem. The only question is whether it corrects soon enough.
doubt 7
Paul Sztorc lays into ethereum pretty hard several times and even though he is a small blocker he might still have some valid points. Just one example
submitted by specialenmity to btc [link] [comments]

New Altcoin ‘Metronome' launched

Jeff Garzik, one of the earliest Bitcoin developers, has formally launched an altcoin, dubbed Metronome, which backers allege will be the first cryptocurrency to offer “institutional class” endurance.
Metronome had first been announced by Bloq, Garzik’s blockchain development firm, back in Oct. 2017, when the cryptocurrency market was in the early stages of a parabolic fourth-quarter rally.
The announcement was quite controversial at the time, particularly since Garzik was also the chief developer for SegWit2x, a bitcoin scaling upgrade that caused a sharp divide within the cryptocurrency community and ultimately failed to activate when its planned launch date arrived in November.
Metronome’s selling point is that — using a system of smart contracts — tokens can be exported and imported across a variety of different blockchains without altering the total MET supply. Bloq boasts that this ensures that Metronome will last for “generations,” even if individual underlying blockchain networks fade into obscurity.
“Institutional investors should be very excited to see something like this,” co-founder Matthew Roszak said last year. “We’ve built a thousand-year cryptocurrency, something that’s built to last.”
For his part, Garzik — who first contributed to the Bitcoin codebase in 2010 but has not contributed to the Bitcoin Core repository since 2015 — has said that Metronome is the cryptocurrency he would have built if given a clean slate.
“Today, bitcoin faces existential threats from forks, developer drama and so on. Knowing what we know and having a clean sheet of paper, we asked what would we build and the answer is this.”
Unlike most initial coin offerings (ICOs), metronome is being distributed through a descending price auction, meaning that the crowdsale price decreases over time until no more tokens are remaining. Developers argue that this will reduce FOMO-driven buying and help with price discovery.
Consequently, contributions have been slim during the early hours of the crowdsale, with at least several investors stating on social media that they misunderstood the terms of the sale and thought that the price would go up — not down — as time passed.
As of the time of writing, just 87 of the 8 million MET had been sold, with the price floating at just above 1.85 ETH per token. However, the pace of contributions will likely quicken as the price declines over the next several days.
submitted by Jamesb237 to NeliumInstant [link] [comments]

Thoughts on New bitcoin upgrade proposal / hard fork?

Here is part part of the article below. I just wondered other people's thoughts on this?
To me breaking up bitcoin will kill it and putit back into the "less" trusted GOLD standard ot currently enjoys over all others.
Keeping on mind no matter what they decide it's not goingto make the mining and easier so PRICE POINT must remain a key feature for miners to continue or it will die or become totally centralized regardless!
So it's I just my thoughts but segwit seems the way to go an NO FORK as this keeps the price point growth good for the public which in turn flows back to miners. And solves the issues of fees and scalability anyway and it's BEEN tested. And requires no change?
Ie. I feel unlimited are looking at it backwards, as clearly we are all happy to pay $1 fees for a currency that is DESIGNED to appreciate daily. EVEN NOW!
That was it's original design no? Anti inflation? Anti manipulation by government?
Anyay just wanted to know other people's thought's on the meeting they had today and if you care / think that some miners will really do a fork on their own regardlesss of the gold standard at risk and split the community?
Thanks.
ARTICLE:
Bitcoin's New Scaling 'Agreement': The Reaction http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-new-scaling-agreement-reaction/
via Blockfolio: goo.gl/p95yia
A meeting of bitcoin startup executives and miners held this weekend has resulted in the publication of a new proposal for how the open-source project should be upgraded to support additional transaction capacity.
Detailed in a Medium post published by investment firm Digital Currency Group today, the proposal was billed as an agreement that would make two changes toward this stated goal. The proposal was signed by more than 50 companies, and claims to have support from 83% of the network's miners – businesses that operate computers that secure the blockchain and add new transactions to it.
