"Bitcoin Cash has no CEO!" I typed this comment for you to more easily copy-paste. Now, you have a second to hear me out. I think it's worth reminding people about this fantastic write up by Rick Falkvinge about the conflict resolution in Bitcoin Cash called (jokingly) "Official Statement from the CEO of Bitcoin Cash". Many of us disagree about what should we build, how should something look like, what are the limits, who sets the limits and I think Rick gives us a great advice here:
It means we don’t berate others for doing what we don’t like, but either choose to ignore it, or do something we like instead, which others are free to follow in turn.
PSA: To all the lurkers out there, speak your voice
For those of you that may not remember, there was a long period of time where the big block community could not freely speak their voice. After years of suppression, we now have our coin (BCH) and our own free speech forum (/btc). As Rick Falkvinge said, "Everybody is free to take any initiative for the Bitcoin Cash project." And we are all the CEO of Bitcoin Cash, even you the lurker out there. You're the one who:
Has been following BCH, BTC, ETH, etc for a long time
Has lots of thoughts and feelings
Doesn't write any of them
This is a land of free speech and opinion. See something you disagree with, say it and explain why. If you're factually wrong, someone might give a link to gently explain why. We are all here to learn and contribute. None of us knows everything and if you've read this far, you probably know enough to contribute in this forum or in a million ways to the BCH community. Don't be scared (I know I used to be), but over time learned that contributing and getting involved makes the journey that much more interesting.
Wrong information about Bitcoin Cash in a tutorial on your site
Hi BitDegree, You may not be aware of this, but this tutorial on your site contains wrong, misleading information in the section about Bitcoin Cash. It says:
"Bitcoin Cash, like Bitcoin, is expected to be completely decentralized. But guess what, it has a CEO instead"
That's completely untrue - there is no company in charge of Bitcoin Cash. Just like Bitcoin, there are many companies that support it, but their CEOs are not the CEOs of the currency which is open to all and permissionless. Shortly after Bitcoin Cash was created in August 2017, Rick Falkvinge of the Swedish Pirate Party made a humorous post which he described as an "Official Statement from the CEO of Bitcoin Cash" but in fact it describes exactly how BCH has no CEO. https://falkvinge.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/letter-from-the-ceo.pdf Hopefully you have some ability to correct the misinformation. Thanks!
Since PIA (Private Internet Access) is actively promoting the fake Bitcoin scam I cannot trust them anymore. What are alternative VPNs payable in Bitcoin?
PIA has aquired blockexplorer.com which has then announced to refer to a centralized altcoin as "Bitcoin" in the future. I am flabbergasted that a company that has a business model based on trusting them and that had such a good reputation is fucking that up by promoting an outright scam. Same counts for Rick Falkvinge, who works for both companies and is obviously the person initiating this weird move. Rick is "head of privacy" at PIA and CEO of blockexplorer.com and is at the same time publishing outright lies about Bitcoin's technology (like "Segwit is patented": https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place/ despite knowing very well that no such patents exist). However, since they cannot be trusted anymore and since I will in no way support the intended dillution of the Bitcoin brand in order to confuse newbies and trick them into buying fake bitcoins I am looking for an alternative VPN provider who accepts Bitcoin. I want to move away from PIA asap, like right now. Any suggestions? Update: thanks for the tips! Trying out torguard now. Just deleted PIA from all my systems and feel much safer now :).
A Compressed 3 Years Of Dialogue Between Blockstream And The Non-Blockstream Bitcoin Community:
excerpts from:Rick Falkvinge's post BS: "We’re developing Lightning as a Layer-2 solution! It will require some really cool additional features!" Com: "Ok, sounds good, but we need to scale on-chain soon too." BS: "We’ve come up with this Segwit package to enable the Lightning Network. It’s kind of a hack, but it solves malleability and quadratic hashing. It has a small scaling bonus as well, but it’s not really intended as a scaling solution, so we don’t like it being talked of as such." Com: "Sure, let’s do that and also increase the blocksize limit." BS: "We hear that you want to increase the block size." Com: "Yes. A 20MB limit would be appropriate at this time." BS: "We propose 2MB, for a later increase to 4 and 8." Com: "That’s ridiculous, but alright, as long as we’re scaling exponentially." BS: "Actually, we changed our mind. We’re not increasing the blocksize limit at all." Com: "Fine, we’ll all switch to Bitcoin Classic instead." BS: "Hello Miners! Will you sign this agreement to only run Core software in exchange for us promising a 2MB non-witness-data hardfork?" Miners: "Well, maybe, but only if the CEO of Blockstream signs." Adam:...signs as CEO of Blockstream... Miners: "Okay. Let’s see how much honor you have." Adam:..revokes signature immediately to sign as “Individual”.. Miners: "That’s dishonorable, but we’re not going to be dishonorable just because you are." BS: "Actually, we changed our mind, we’re not going to deliver a 2MB hardfork to you either." Com: "Looking more closely at Segwit, it’s a really ugly hack. It’s dead in the water. Give it up." BS: "Segwit will get 95% support! We have talked to ALL the best companies!" Com: "There is already 20% in opposition to Segwit. It’s impossible for it to achieve 95%." BS: "Segwit is THE SCALING solution! It is an ACTUAL blocksize increase!" Com: "We need a compromise to end this stalemate." BS: "Segwit WAS and IS the compromise! There must be no blocksize limit increase! Segwit is the blocksize increase!"