First, it lowered the barrier for the activation of Segregated Witness, the long-stalled proposal put forward by Bitcoin Core developers in December 2015, to 80% of the network's mining power. Second, it stated that the undersigned businesses would agree to activate software that would upgrade bitcoin's block size to 2MB via a process known as a hard fork.
DCG further called on companies, miners, users and developers to join the proposal via a dedicated web form that was provided in the post.
The company wrote:
"We are also committed to the research and development of technical mechanisms to improve signaling in the bitcoin community, as well as to put in place communication tools, in order to more closely coordinate with ecosystem participants in the design, integration, and deployment of safe solutions that increase bitcoin capacity."
Abra, Bitclub Network, Bitcoin.com, BitFury, Bitmain, BitPay, Blockchain, Bloq, Circle, RSK Labs and Xapo are said to be providing technical and engineering support to prepare for the upgrades, though their commitment was not further detailed.
Notable, however, is the absence of developers making up the open-source development community Bitcoin Core. Blockstream, a company that funds two such developers, opted not to attend the meeting when it was announced in March, with Blockstream CEO Adam Back formally declining to participate on behalf of the startup.
According to those involved, the proposal will use an idea put forth by RSK Labs developer Sergio Demian Lerner in early April, though it's notable that several developers rejected the proposal in following emails. (The idea has been floated many times before as well.)
Speaking to CoinDesk, Lerner affirmed that the startup would play a role in the process, though he said he "probably won't write" the code that is eventually used.
"Our agreement is to audit that code," he said.
No code was released in the announcement, and others were less clear about what technology would underlie the move.
According to those involved, the process by which the measure would be approved involves miners augmenting coinbase transactions in new bitcoin blocks to signal their support, as soft forks are usually deployed. By signaling on "bit", miners would be voicing their approval for a process by which SegWit would be activated at the time of a network fork.
"SegWit can activate immediately and the same bit will say in the future, at X date, a 2 MB hardfork happens, signaling two events with one bit," said Jeff Garzik, founder of bitcoin startup and proposal signatory Bloq.
submitted by CHILLITACOS to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Full English Transcript of Gavin's AMA on 8BTC, April 21st. (Part 1)

Part 2
Part 3
Raw transcript on Google Docs (English+Chinese): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p3DWMfeGHBL6pk4Hu0efgQWGsUAdFNK6zLHubn5chJo/edit?usp=sharing
Translators/Organizers: emusher, kcbitcoin, nextblast, pangcong, Red Li, WangXiaoMeng. (Ranked in alphabetical order)
1.crypto888
Q: What is your relationship with Blockstream now? Are you in a Cold War? Your evaluation on BS was pretty high “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation.” But now, what’s your opinion on BS?
A: I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream.
We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
2. Ma_Ya
Q: 1) Why insist on hard fork at only 75%? You once explained that it is possible to be controlled by 5% if we set the threshold at 95%. I agree, but there should be some balance here. 75% means a high risk in splitting, isn’t it too aggressive? Is it better if we set it to 90%?
A: 1)The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network.
Q: 2) How to solve the potentially very large blocks problem Classic roadmap may cause, and furthur causing the centralization of nodes in the future?
A: 2)Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night).
I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second.
Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned.
Q: 3) Why do you not support the proposal of RBF by Satoshi, and even plan to remove it in Classic completely?
A: 3) Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time.
When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before.
Q: 4) . Your opinion on soft fork SegWit, sidechain, lighnting network. Are you for or against, please give brief reasons. Thanks.
A: 4) The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful.
I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good.
I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them.
Q: 5) Can you share your latest opinion on Brainwallet? It is hard for new users to use long and complex secure passphrase, but is it a good tool if it solves this problem?
A: 5) We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things.
We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
3. BiTeCui
Q: Gavin, do you have bitcoins now? What is your major job in MIT? Has FBI ever investigated on you? When do you think SHA256 might be outdated, it seems like it has been a bit unsafe?
A: Yes, a majority of my own person wealth is still in bitcoins -- more than a financial advisor would say is wise.