READ: Blockstream having patents in Segwit makes all the weird pieces of the last three years fall perfectly into place
IMPORTANT: This post hast been blocked immediately on bitcoin but not on btc ==> https://imgur.com/gallery/cp1Oy ==> https://imgur.com/gallery/GagTd https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place/ Based on Blockstream’s behavior in the Bitcoin community, I have become absolutely certain that Segwit contains patents that Blockstream and/or their owners have planned to use offensively. I base this not on having read the actual patents, for they can be kept secret for quite some time; I base this on observing Blockstream’s behavior, and having seen the exact same behavior many times before in the past 20 years from entities that all went bankrupt. In a previous part of my career, I was making telecom standards. This meant meeting with lots of representatives from other companies somewhere on the globe once a month and negotiating what would go into the standard that we would all later follow. I was a representative of Microsoft. I would meet with people from Nokia, Ericsson, AT&T, and many other corporate names you’d recognize instantly, in small groups to negotiate standards going forward. One thing that was quite clear in these negotiations was that everybody was trying to get as much as possible of their own patent portfolio into the industry standard, while still trying to maintain a façade of arguing purely on technical merits. Some were good at it. Some were not very good at it at all. One of the dead-sure telltale signs of the latter was that somebody would argue that feature X should use mechanism Y (where they had undisclosed patent encumbrance) based on a technical argument that made no sense. When us technical experts in the room pointed out how the argument made no sense, they would repeat that feature X should absolutely use mechanism Y, but now based on a completely new rationale, which didn’t make any sense either. The real reason they were pushing so hard for mechanism Y, of course, was that they had patents covering mechanism Y and wanted their patented technology to go into the industry standard, but they were unable to make a coherent argument that withstood technical scrutiny for why it was the preferable solution at hand, with or without such encumbrance. In other word, classic goalpost moving. As a technical team made up of many people from different ....=>>>> https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place/
Bitcoin Cash Merchant Adoption Blitzkrieg - Day 1 - 4 Dec 2017
As many of you know, the Accept Bitcoin Cash initiative site has launched thanks to the hard working Accept Bitcoin Cash team. However it's not enough to rest on our laurels and post Vegeta memes all day hoping for the price to go up. We've got some major catching up to do. What we need to do is focus on massive merchant adoption. Bitcoin Cash is only useful as a store of value if you can actually buy things with it. The only way that happens is by letting merchants know that we want to pay them with Bitcoin Cash and that we're prepared to do so. Bitcoin Cash actually benefits from being a functional network, unlike Bitcoin Legacy with its high fees, congestion and Tab payment mechanism which is always 18 months away. Bitcoin Cash has a lot of good selling points, even more so than most other cryptocurrencies if you actually research their fundamentals. Any merchants currently supporting BTC should be able to support Bitcoin Cash with a few tweaks to their software. So the plan is each day we have a new merchant/service/exchange we want to target together in a coordinated campaign. We can start with some of the biggest global ones first so the network effect grows faster. All we need to do is send one tweet each asking them to support Bitcoin Cash. It will only take a few seconds of your time. We need everyone involved, some have more Twitter outreach and influence than others. Don't just sit on the sideline and watch, get involved too. You want your Bitcoin Cash to grow in value too, right? Our critics call us "coffee coin" so let's try getting a major cafe chain onboard. To kick things off, I thought we could start off with Starbucks. I like a nice ice cold frappuccino as much as the next guy (and my waistline shows it). Next time we can do Amazon, Netflix, Uber, Lamborghini, Newegg, airlines, online services etc, whatever you like. Feel free to post suggestions for next time in the comments. I don't even need to be running the show here. With Bitcoin Cash everyone's the CEO. If I haven't posted the daily thread by 00:00 UTC due to work, travel etc feel free to copy the template and post it yourself. Here's our plan for today:
Register for a Twitter account if you don't already have one (remember to confirm your email).
Click on the Twitter icon for Starbucks and send them a tweet or alternatively send them a message on Facebook. If you were really keen and have plenty of free time on your hands you could email them. Feel free to change up the message to add your own reasons why they should support Bitcoin Cash. Let's keep all communications genuine and professional though to keep a good impression.
Optionally report back here when you've tweeted.
In the future Starbucks or whoever else add support for Bitcoin Cash, go buy something with Bitcoin Cash to show your support. I know Bitcoin Legacy has a "HODL at all costs" culture, but if we want Bitcoin Cash to be accepted everywhere and deprecate the banking system then we all need to actually use it for payments. For me personally I will do a bit of long term saving and spending. I'll try save up a certain amount long term for retirement, save up another amount and cash out that amount for a house one day, maybe another portion for a car and the rest I'll set aside for spending. You can come up with your own strategy like buying a small amount each month with your paycheck. Once more merchants start coming on board we can also make an issue or Pull Request to keep the site up to date. This will be the go-to site to know who is currently accepting Bitcoin Cash and where you can go to spend it. If you don't see a merchant or service on there feel free to add it too. The more the merrier.
Right on the Money: Bitcoin hits $3,000, or 1000x my entry point six years ago
http://falkvinge.net/2017/06/11/right-money-bitcoin-hits-3000-1000x-entry-point-six-years-ago/ Or maybe I should say that bitcoin reached the first target I predicted. Today, I refrain from making predictions for bitcoin until scaling is properly resolved with good engineering, and the obstructing company Blockstream has been kicked out of the community; the currency really has no future until this event has taken place as Blockstream has negated all the utility I originally pointed out through insanely tone-deaf non-business, but cryptocurrency as a whole remains extremely disruptive, be it the first-mover variant (bitcoin) or a second-mover variant. -- Falkvinge
Bitcoin, huh? WTF is going on? Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Will you stay decentralized, distributed, immutable?
0. Shit, this is long, TLWR please! Too long, won't read. EDIT: TLDR TLWR for clarity.
Bitcoin is a decentralized, distributed, immutable network. It has users, nodes, and miners, all of which participate in building a public and pseudonymous ledger of blocks called blockchain. The blockchain requires its own currency to function and this currency is called Bitcoin.
The bitcoin network is going through growing pains. Some believe that it should be scaled on-chain with high-volume-low-cost transaction fees, whereas others believe that it has to be scaled off-chain with low-volume-high-cost transaction fees and more affordable second layer solutions. Each have relative advantages and disadvantages. A compromise has not been reached yet.
The off-chain scaling solution via Bitcoin Core SegWit’s lightning network diminishes distributed and immutable network properties. It replaces bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network with a two-layer institution-to-institution network and peer-to-hub-to-peer second layer solution.
The on-chain scaling solution via Bitcoin Cash’s increased block size limit is feasible at the moment but inefficient in the long run. It could be merged with several good concepts from the lightning network proposal and new ideas outlined in this overview.
An appropriate scaling analogy is to recall email attachments early on. They too were limited to a few MB at first, then 10MB, 20MB, up until 25MB on Gmail. But even then, Gmail eventually started using Google Drive internally.
Similarly, any second layer solutions should be integrated within the existing bitcoin network secured by miners and nodes. The revenue from any second layer solutions should be redistributed internally to miners and nodes, not to additional third party hubs which the lightning network envisions.
The author of this overview recommends on-chain scaling for the time being, with the understanding that off-chain scaling should be implemented as soon as possible, as long as these second layer solutions keep the bitcoin peer-to-peer and decentralized, distributed, immutable. Unfortunately, the lightning network does not accomplish this.
The author remains impartial to Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash proposals, with a preference for Bitcoin Cash’s way of handling immutability and overall progress thus far.