My job at MIT is to make Bitcoin better, in whatever way I think best. That is the same major job I had at the Bitcoin Foundation. Sometimes I think the best way to make Bitcoin better is to write some code, sometimes to write a blog post about what I see happening in the Bitcoin world, and sometimes to travel and speak to people.
The FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) has never investigated me, as far as I know. The closest thing to an investigation was an afternoon I spent at the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC. They were interested in how I and the other Bitcoin developers created the software and how much control we have over whether or not people choose to run the software that we create.
“Safe or unsafe” is not the way to think about cryptographic algorithms like SHA256. They do not suddenly go from being 100% secure for everything to completely insecure for everything. I think SHA256 will be safe enough to use in the all ways that Bitcoin is using it for at least ten years, and will be good enough to be used as the proof-of-work algorithm forever.
It is much more likely that ECDSA, the signature algorithm Bitcoin is using today, will start to become less safe in the next ten or twenty years, but developer are already working on replacements (like Schnorr signatures).
4. SanPangHenBang
Q: It’s a pleasure to meet you. I only have one question. Which company are you serving? or where do you get your salary?
A: The Media Lab at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) pays my salary; I don’t receive regular payments from anybody else.
I have received small amounts of stock options in exchange for being a techical advisor to several Bitcoin companies (Coinbase, BitPay, Bloq, Xapo, Digital Currency Group, CoinLab, TruCoin, Chain) which might be worth money some day if one or more of those companies do very well. I make it very clear to these companies that my priority is to make Bitcoin better, and my goal in being an advisor to them is to learn more about the problems they face as they try to bring Bitcoin to more of their customers.
And I am sometimes (once or twice a year) paid to speak at events.
5.SaTuoXi
Q: Would you mind share your opinion on lightning network? Is it complicated to implement? Does it need hard fork?
A: Lightning does not need a hard fork.
It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly.
I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
6. pangcong
Q: 1) There has been a lot of conferences related to blocksize limit. The two took place in HongKong in Decemeber of 2015 and Feberary of 2016 are the most important ones. Despite much opposition, it is undeniable that these two meetings basically determines the current status of Bitcoin. However, as the one of the original founders of Bitcoin, why did you choose to not attend these meetings? If you have ever attended and opposed gmax’s Core roadmap (SegWit Priority) in one of the meetings, we may be in a better situation now, and the 2M hard fork might have already begun. Can you explain your absence in the two meetings? Do you think the results of both meetings are orchestrated by blockstream?
A: 1) I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached.
A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015.
The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents.
I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit.
Q: 2) We have already known that gmax tries to limit the block size so as to get investment for his company. However, it is obvious that overthrowing Core is hard in the short term. What if Core continues to dominate the development of Bitcoin? Is it possible that blockstream core will never raise the blocksize limit because of their company interests?
A: 2) I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically.
He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time.
Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
7. HeiYanZhu
Q: I would like to ask your opinion on the current situation. It’s been two years, but a simple 2MB hard fork could not even be done. In Bitcoin land, two years are incredibly long. Isn’t this enough to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy?
A: I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things.
Q: How can a multi-billion network with millions of users and investors be choked by a handful of people? How can this be called decentrilized and open-source software anymore? It is so hard to get a simple 2MB hard fork, but SegWig and Lighting Network with thousands of lines of code change can be pushed through so fast. Is this normal? It is what you do to define if you are a good man, not what you say.
A: I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer.
The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning.
Q: The problem now is that everybody knows Classic is better, however, Core team has controlled the mining pools using their powers and polical approaches. This made them controll the vast majority of the hashpower, no matter what others propose. In addition, Chinese miners have little communication with the community, and do not care about the developement of the system. Very few of them knows what is going on in the Bitcoin land. They almost handed over their own power to the mining pool, so as long as Core controls the pools, Core controls the whole Bitcoin, no matter how good your Classic is. Under this circumstance, what is your plan?
A: Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy.
Q: From this scaling debate, do you think there is a huge problem with Bitcoin development? Does there exsit development centrilization? Does this situation need improvment? For example, estabilish a fund from Bitcoin as a fundation. It can be used for hiring developers and maintainers, so that we can solve the development issue once and for all.
A: I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks.
And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing).
I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features).
I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
8.jb9802
You are one of the most-repected person in Bitcoin world, I won’t miss the chance to ask some questions. First of all, I am a Classic supporter. I strongly believe that on-chain transcations should not be restrained artificially. Even if there are transcations that are willing to go through Lighting Network in the future, it should be because of a free market, not because of artificial restrication. Here are some of my questions:
Q: 1) For the past two years, you’ve been proposing to Core to scale Bitcoin. In the early days of the discussion, Core devs did agree that the blocksize should be raised. What do you think is the major reason for Core to stall scaling. Does there exist conflict of interest between Blockstream and scaling?
A: 1) There might be unconscious bias, but I think there is just a difference of opinion on priorities and timing.
Q: 2) One of the reason for the Chinese to refuse Classic is that Classic dev team is not technically capable enough for future Bitcoin development. I also noticed that Classic does have a less frequent code release compared to Core. In your opinion, is there any solution to these problems? Have you ever thought to invite capable Chinese programers to join Classic dev team?
A: 2) The great thing about open source software is if you don’t think the development team is good enough (or if you think they are working on the wrong things) you can take the software and hire a better team to improve it.
Classic is a simple 2MB patch on top of Core, so it is intentional that there are not a lot of releases of Classic.
The priority for Classic right now is to do things that make working on Classic better for developers than working on Core, with the goal of attracting more developers. You can expect to see some results in the next month or two.
I invite capable programmers from anywhere, including China, to help any of the teams working on open source Bitcoin software, whether that is Classic or Core or Unlimited or bitcore or btcd or ckpool or p2pool or bitcoinj.
Q: 3) Another reason for some of the Chinese not supporting Classic is that bigger blocks are more vulnerable to spam attacks. (However, I do think that smaller blocks are more vlunerable to spam attack, because smaller amount of money is needed to choke the blockchain.) What’s our opinion on this?
A: 3) The best response to a transaction spam attack is for the network to reject transactions that pay too little fees but to simply absorb any “spam” that is paying as much fees as regular transactions.
The goal for a transaction spammer is to disrupt the network; if there is room for extra transactions in blocks, then the network can just accept the spam (“thank you for the extra fees!”) and continue as if nothing out of the ordinary happened.
Nothing annoys a spammer more than a network that just absorbs the extra transactions with no harmful effects.
Q: 4) According to your understanding on lighting network and sidechains,if most Bitcoin transactions goes throught lighting network or sidechains, it possible that the fees paid on the these network cannot reach the main-chain miners, which leaves miners starving. If yes, how much percent do you think will be given to miners.
A: 4) I don’t know, it will depend on how often lightning network channels are opened and closed, and that depends on how people choose to use lightning.
Moving transactions off the main chain and on to the lightning network should mean less fees for miners, more for lightning network hubs. Hopefully it will also mean lower fees for users, which will make Bitcoin more popular, drive up the price, and make up for the lower transaction fees paid to miners.
Q: 5) The concept of lighting network and sidechains have been out of one or two years already, when do you think they will be fully deployed.
A: 5) Sidechains are already “fully deployed” (unless you mean the version of sidechains that doesn’t rely on some trusted gateways to move bitcoin on and off the sidechain, which won’t be fully deployed for at least a couple of years). I haven’t seen any reports of how successful they have been.
I think Lightning will take longer than people estimate. Seven months ago Adam Back said that the lightning network might be ready “as soon as six months from now” … but I would be surprised if there was a robust, ready-for-everybody-to-use lightning-capable wallet before 2018.
Q: 6)Regarding the hard fork, Core team has assumed that it will cause a chain-split. (Chinese miners are very intimitated by this assumption, I think this is the major reason why most of the Chinese mining pools are not switching to Classic). Do you think Bitcoin will have a chain-split?
A: 6) No, there will not be a chain split. I have not talked to a single mining pool operator, miner, exchange, or major bitcoin business who would be willing to mine a minority branch of the chain or accept bitcoins from a minority branch of the main chain.