1. Bitcoin, huh? Brief introduction. There are 3 sections to this overview. The first section is a brief introduction to bitcoin. The second section looks at recent developments in the bitcoin world, through the analogy of email attachments, and the third section discusses what could be next, through the perspective of resilience and network security. This is just a continuation of a long, long, possibly never-ending debate that started with the release of the bitcoin whitepaper in 2008 (see https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf). The recent mess during the past few years boils down to the controversy with the block size limit and how to appropriately scale bitcoin, the keyword appropriately. Scaling bitcoin is a controversial debate with valid arguments from all sides (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_size_limit_controversy). I have researched, studied, and written this overview as objectively and as impartially as possible. By all means, this is still an opinion and everyone is advised to draw their own conclusions. My efforts are to make at least a few readers aware that ultimately there is only one team, and that team is the team bitcoin. Yes, currently though, there are factions within the team bitcoin. I hope that we can get beyond partisan fights and work together for the best bitcoin. I support all scaling proposals as long as they are the best for the given moment in time. Personally, I hate propaganda and love free speech as long as it is not derogatory and as long as it allows for constructive discussions. The goal of this overview is to explain to a novice how bitcoin network works, what has been keeping many bitcoin enthusiasts concerned, and if we can keep the bitcoin network with three main properties described as decentralized, distributed, immutable. Immutable means censorship resistant. For the distinction between decentralized and distributed, refer to Figure 1: Centralized, decentralized and distributed network models by Paul Baran (1964), which is a RAND Institute study to create a robust and nonlinear military communication network (see https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/research_memoranda/2006/RM3420.pdf). Note that for the overall network resilience and security, distributed is more desirable than decentralized, and the goal is to get as far away from central models as possible. Of course, nothing is strictly decentralized or strictly distributed and all network elements are at different levels of this spectrum. For those unaware how bitcoin works, I recommend the Bitcoin Wikipedia (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page). In short, the bitcoin network includes users which make bitcoin transactions and send them to the network memory pool called mempool, nodes which store the public and pseudonymous ledger called blockchain and which help with receiving pending transactions and updating processed transactions, thus securing the overall network, and miners which also secure the bitcoin network by mining. Mining is the process of confirming pending bitcoin transactions, clearing them from the mempool, and adding them to blocks which build up the consecutive chain of blocks on the blockchain. The blockchain is therefore a decentralized and distributed ledger built on top of bitcoin transactions, therefore impossible to exist without bitcoin. If someone claims to be working on their own blockchain without bitcoin, by the definition of the bitcoin network however, they are not talking about the actual blockchain. Instead, they intend to own a different kind of a private database made to look like the public and pseudonymous blockchain ledger. There are roughly a couple of dozen mining pools, each possibly with hundreds or thousands of miners participating in them, to several thousand nodes (see https://blockchain.info/pools and https://coin.dance/nodes). Therefore, the bitcoin network has at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. The miner and node design makes the blockchain resilient and immune to reversible changes, making it censorship resistant, thus immutable. The bitcoin blockchain avoids the previous need for a third party to trust. This is a very elegant solution to peer-to-peer financial exchange via a network that is all: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Extra features (escrow, reversibility via time-locks, and other features desirable in specific instances) can be integrated within the network or added on top of this network, however, they have not been implemented yet. Miners who participate receive mining reward consisting of newly mined bitcoins at a predetermined deflationary rate and also transaction fees from actual bitcoin transactions being processed. It is estimated that in 2022, miners will have mined more than 90% of all 21 million bitcoins ever to be mined (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Controlled_supply). As the mining reward from newly mined blocks diminishes to absolute zero in 2140, the network eventually needs the transaction fees to become the main component of the reward. This can happen either via high-volume-low-cost transaction fees or low-volume-high-cost transaction fees. Obviously, there is the need to address the question of fees when dealing with the dilemma how to scale bitcoin. Which type of fees would you prefer and under which circumstances? 2. WTF is going on? Recent developments. There are multiple sides to the scaling debate but to simplify it, first consider the 2 main poles. In particular, to scale bitcoin on blockchain or to scale it off it, that is the question! The first side likes the idea of bitcoin as it has been until now. It prefers on-chain scaling envisioned by the bitcoin creator or a group of creators who chose the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto. It is now called Bitcoin Cash and somewhat religiously follows Satoshi’s vision from the 2008 whitepaper and their later public forum discussions (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366). Creators’ vision is good to follow but it should not be followed blindly and dogmatically when better advancements are possible, the keyword when. To alleviate concerning backlog of transactions and rising fees, Bitcoin Cash proponents implemented a simple one-line code update which increased the block size limit for blockhain blocks from 1MB block size limit to a new, larger 8MB limit. This was done through a fork on August 1, 2017, which created Bitcoin Cash, and which kept the bitcoin transaction history until then. Bitcoin Cash has observed significant increase in support, from 3% of all bitcoin miners at first to over 44% of all bitcoin miners after 3 weeks on August 22, 2017 (see http://fork.lol/pow/hashrate and http://fork.lol/pow/hashrateabs). An appropriate scaling analogy is to recall email attachments early on. They too were limited to a few MB at first, then 10MB, 20MB, up until 25MB on Gmail. But even then, Gmail eventually started using Google Drive internally. Note that Google Drive is a third party to Gmail, although yes, it is managed by the same entity. The second side argues that bitcoin cannot work with such a scaling approach of pre-meditated MB increases. Arguments against block size increases include miner and node centralization, and bandwidth limitations. These are discussed in more detail in the third section of this overview. As an example of an alternative scaling approach, proponents of off-chain scaling want to jump to the internally integrated third party right away, without any MB increase and, sadly, without any discussion. Some of these proponents called one particular implementation method SegWit, which stands for Segregated Witness, and they argue that SegWit is the only way that we can ever scale up add the extra features to the bitcoin network. This is not necessarily true because other scaling solutions are feasible, such as already functioning Bitcoin Cash, and SegWit’s proposed solution will not use internally integrated third party as shown next. Note that although not as elegant as SegWit is today, there are other possibilities to integrate some extra features without SegWit (see /Bitcoin/comments/5dt8tz/confused_is_segwit_needed_for_lightning_network). Due to the scaling controversy and the current backlog of transactions and already high fees, a third side hastily proposed a compromise to a 2MB increase in addition to the proposed SegWit implementation. They called it SegWit2x, which stands for Segregated Witness with 2MB block size limit increase. But the on-chain scaling and Bitcoin Cash proponents did not accept it due to SegWit’s design redundancy and hub centralization which are discussed next and revisited in the third section of this overview. After a few years of deadlock, that is why the first side broke free and created the Bitcoin Cash fork. The second side stuck with bitcoin as it was. In a way, they inherited the bitcoin network without any major change to public eye. This is crucial because major changes are about to happen and the original bitcoin vision, as we have known it, is truly reflected only in what some media refer to as a forked clone, Bitcoin Cash. Note that to avoid confusion, this second side is referred to as Bitcoin Core by some or Legacy Bitcoin by others, although mainstream media still refers to it simply as Bitcoin. The core of Bitcoin Core is quite hardcore though. They too rejected the proposed compromise for SegWit2x and there are clear indications that they will push to keep SegWit only, forcing the third side with SegWit2x proponents to create another fork in November 2017 or to join Bitcoin Cash. Note that to certain degree, already implemented and working Bitcoin Cash is technically superior to SegWit2x which is yet to be deployed (see /Bitcoin/comments/6v0gll/why_segwit2x_b2x_is_technically_inferior_to). Interestingly enough, those who agreed to SegWit2x have been in overwhelming majority, nearly 87% of all bitcoin miners on July 31, 2017 prior to the fork, and a little over 90% of remaining Bitcoin Core miners to date after the fork (see https://coin.dance/blocks). Despite such staggering support, another Bitcoin Core fork is anticipated later in November (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/bitcoin-is-splitting-once-again-are-you-ready) and the "Outcome #2: Segwit2x reneges on 2x or does not prioritize on-chain scaling" seems to be on track from the perspective of Bitcoin Core SegWit, publicly seen as the original Bitcoin (see https://blog.bridge21.io/before-and-after-the-great-bitcoin-fork-17d2aad5d512). The sad part is that although in their overwhelming majority, the miners who support SegWit2x would be the ones creating another Bitcoin Core SegWit2x fork or parting ways from the original Bitcoin. In a way, this is an ironic example how bitcoin’s built-in resiliency to veto changes causes majority to part away when a small minority has status quo and holds off fully-consented progress. Ultimately, this will give the minority Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents the original Bitcoin branding, perhaps to lure in large institutional investors and monetize on bitcoin’s success as we have it seen it during the past 9 years since its inception. Recall that bitcoin of today is already a decentralized, distributed, immutable network by its definition. The bitcoin network was designed to be an alternative to centralized and mutable institutions, so prevalent in modern capitalist societies. Bitcoin Core SegWit group wants to change the existing bitcoin network to a network with dominant third parties which, unlike Google Drive to Gmail, are not internal. In particular, they intend to do so via the lightning network, which is a second layer solution (2L). This particular 2L as currently designed relies on an artificial block size limit cap which creates a bottleneck in order to provide high incentives for miners to participate. It monetizes on backlog of transaction and high fees, which are allocated to miners, not any group in particular. Cheaper and more instantaneous transactions are shifted to the lightning network which is operated by hubs also earning revenue. Note that some of these hubs may choose to monitor transactions and can possibly censor who is allowed to participate in this no longer strictly peer-to-peer network. We lose the immutability and instead we have a peer-to-hub-to-peer network that is mutable and at best decentralized, and certainly not distributed (see https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-the-lightning-network-cannot-be-a-decentralized-bitcoin-scaling-solution-1b8147650800). For regular day-to-day and recurring transactions, it is not a considerable risk or inconvenience. And one could choose to use the main chain any time to bypass the lightning network and truly transact peer-to-peer. But since the main chain has an entry barrier in the form of artificially instilled high transaction fees, common people are not able to use bitcoin as we have known it until now. Peer-to-peer bitcoin becomes institution-to-institution bitcoin with peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L. To reiterate and stress, note the following lightning network design flaw again. Yes, activating SegWit and allowing 2L such as lightning allows for lower transaction fees to coexist side by side with more costly on-chain transactions. For those using this particularly prescribed 2L, the fees remain low. But since these 2L are managed by hubs, we introduce another element to trust, which is contrary to what the bitcoin network was designed to do at the first place. Over time, by the nature of the lightning network in its current design, these third party hubs grow to be centralized, just like Visa, Mastercard, Amex, Discover, etc. There is nothing wrong with that in general because it works just fine. But recall that bitcoin set out to create a different kind of a network. Instead of decentralized, distributed, immutable network with miners and nodes, with the lightning network we end up with at best decentralized but mutable network with hubs. Note that Bitcoin Core SegWit has a US-based organization backing it with millions of dollars (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockstream and https://steemit.com/bitcoin/@adambalm/the-truth-about-who-is-behind-blockstream-and-segwit-as-the-saying-goes-follow-the-money). Their proponents are quite political and some even imply $1000 fees on the main bitcoin blockchain (see https://cointelegraph.com/news/ari-paul-tuur-demeester-look-forward-to-up-to-1k-bitcoin-fees). Contrary to them, Bitcoin Cash proponents intend to keep small fees on a scale of a few cents, which in large volume in larger blockchain blocks provide sufficient incentive for miners to participate. On the one hand, sticking to the original vision of peer-to-peer network scaled on-chain has merit and holds potential for future value. On the other hand, 2L have potential to carry leaps forward from current financial infrastructure. As mentioned earlier, 2L will allow for extra features to be integrated off-chain (e.g. escrow, reversibility via time-locks), including entirely new features such as smart contracts, decentralized applications, some of which have been pioneered and tested on another cryptocurrency network called Ethereum. But such features could be one day implemented directly on the main bitcoin blockchain without the lightning network as currently designed, or perhaps with a truly integrated 2L proposed in the third section of this overview. What makes the whole discussion even more confusing is that there are some proposals for specific 2L that would in fact increase privacy and make bitcoin transactions less pseudonymous than those on the current bitcoin blockchain now. Keep in mind that 2L are not necessarily undesirable. If they add features and keep the main network characteristics (decentralized, distributed, immutable), they should be embraced with open arms. But the lightning network as currently designed gives up immutability and hub centralization moves the network characteristic towards a decentralized rather than a distributed network. In a sense, back to the initial email attachment analogy, even Gmail stopped with attachment limit increases and started hosting large files on Google Drive internally, with an embedded link in a Gmail email to download anything larger than 25MB from Google Drive. Anticipating the same scaling decisions, the question then becomes not if but when and how such 2L should be implemented, keeping the overall network security and network characteristics in mind. If you have not gotten it yet, repeat, repeat, repeat: decentralized, distributed, immutable. Is it the right time now and is SegWit (one way, my way or highway) truly the best solution? Those siding away from Bitcoin Core SegWit also dislike that corporate entities behind Blockstream, the one publicly known corporate entity directly supporting SegWit, have allegedly applied for SegWit patents which may further restrict who may and who may not participate in the creation of future hubs, or how these hubs are controlled (see the alleged patent revelations, https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place, the subsequent Twitter rebuttal Blockstream CEO, http://bitcoinist.com/adam-back-no-patents-segwit, and the subsequent legal threats to SegWit2x proponents /btc/comments/6vadfi/blockstream_threatening_legal_action_against). Regardless if the patent claims are precise or not, the fact remains that there is a corporate entity dictating and vetoing bitcoin developments. Objectively speaking, Bitcoin Core SegWit developers paid by Blockstream is a corporate takeover of the bitcoin network as we have known it. And on the topic of patents and permissionless technological innovations, what makes all of this even more complicated is that a mining improvement technology called ASICboost is allowed on Bitcoin Cash. The main entities who forked from Bitcoin Core to form Bitcoin Cash had taken advantage of patents to the ASICboost technology on the original bitcoin network prior to the fork (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal). This boost saved estimated 20% electricity for miners on 1MB blocks and created unfair economic advantage for this one particular party. SegWit is one way that this boost is being eliminated, through the code. Larger blocks are another way to reduce the boost advantage, via decreased rate of collisions which made this boost happen at the first place (see https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/breaking-down-bitcoins-asicboost-scandal-solutions and https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2017/04/10/the-relation-between-segwit-and-asicboost-covert-and-overt). Therefore, the initial Bitcoin Cash proponents argue that eliminating ASICboost through the code is no longer needed or necessary. Of course, saving any amount electricity between 0% and 20% is good for all on our planet but in reality any energy saved in a mining operation is used by the same mining operation to increase their mining capacity. In reality, there are no savings, there is just capacity redistribution. The question then becomes if it is okay that only one party currently and already holds onto this advantage, which they covertly hid for relatively long time, and which they could be using covertly on Bitcoin Cash if they desired to do so, even though it would an advantage to a smaller degree. To be fair to them, they are mining manufacturers and operators, they researched and developed the advantage from own resources, so perhaps they do indeed have the right to reap ASICboost benefits while they can. But perhaps it should happen in publicly know way, not behind closed doors, and should be temporary, with agreed patent release date. In conclusion, there is no good and no bad actor, each side is its own shade of grey. All parties have their own truth (and villainy) to certain degree. Bitcoin Cash's vision is for bitcoin to be an electronic cash platform and daily payment processor whereas Bitcoin Core SegWit seems to be drawn more to the ideas of bitcoin as an investment vehicle and a larger settlement layer with the payment processor function managed via at best decentralized third party hubs. Both can coexist, or either one can eventually prove more useful and digest the other one by taking over all use-cases. Additionally, the most popular communication channel on /bitcoin with roughly 300k subscribers censors any alternative non-Bitcoin-Core-SegWit opinions and bans people from posting their ideas to discussions (see https://medium.com/@johnblocke/a-brief-and-incomplete-history-of-censorship-in-r-bitcoin-c85a290fe43). This is because their moderators are also supported by Blockstream. Note that the author of this overview has not gotten banned from this particular subreddit (yet), but has experienced shadow-banning first hand. Shadow-banning is a form of censorship. In this particular case, their moderator robot managed by people moderators, collaboratively with the people moderators, do the following:
(1) look for "Bitcoin Cash" and other undesirable keywords,
(2) warn authors that “Bitcoin Cash” is not true bitcoin (which objectively speaking it is, and which is by no means “BCash” that Bitcoin Core SegWit proponents refer to, in a coordinated effort to further confuse public, especially since some of them have published plans to officially release another cryptocurrency called “BCash” in 2018, see https://medium.com/@freetrade68/announcing-bcash-8b938329eaeb),
(3) further warn authors that if they try to post such opinions again, they could banned permanently,
(4) tell authors to delete their already posted posts or comments,
(5) hide their post from publicly seen boards with all other posts, thus preventing it from being seeing by the other participants in this roughly 300k public forum,
This effectively silences objective opinions and creates a dangerous echo-chamber. Suppressing free speech and artificially blowing up transaction fees on Bitcoin Core SegWit is against bitcoin’s fundamental values. Therefore, instead of the original Reddit communication channel, many bitcoin enthusiasts migrated to /btc which has roughly 60k subscribers as of now, up from 20k subscribers a year ago in August 2016 (see http://redditmetrics.com/btc). Moderators there do not censor opinions and allow all polite and civil discussions about scaling, including all opinions on Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Core, etc. Looking beyond their respective leaderships and communication channels, let us review a few network fundamentals and recent developments in Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Cash networks. Consequently, for now, these present Bitcoin Cash with more favorable long-term prospects.
(1) The stress-test and/or attack on the Bitcoin Cash mempool earlier on August 16, 2017 showed that 8MB blocks do work as intended, without catastrophic complications that Bitcoin Core proponents anticipated and from which they attempted to discourage others (see https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/uahf/#2w for the Bitcoin Cash mempool and https://core.jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#2w for the Bitcoin Core mempool). Note that when compared to the Bitcoin Core mempool on their respective 2 week views, one can observe how each network handles backlogs. On the most recent 2 week graphs, the Y-scale for Bitcoin Core is 110k vs. 90k on Bitcoin Cash. In other words, at the moment, Bitcoin Cash works better than Bitcoin Core even though there is clearly not as big demand for Bitcoin Cash as there is for Bitcoin Core. The lack of demand for Bitcoin Cash is partly because Bitcoin Cash is only 3 weeks old and not many merchants have started accepting it, and only a limited number of software applications to use Bitcoin Cash has been released so far. By all means, the Bitcoin Cash stress-test and/or attack from August 16, 2017 reveals that the supply will handle the increased demand, more affordably, and at a much quicker rate.
(2) Bitcoin Cash “BCH” mining has become temporarily more profitable than mining Bitcoin Core “BTC” (see http://fork.lol). Besides temporary loss of miners, this puts Bitcoin Core in danger of permanently fleeing miners. Subsequently, mempool backlog and transaction fees are anticipated to increase further.
(3) When compared to Bitcoin Cash transaction fees at roughly $0.02, transaction fees per kB are over 800 times as expensive on Bitcoin Core, currently at over $16 (see https://cashvscore.com).
(4) Tipping service that used to work on Bitcoin Core's /Bitcoin a few years back has been revived by a new tipping service piloted on the more neutral /btc with the integration of Bitcoin Cash (see /cashtipperbot).
3. Should we scale you on-chain or off-chain? Scaling bitcoin. Let us start with the notion that we are impartial to both Bitcoin Core (small blocks, off-chain scaling only) and Bitcoin Cash (big blocks, on-chain scaling only) schools of thought. We will support any or all ideas, as long as they allow for bitcoin to grow organically and eventually succeed as a peer-to-peer network that remains decentralized, distributed, immutable. Should we have a preference in either of the proposed scaling solutions? First, let us briefly address Bitcoin Core and small blocks again. From the second section of this overview, we understand that there are proposed off-chain scaling methods via second layer solutions (2L), most notably soon-to-be implemented lightning via SegWit on Bitcoin Core. Unfortunately, the lightning network diminishes distributed and immutable network properties by replacing bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network with a two-layer institution-to-institution network and peer-to-hub-to-peer 2L. Do we need this particular 2L right now? Is its complexity truly needed? Is it not at best somewhat cumbersome (if not very redundant)? In addition to ridiculously high on-chain transaction fees illustrated in the earlier section, the lightning network code is perhaps more robust than it needs to be now, with thousands of lines of code, thus possibly opening up to new vectors for bugs or attacks (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Lightning_Network and https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lnd). Additionally, this particular 2L as currently designed unnecessarily introduces third parties, hubs, that are expected to centralize. We already have a working code that has been tested and proven to handle 8MB blocks, as seen with Bitcoin Cash on August 16, 2017 (see https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/first-8mb-bitcoin-cash-block-just-mined). At best, these third party hubs would be decentralized but they would not be distributed. And these hubs would be by no means integral to the original bitcoin network with users, nodes, and miners. To paraphrase Ocam’s razor problem solving principle, the simplest solution with the most desirable features will prevail (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor). The simplest scalability solution today is Bitcoin Cash because it updates only one line of code, which instantly increases the block size limit. This also allows other companies building on Bitcoin Cash to reduce their codes when compared to Bitcoin Core SegWit’s longer code, some even claiming ten-fold reductions (see /btc/comments/6vdm7y/ryan_x_charles_reveals_bcc_plan). The bitcoin ecosystem not only includes the network but it also includes companies building services on top of it. When these companies can reduce their vectors for bugs or attacks, the entire ecosystem is healthier and more resilient to hacking disasters. Obviously, changes to the bitcoin network code are desirable to be as few and as elegant as possible. But what are the long-term implications of doing the one-line update repeatedly? Eventually, blocks would have to reach over 500MB size if they were to process Visa-level capacity (see https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability). With decreasing costs of IT infrastructure, bandwidth and storage could accommodate it, but the overhead costs would increase significantly, implying miner and/or full node centralization further discussed next. To decrease this particular centralization risk, which some consider undesirable and others consider irrelevant, built-in and integrated 2L could keep the block size at a reasonably small-yet-still-large limit. At the first sight, these 2L would remedy the risk of centralization by creating their own centralization incentive. At the closer look and Ocam’s razor principle again, these 2L do not have to become revenue-seeking third party hubs as designed with the current lightning network. They can be integrated into the current bitcoin network with at worst decentralized miners and at best distributed nodes. Recall that miners will eventually need to supplement their diminishing mining reward from new blocks. Additionally, as of today, the nodes have no built-in economic incentive to run other than securing the network and keeping the network’s overall value at its current level. Therefore, if new 2L were to be developed, they should be designed in a similar way like the lightning network, with the difference that the transaction processing revenue would not go to third party hubs but to the already integrated miners and nodes. In other words, why do we need extra hubs if we have miners and nodes already? Let us consider the good elements from the lightning network, forget the unnecessary hubs, and focus on integrating the hubs’ responsibilities to already existing miner and node protocols. Why would we add extra elements to the system that already functions with the minimum number of elements possible? Hence, 2L are not necessarily undesirable as long as they do not unnecessarily introduce third party hubs. Lastly, let us discuss partial on-chain scaling with the overall goal of network security. The network security we seek is the immutability and resilience via distributed elements within otherwise decentralized and distributed network. It is not inconceivable to scale bitcoin with bigger blocks as needed, when needed, to a certain degree. The thought process is the following:
(1) Block size limit:
We need some upper limit to avoid bloating the network with spam transactions. Okay, that makes sense. Now, what should this limit be? If we agree to disagree with small block size limit stuck at 1MB, and if we are fine with flexible block size limit increases (inspired by mining difficulty readjustments but on a longer time scale) or big block propositions (to be increased incrementally), what is holding us off next?