Q: 7) From your point of view, do you think there is more Classic supporters or Core supporters in the U.S.?
A: 7) All of the online opinion pools that have been done show that a majority of people worldwide support raising the block size limit.
9. btcc123
Q: Which is more in line with the Satoshi’s original roadmap, Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core? How to make mining pools support and adopt Bitcoin Classic?
A: Bitcoin Classic is more in line with Satoshi’s original roadmap.
We can’t make the mining pools do anything they don’t want to do, but they are run by smart people who will do what they think is best for their businesses and Bitcoin.
10.KuHaiBian
Q: Do you have any solution for mining centralization? What do you think about the hard fork of changing mining algorithms?
A: I have a lot of thoughts on mining centralization; it would probably take ten or twenty pages to write them all down.
I am much less worried about mining centralization than most of the other developers, because Satoshi designed Bitcoin so miners make the most profit when they do what is best for Bitcoin. I have also seen how quickly mining pools come and go; people were worried that the DeepBit mining pool would become too big, then it was GHash.io…
And if a centralized mining pool does become too big and does something bad, the simplest solution is for businesses or people to get together and create or fund a competitor. Some of the big Bitcoin exchanges have been seriously considering doing exactly that to support raising the block size limit, and that is exactly the way the system is supposed to work-- if you don’t like what the miners are doing, then compete with them!
I think changing the mining algorithm is a complicated solution to a simple problem, and is not necessary.
11. ChaLi
Q: Last time you came to China, you said you want to "make a different". I know that in USA the opposition political party often hold this concept, in order to prevent the other party being totally dominant. Bitcoin is born with a deep "make a different" nature inside. But in Chinese culture, it is often interpreted as split “just for the sake of splitting”, can you speak your mind on what is your meaning of "make a different"?
A: I started my career in Silicon Valley, where there is a lot of competition but also a lot of cooperation. The most successful companies find a way to be different than their competitors; it is not a coincidence that perhaps the most successful company in the world (Apple Computer) had the slogan “think different.”
As Bitcoin gets bigger (and I think we all agree we want Bitcoin to get bigger!) it is natural for it to split and specialize; we have already seen that happening, with lots of choices for different wallets, different exchanges, different mining chips, different mining pool software.
12. bluestar
Q: 1) The development of XT and Classic confirmed my thoughts that it is nearly impossible to use a new version of bitcoin to replace the current bitcoin Core controlled by Blockstream. I think we will have to live with the power of Blockstream for a sufficient long time. It means we will see the deployment of SegWit and Lighting network. If it really comes to that point, what will you do? Will you also leave like Mike Hearn?
A: 1) With the development of Blockchain, bitcoin will grow bigger and bigger without any doubts, And also there will be more and more companies related to the bitcoin network. When it comes to money, there will be a lot of fights between these companies. Is it possible to form some kind of committee to avoid harmful fights between these companies and also the situation that a single company controlling the direction of the bitcoin development? Is there any one doing this kind of job right now?
Q: 2) My final question would be, do you really think it is possible that we can have a decentralized currency? Learning from the history, it seems like every thing will become centralized as long as it involves human. Do you have any picture for a decentralized currency or even a society? Thanks.
A: 2) I think you might be surprised at what most people are running a year or three from now. Perhaps it will be a future version of Bitcoin Core, but I think there is a very good chance another project will be more successful.
I remember when “everybody” was running Internet Explorer or Firefox, and people thought Google was crazy to think that Chrome would ever be a popular web browser. It took four years for Chrome to become the most popular web browser.
In any case, I plan on working on Bitcoin related projects for at least another few years. Eventually it will become boring or I will decide I need to take a couple of years of and think about what I want to do next.
As for fights between companies: there are always fights between companies, in every technology. There are organizations like the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) that try to create committees so engineers at companies can spend more time cooperating and less time fighting; I’m told by people who participate in IETF meetings that they are usually helpful and create useful standards more often than not.
Finally, yes, I do think we can have a “decentralized-enough” currency. A currency that might be controlled at particular times by a small set of people or companies, but that gives everybody else the ability to take control if those people or businesses misbehave.
13. satoshi
Hi Gavin, I have some questions:
Q: 1) I noticed there are some new names added to the classic team list. Most people here only know you and Jeff. Can you briefly introduce some others to the Chinese community?
A: 1)
Tom Zander has been acting as lead developer, and is an experienced C++ developer who worked previously on the Qt and Debian open source projects.
Pedro Pinheiro is on loan from Blockchain.info, and has mostly worked on continuous integration and testing for Classic.
Jon Rumion joined recently, and has been working on things that will make life for developers more pleasant (I don’t want to be more specific, I don’t want to announce things before they are finished in case they don’t work out).
Jeff has been very busy starting up Bloq, so he hasn’t been very active with Classic recently. I’ve also been very busy traveling (Barbados, Idaho, London and a very quick trip to Beijing) so haven’t been writing much code recently.
Q: 2) if bitcoin classic succeeded (>75% threshold), what role would you play in the team after the 2MB upgrade finished, as a leader, a code contributor, a consultant, or something else?
A: 2)Contributor and consultant-- I am trying not to be leader of any software project right now, I want to leave that to other people who are better at managing and scheduling and recruiting and all of the other things that need to be done to lead a software project.
Q: 3) if bitcoin classic end up failed to achieve mainstream adoption (<75% 2018), will you continue the endeavor of encouraging on-chain scaling and garden-style growth of bitcoin?
A: 3) Yes. If BIP109 does not happen, I will still be pushing to get a good on-chain solution to happen as soon as possible.
Q: 4) Have you encountered any threat in your life, because people would think you obviously have many bitcoins, like what happened to Hal Finney (RIP), or because some people have different ideas about what bitcoin's future should be?
A: 4) No, I don’t think I have received any death threats. It upsets me that other people have.
Somebody did threaten to release my and my wife’s social security numbers and other identity information if I did not pay them some bitcoins a couple of years ago. I didn’t pay, they did release our information, and that has been a little inconvenient at times.
Q: 5) Roger Ver (Bitcoin Jesus) said bitcoin would worth thousands of dollars. Do you have similar thoughts? If not, what is your opinion on bitcoin price in future?
A: 5) I learned long ago to give up trying to predict the price of stocks, currencies, or Bitcoin. I think the price of Bitcoin will be higher in ten years, but I might be wrong.
Q: 6) You've been to China. What's your impression about the country, people, and the culture here? Thank you!
A: 6) I had a very quick trip to Beijing a few weeks ago-- not nearly long enough to get a good impression of the country or the culture.
I had just enough time to walk around a little bit one morning, past the Forbidden City and walk around Tianmen Square. There are a LOT of people in China, I think the line to go into the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall was the longest I have ever seen!
Beijing reminded me a little bit of London, with an interesting mix of the very old with the very new. The next time I am in China I hope I can spend at least a few weeks and see much more of the country; I like to be in a place long enough so that I really can start to understand the people and cultures.
14. Pussinboots
Q: Dear Gavin, How could I contact you, we have an excellent team and good plans. please confirm your linkedin.
A: Best contact for me is [email protected] : but I get lots of email, please excuse me if your messages get lost in the flood.
15. satoshi
Q: Gavin, you've been both core and classic code contributor. Are there any major differences between the two teams, concerning code testing (quality control) and the release process of new versions?
A: Testing and release processes are the same; a release candidate is created and tested, and once sufficiently tested, a final release is created, cryptographically signed by several developers, and then made available for download.
The development process for Classic will be a little bit different, with a ‘develop’ branch where code will be pulled more quickly and then either fixed or reverted based on how testing goes. The goal is to create a more developer-friendly process, with pull requests either accepted or rejected fairly quickly.
16. tan90d
I am a bitcoin enthusiast and a coin holder. I thank you for your great contribution to bitcoin. Please allow me to state some of my views before asking:
  1. I'm on board with classic
  2. I support the vision to make bitcoin a powerful currency that could compete with Visa
  3. I support segwit, so I'll endorse whichever version of bitcoin implementation that upgrades to segwit, regardless of block size.