(2) Miner centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized miners instead of distributed ones. Yes, that is true. And it has already happened, due to the economy of scale, in particular the efficiency of grouping multiple miners in centralized facilities, and the creation of mining pools collectively and virtually connecting groups of miners not physically present in the same facility. These facilities tend to have huge overhead costs and the data storage and bandwidth increase costs are negligible in this context. The individual miners participating in mining pools will quite likely notice somewhat higher operational costs but allowing for additional revenue from integrated 2L described earlier will give them economic incentive to remain actively participating. Note that mining was never supposed to be strictly distributed and it was always at worst decentralized, as defined in the first section of this overview. To assure at best a distributed network, we have nodes.
(3) Node centralization:
Bigger blocks mean that more data will be transferred on the bitcoin network. Consequently, more bandwidth and data storage will be required. This will create decentralized nodes instead of distributed ones. Again, recall that we have a spectrum of decentralized and distributed networks in mind, not their absolutes. The concern about the node centralization (and the subsequent shift from distributed to decentralized network property) is valid if we only follow on-chain scaling to inconsiderate MB values. If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious. Furthermore, other methods to reduce bandwidth and storage needs can be used. A popular proposal is block pruning, which keeps only the most recent 550 blocks, and eventually deletes any older blocks (see https://news.bitcoin.com/pros-and-cons-on-bitcoin-block-pruning). Block pruning addresses storage needs and makes sure that not all nodes participating in the bitcoin network have to store all transactions that have ever been recorded on the blockchain. Some nodes storing all transactions are still necessary and they are called full nodes. Block pruning does not eliminate full nodes but it does indeed provide an economic incentive for the reduction and centralization (i.e. saving on storage costs). If addressed with the proposed integrated 2L that provides previously unseen economic incentives to participate in the network, this concern is less serious. In other words, properly designed 2L should provide economic incentives for all nodes (full and pruned) to remain active and distributed. As of now, only miners earn revenue for participating. The lightning network proposes extra revenue for hubs. Instead, miner revenue could increase by processing 2L transactions as well, and full nodes could have an economic incentive as well. To mine, relatively high startup costs is necessary in order to get the most up to date mining hardware and proper cooling equipment. These have to be maintained and periodically upgraded. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and a sufficiently large storage, which can be expanded as needed, when needed. To run a full node, one needs only stable bandwidth and relatively small storage, which does not need to be expanded. Keeping the distributed characteristic in mind, it would be much more secure for the bitcoin network if one could earn bitcoin by simply running a node, full or pruned. This could be integrated with a simple code change requiring each node to own a bitcoin address to which miners would send a fraction of processed transaction fees. Of course, pruned nodes would collectively receive the least transaction fee revenue (e.g. 10%), full nodes would collectively receive relatively larger transaction fee revenue (e.g. 20%), whereas mining facilities or mining pools would individually receive the largest transaction fee revenue (e.g. 70%) in addition to the full mining reward from newly mined blocks (i.e. 100%). This would assure that all nodes would remain relatively distributed. Hence, block pruning is a feasible solution. However, in order to start pruning, one would have to have the full blockchain to begin with. As currently designed, downloading blockchain for the first time also audits previous blocks for accuracy, this can take days depending on one’s bandwidth. This online method is the only way to distribute the bitcoin blockchain and the bitcoin network so far. When the size of blockchain becomes a concern, a simpler distribution idea should be implemented offline. Consider distributions of Linux-based operating systems on USBs. Similarly, the full bitcoin blockchain up to a certain point can be distributed via easy-to-mail USBs. Note that even if we were to get the blockchain in bulk on such a USB, some form of a block audit would have to happen nevertheless. A new form of checkpoint hashes could be added to the bitcoin code. For instance, each 2016 blocks (whenever the difficulty readjusts), all IDs from previous 2015 blocks would be hashed and recorded. That way, with our particular offline blockchain distribution, the first time user would have to audit only the key 2016th blocks, designed to occur on average once in roughly 2 weeks. This would significantly reduce bandwidth concerns for the auditing process because only each 2016th block would have to be uploaded online to be audited. Overall, we are able to scale the bitcoin network via initial on-chain scaling approaches supplemented with off-chain scaling approaches. This upgrades the current network to a pruned peer-to-peer network with integrated 2L managed by miners and nodes who assure that the bitcoin network stays decentralized, distributed, immutable.
Note that the author u/bit-architect appreciates any Bitcoin Cash donations on Reddit directly or on bitcoin addresses 178ZTiot2QVVKjru2f9MpzyeYawP81vaXi bitcoincash:qp7uqpv2tsftrdmu6e8qglwr2r38u4twlq3f7a48uq (Bitcoin Cash) and 1GqcFi4Cs1LVAxLxD3XMbJZbmjxD8SYY8S (Bitcoin Core).
Does anyone have any idea how to calculate potential value of Bitcoin? Say, I want to know the value of BTC if it essentially takes over 1% of online transactions. How does one calculate that and is that calculation at all reliable? I have no link, but I read one article that speculated that 1% of online transactions would put BTC at $100,000 per coin. If I could find that link again, I would ask the author how he came up with that number. Thanks in advance for any help!
Bitcoin Volatility: There are no bubbles, only tsunamis to come.
Hello Bitcoiners. I've been watching from the sidelines for awhile now and figured it is time to jump in the pool. I wanted to make a splash, so I decided to share my shocking epiphany on the volatility of Bitcoin.