  4. I disagree with those who argue bitcoin main blockchain should be a settlement network with small blocks. My view is that on the main chain btc should function properly as a currency, as well as a network for settlement.
  5. I'm against the deployment of LN on top of small block sized blockchain. Rather, it should be built on a chain with bigger blocks.
  6. I also won’t agree with the deployment of many sidechains on top of small size block chain. Rather, those sidechains should be on chain with bigger blocks.
With that said, below are my questions:
Q: 1) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 1) If the block limit is not raised, then no, I don’t think transaction fees will be that high.
Q: 2) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 2) Yes, the vision is lots of transactions, each paying a very small fee, adding up to a big total for the miners.
Q: 3) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, do you think POW would fail in future, because the mining industry might be accounted too low value compared with that of the bitcoin total market, so that big miners could threaten btc market and gain profit by shorting?
*The questioner further explained his concern.
Currently, its about ~1.1 billion CNY worth of mining facilities protecting ~42 billion CNY worth (6.5 Billion USD) of bitcoin market. The ratio is ~3%. If bitcoin market cap continues to grow and we adopt layered development plan, the mining portion may decrease, pushing the ratio go even down to <1%, meaning we are using very small money protecting an huge expensive system. For example, in 2020 if bitcoin market cap is ~100 billion CNY, someone may attempt to spend ~1 billion CNY bribe/manipulate miners to attack the network, thus making a great fortune by shorting bitcoin and destroying the ecosystem.
A: 3) Very good question, I have asked that myself. I have asked people if they know if there have been other cases where people destroyed a company or a market to make money by shorting it -- as far as I know, that does not happen. Maybe because it is impossible to take a large short position and remain anonymous, so even if you were successful, you would be arrested for doing whatever you did to destroy the company or market (e.g. blow up a factory to destroy a company, or double-spend fraud to try to destroy Bitcoin).
Q: 4) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, will the blocks become too big that kill decentralization?
A: 4) No, if you look at how many transactions the typical Internet connection can support, and how many transactions even a smart phone can validate per second, we can support many more transactions today with the hardware and network connections we have now.
And hardware and network connections are getting faster all the time.
Q: 5) In theory, even if we scale bitcoin with just LN and sidechains, the main chain still needs blocks with size over 100M, in order to process the trading volume matching Visa's network. So does core have any on-chain scaling plan other than 2MB? Or Core does not plan to evolve bitcoin into something capable of challenging visa?
A: 5) Some of the Core developer talk about a “flexcap” solution to the block size limit, but there is no specific proposal.
I think it would be best to eliminate the limit all together. That sounds crazy, but the most successful Internet protocols have no hard upper limits (there is no hard limit to how large a web page may be, for example), and no protocol limit is true to Satoshi’s original design.
Q: 6) If (the majority of) hash rate managed to switch to Classic in 2018, will the bitcoin community witness the deployment of LN in two years (~2018)?
A: 6) The bottleneck with Lightning Network will be wallet support, not support down at the Bitcoin protocol level. So I don’t think the deployment schedule of LN will be affected much whether Classic is adopted or not.
Q: 7) If (majority) hash rate upgraded to blocks with segwit features in 2017 as specified in core's roadmap, would classic propose plans to work on top of that (blocks with segwit)? Or insist developing simplified segwit blocks as described in classic's roadmap?
A: 7) Classic will follow majority hash rate. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else.
Q: 8) If most hash rate is still on core's side before 2018, will you be disappointed with bitcoin, and announce that bitcoin has failed like what Mike did, and sell all your stashed coins at some acceptable price?
A: 8) No-- I have said that I think if the block size limit takes longer to resolve, that is bad for Bitcoin in the short term, but smart engineers will work around whatever road blocks you put in front of them. I see Bitcoin as a long-term project.
Q: 9) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 9) I think Blockstream might lose some employees, but otherwise I don’t think it will matter much. They are still producing interesting technology that might become a successful business.
Q: 10) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 10) I don’t think Blockstream’s fate depends on whether or not BIP109 is adopted. It depends much more on whether or not they find customers willing to pay for the technology that they are developing.
Q: 11) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of companies that support classic, such as Coinbse, bitpay, and Blockchain.info?
A: 11) We have already seen companies like Kraken support alternative currencies (Kraken supports Litecoin and Ether); if there is no on-chain scaling solution accepted by the network, I think we will see more companies “hedging their bets” by supporting other currencies that have a simpler road map for supporting more transactions.
Q: 12) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, will that hinder the development of sidechain tech? What will happen to companies like Rockroot(Rootstock?) ?
A: 12) No, I think the best use of sidechains is for things that might be too risky for the main network (like Rootstock) or are narrowly focused on a small number of Bitcoin users. I don’t think hash rate supporting Classic will have any effect on that.
Q: 13) Between the two versions of bitcoin client, which one is more conducive to mining industry, classic or core?
A: 13) I have been working to make Classic better for the mining industry, but right now they are almost identical so it would be dishonest to say one is significantly better than the other.
17. Alfred
Q: Gavin, can you describe what was in your mind when you first learned bitcoin?
A: I was skeptical that it could actually work! I had to read everything I could about it, and then read the source code before I started to think that maybe it could actually be successful and was not a scam.
submitted by kcbitcoin to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Price WILL BLOW UP Soon  Institutional Money Are Coming Into Crypto 16-07-2020 episode - Daily BITCOIN price PREDICTOIN (my wild GUESS) 11-07-2020 episode - Daily BITCOIN price PREDICTOIN (my wild GUESS) 17-07-2020 episode - Daily BITCOIN price PREDICTOIN (my wild GUESS) Momentum is Shifting Higher for This Crypto

Bloq delivers a suite of multi-blockchain infrastructure services (e.g., Nodes, APIs, etc.), built to grow as your business grows and as blockchain tech advances. Bitcoin’s unexpected price jump saw the cryptocurrency jump almost $600 in just over thirty minutes of trading on Tuesday, July 17, 2018. By Wednesday morning, the price settled at $7,370, with signs of continued upward movement. Naturally, many investors are worried about a potential pump-and-dump cycle, while others throw caution to the wind and dive into the market head first. Bitcoin price today is trading at around $10,000, but given how volatile the asset is and its propensity to go on parabolic runs, Bitcoin price tomorrow could double or set a new all-time high. Bitcoin started off its life virtually worthless, with a value of far less than a penny when the Bitcoin Core client code was released into the wild. The price of Bitcoins has gone through various cycles of appreciation and depreciation. According to wikipedia Bitcoin has volatility seven times greater than gold, eight times greater than the S&P 500, and 18 times greater than the US dollar. Digital money that’s instant, private, and free from bank fees. Download our official wallet app and start using Bitcoin today. Read news, start mining, and buy BTC or BCH.

[index] [24122] [25514] [13152] [24232] [175] [23914] [7121] [28237] [1618] [25409]

Bitcoin Price WILL BLOW UP Soon Institutional Money Are Coming Into Crypto

We know that mainstream media isn’t not very transparent about cryptocurrency space and bitcoin… They might be lying to us, but there is something we can do about it, instead of listening to ... TechnicalRoundup is sponsored by Bybit (https://twitter.com/Bybit_Official) Visit Bybit: https://bit.ly/2XMxbuJ ----- Technic... Bitcoin price predictions: 1 target $19.000 +80%, 2 target $35.000 +230%, in the next 1.500 days! DON'T CLICK THIS: https://bit.ly/2CfXa6Q If you are a trader, then is this the right trading ... This is my daily SHORT video with a total duration of 1 minute. I use this BITCOIN price prediction for my own investment and share with my followers. I know the presentation is very simple, but ... The price of Bitcoin ( BTC ) dropped below $9,000 from $9,660 within seven hours. The 7% plunge comes as $55 million worth of long futures contracts were liquidated on BitMEX.

Flag Counter