Where I'm coming from
I believe Bitcoin's biggest hurdle will be that of government regulation but, at the same time, aided by other country's resentment of the PetroDollar and world reserve status the US dollar maintains. I believe in the mechanics and game theory of Bitcoin. I think it will succeed in taking over significant portions of the global economy because of its frictionless nature. I subscribe to the idea that bitcoin will either be worth zero, or very large amounts of money in the long run. It is just a matter of time while the general population learns to trust it as a store and transfer of value. Developers will do what they do and make it easier to use and overcome well known limitations of storage and bandwidth.
And then it came to me
With that, I would like to present some shock and awe that many people will struggle to comtemplate as the success of Bitcoin takes off: Price Volatility. There are three components that need to be considered: The scarce, fixed monetary units; The percentage of global markets bitcoin will capture; And a time frame. With these, you can begin to understand the staggering volatility that awaits us on the path to world adoption. Due to the limited monetary units of Bitcoin, there is but one other parameter to tune to make Bitcoin a functional, competitive global currency - and that is the exchange rate. Multiply the exchange rate by the monetary units and you get the total monetary potential of the currency. As of today, that's about 1.6 billion dollars of economic potential. That is it. If Bitcoin is to adopt respectable portions of the black market, gambling, remittance, and online commerce, the required target market cap must be in the trillions. And, again, the only way to get there, because of the fixed monetary units, is the exchange rate. For Bitcoin to have a trillion dollars market potential, even after the maximum number of monetary units have been created, will be almost $50,000 per bitcoin. Now the question you are tasked to answer is: How long will it take bitcoin to reach a trillion dollar market capitalization? If we use the adoption rate of a similar technology, email, we can see that it took about 30 years. If we apply the same rate of adoption to Bitcoin and a potential trillion dollar market, we get an astounding figure.
Wait for it...
If, for a potential trillion dollar market you require each bitcoin to be valued at $50,000, and it will take 30 years to get to that value, we must expect, on average, the bitcoin value to rise approximately $140 a month. It sounds ridiculous, but do the math: $50,000 / (12 * 30) = $138.88. Edit for emphasis:And this rate will not be linear - it will be wildly volatile! But that is the average increase over 30 years and there is no escaping the simple math behind it. I recall someone once say that Bitcoin's biggest burden is its "too good to be true" properties. Nobody wants to hear your lies of instant global transfers that cost nothing and the indestructible money can't even be seized by governments - because its impossible and if it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. But there you have some hard numbers to run for yourself. How would you change the numbers to breech the cognitive dissonance you're currently experiencing that prevents you from believing an average increase of $140 is a month a real possibility? I would like to thank Rick Falkvinge for his contribution of inspiration to this recent epiphany.
At long last, we're excited to present to the Ethereum community the release version of our whitepaper, including plans for our token sale now scheduled for November 1st at 3pm UTC. We've been banging on pots and pans since January that we intended Arcade City to be the decentralized, Ethereum-based answer to Uber. In April we laid out our multi-stage path to complete decentralization over time, then announced plans to submit a DAO proposal - oops! - and just recently added a crew of experienced Ethereum developers who've built a functioning Ethereum ridesharing prototype in record time. In the meantime we've made substantial progress 'on the ground' in cities all over the world, with our flagship ridesharing network in Austin giving tens of thousands of safe rides in a completely decentralized manner. Now we're ready to combine our decentralized organizational model with the solid decentralized tech that can propel our project further into the mainstream. Responding to your questions and comments below will be our 7-person ‘City Council’, as well as a few other folks who’ve been involved with Arcade City thus far. Our Reddit usernames are included in the Team Bios section below.
Arcade City is a decentralized global community of peer-to-peer service providers and consumers. The core technical offering is an Ethereum-based app for web, Android and iOS. Arcade City features an open ecosystem with forthcoming APIs to enable developers and entrepreneurs to easily create their own apps and service offerings as part of the Arcade City network. Initial service offerings focus on the ridesharing industry, with plans in motion for peer-to-peer deliveries and short-term home rentals. Arcade City aims to reinvent the sharing economy by combining the power of blockchain technology, open-source development, platform cooperativism, and a decentralized ‘swarm’ organizational model open to all.
A hackathon, you say?
Assuming our token sale sells out by the end of November, we'll be throwing an online hackathon open to any Ethereum developers, with a minimum of $100K USD value in prizes, payable in ETH or ARC. We'll announce super final details about start and end dates, judges and such, after the sale, potentially as soon as the first week of November. The basic idea of the first hackathon will be to build out the functionality described in the Arcade City Infrastructure section of the whitepaper: the offers, disputes, guilds, referrals, reputation, and assurance systems, with a likely priority on the reputation system. We intend to crowdsource the majority of our Ethereum development via multiple hackathons with everything open-source on GitHub. Check out the eye-popping revenue projectons in our whitepaper! Then imagine the majority of that revenue flowing into the Ethereum community by way of incentive prizes to accelerate the decentralization of the sharing economy...
** Christopher David (MillennialChris) - Mayor ** Christopher David founded Arcade City in December 2015. A former Uber driver, Chris initially envisioned Arcade City as a decentralized, driver-run competitor to Uber. As a blockchain enthusiast and proponent of radical decentralization, Chris was the first to recognize the larger potential of Arcade City as an unstoppable engine of mass peer-to-peer transactions across countless industries and countries all over the world. Using skills acquired during years of grassroots political organizing, he led the growth of Arcade City from an idea into a global movement on a shoestring budget. After much trial and error, he somehow managed to attract an amazing team of talented visionaries passionate to fulfill on the greater vision of Arcade City to ‘decentralize all the things'. Chris has a bachelors degree in international relations, a black belt in tang soo do, and a really loud mouth. And he thinks you should read Swarmwise and Freedom(tm). ** Jennifer Williams (ArcadeCityJenny) - Vice Mayor ** is a founding member of the Arcade City Swarm and has served as the Director of Support since February 2016. She contributes on a full-time basis to expanding operations globally with the other founding members. Together they give new members the necessary tools and resources needed to efficiently and effectively navigate the Arcade City ecosystem. Her primary motivation is to guide, educate and liberate individuals by making information accessible through email, social media, and the Arcade City Help Desk that she designed. After her studies in graphic design and holding several corporate managerial positions she decided to exit the proverbial ‘hamster wheel’ and pursue her entrepreneurial goals which led her to ridesharing. Jennifer has 2.5 years of rideshare experience, has mentored 400+ new drivers, and served as a marketing coordinator, brand ambassador and recruiter, which has given her extensive knowledge of the industry. Through her work with Arcade City she has gained interests and insights into cryptocurrency and blockchain technologies, and she believes that implementing the latest technologies will help Arcade City supercede the ridesharing competitors by eliminating the middlemen and allowing drivers to earn fair wages and build stronger communities while saving riders from price gouging. ** Lauren Slade (ArcadeSlade) - City Manager ** Lauren Slade is an accomplished operations and support professional with over four years of direct experience providing tactical strategies ranging from small startups to large scale teams operating globally. As a forward thinking tech leader she believes in pairing laser-focused user observation with a great amount of drive to constantly improve ways of operating as the most definitive route to unstoppable success. Lauren is steadfast and committed to collaboratively solving meaningful problems with a team who values getting things done. She joined Arcade City full-time in June of 2016 to direct the V2 integration of decentralized management systems and develop operational growth processes. Lauren looks forward most to ensuring Arcade City becomes a self-sustaining business model, free of a central governing council from the top down. Her passion for process-minded management and developing teams inspires her to successfully scale and balance hyper growth within talent and project recruitment. As a natural planner she enjoys getting down to the detail on performance and tracking metrics. ** Kristien De Wachter (kikipluche) - City Planner ** Kristien De Wachter has over 10 years of experience in project management and operations. In the beginning of 2015 she reinforced A-Labs, the City’s digital innovation lab. As lead of A-Labs, making the bridge between experiments and the “outside world”, tackling all problems that obstruct the way towards a good end-product, making sure all team members can work and think freely towards the common goals. Working on decentralization for more than a year. She joined forces with Arcade City on the 23th of September, as a liaison between the dev team in Antwerp and the swarm and swarm leaders, making sure all the cats run in the same direction, always with respect for everyone’s individuality and strengths. Believes Arcade City will bring freedom to every individual. ** Stefaan Ponnet (sponnet) - Engineer ** Stefaan has 15 years of experience in software development, design and architecture. He managed a software company for 6 years and worked for large companies as well as emerging start-ups. Interested in the possibilities of decentralized systems, he was an early Ethereum follower. Since september 2015 Stefaan has been full-time involved in developing Ethereum prototypes for government in the city of Antwerp. Stefaan has a passion for open source methodology and loves to solve technological problems. Stefaan and the Antwerp team joined Arcade City in September 2016 by publicly pledging our support to the community. Stefaan will add his expertise by developing all necessary building blocks - like Smart Contracts , Dapps, APIs, and anything else needed to make this new economy a reality. ** Michael Thuy (kingflurkel) - System Architect ** Michael Thuy has been studying and working on decentralized technology for the past 2 years, mostly from within the City of Antwerp's digital innovation lab 'A-Labs'. In the past year he has been working on concepts like Blocktube and Locals World. From a strong ideological and technical background he manages to mash up cutting edge technology to come up with all-round concepts. Meeting Arcade City, he felt he had no other purpose in life than to contribute to Arcade City's swarm. Michael is co-authoring the Arcade City whitepapeconcept and building on the PolymeEthereum prototype. With Arcade City, Michael wants to make sure his kids grow up in a different economic model than he did. He also would like Arcade City to be the de facto economic model on Mars. ** Ben Adriaenssen (Ben_AC) - Brand Architect ** Ben Adriaenssen after finishing his studies in ‘Visual Arts - Graphic Design’ found that working in advertising agencies or graphic studios was not fulfilling his strong urge to do something good for the world and the people in it. Applying his skill-set to communicate about random services or products wasn’t enough; he wanted to make a difference. Working for the City of Antwerp was a big step in this direction. While starting and working in the City of Antwerp's digital innovation lab 'A-Labs', his lifelong passion for creating digital interactive things has been reignited. Focusing on blockchain-technology was another big step to combining the love for design with the passion for people. Ben is thrilled to be able to contribute his value to a project like Arcade City. Working in this innovative decentral way, with like-minded people in a swarm structure, is for Ben a dream come true. He hopes Arcade City can put the power, literally and figuratively, back into the hands of the common man.
We could go on...
But to keep this to a somewhat manageable length, we'll stop here and answer any questions. How can we earn your support?
https://falkvinge.net/2017/05/01/blockstream-patents-segwit-makes-pieces-fall-place/ When we have a private company trying to patent parts of what is not just an open source project, but also the most important liberty movement in the world, we have a company of people who have to be put aside. They need to be isolated on the ground of disrupting the money liberalism that Bitcoin was set to make. They are trying to patent Bitcoin, therefore Patent our liberty system. And who would even grant a patent to parts of an Open Source project ? That patent would be illegal. This is just obscene for them to try that. But they have FIAT money investors so it is not surprising at all. I am sure there is plenty of developers out there that would be willing to uphold the principles of liberty and openness and take on Bitcoin development.
ALL of the arguments to implement SegWit and ALL of the arguments against raising the block size limit in one complete extensive overview!
All of the reasons to NOT raise the block size limit: 1). If the chain history grows too fast, it may price out some users from running Bitcoin nodes because they can't afford the disk space to store this history, and full Bitcoin nodes must keep the entire blockchain history. All of the reasons to implement SegWit: 1). It makes it possible for Blockstream to control Bitcoin. source1.source2.source3.source4.source5.souce6 Edit170822:addedsource5(SegWit) Edit170824:addedsource6(Bitcointhroughthelooking-glass)
Bitcoin and the Blockchain - Rick Falkvinge. The internet brings much more changes than we could possibly ever imagine, typical of a very disruptive technology, as the generation who invents it can only think of the new technology in terms of what is replacing. Posted on 2019-08-14 • by Rick Falkvinge 45462 388. Featured. Bitcoin, the Bitcoin Cash roadmap, and the Law of Two Feet. Posted on 2018-12-30 22203 7. Featured. Pirate Party enters parliament in Luxembourg, gets 17% in Prague. Posted on 2018-10-17 22452 13. New World. What if new Google management decided that a search should cost $20, take eight hours, and be deliberately unreliable ... Rick Falkvinge, faux CEO of Bitcoin Cash, weighs-in satirically on the broader debate about the cryptocurrency ecosystem's funnier conspiracies. These past days, I have done a lot of thinking about bitcoin that ended up with me investing all of the money I had saved and all that I can borrow into the currency. Here’s why. In two posts now, I have considered the effects of bitcoin on society. A lot of more thinking has been done than has been described in writing, and it has resulted in me putting all my savings into this currency. Bitcoin, the Bitcoin Cash roadmap, and the Law of Two Feet. Posted on 2018-12-30 21811 7. Featured. Pirate Party enters parliament in Luxembourg, gets 17% in Prague . Posted on 2018-10-17 22109 13. New World. What if new Google management decided that a search should cost $20, take eight hours, and be deliberately unreliable? (Bitcoin.) Posted on 2017-11-17 • by Rick Falkvinge 19. Toy with ...
BITCOIN WILL HIT $5 MILLION Rick Falkvinge London Real
This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue BITCOIN WILL HIT $5 MILLION Rick Falkvinge London Real. The internet brings much more changes than we could possibly ever imagine, typical of a very disruptive technology, as the generation who invents it can only think of the new technology in terms ... Rick Falkvinge “BITCOIN will be BIGGER than the OIL INDUSTRY“ 💰⛽️ - Duration: 10:27. YON WORLD 18,182 views. 10:27. 2020: Thoughts On A Decade Of Bitcoin - Duration: 9:02. We Are All ... WHO IS RICK FALKVINGE? ===== In 2012, **shortlisted as one of the world's most influential people by TIME Magazine, and **listed as one of the world's Top 20 Internet Freedom Fighters by The ...