(PDF) Evolution of bitcoin and security risk in bitcoin ...
(PDF) Evolution of bitcoin and security risk in bitcoin ...
What Is Bitcoin SV (Bitcoin Satoshi Vision)? - NullTX
Why Are Miners Mining “Empty Blocks” and What Affect Does ...
Die Vor- und Nachteile eines Bitcoin Full-Nodes Nertrade
Myths - Bitcoin Wiki
Let's discuss the 'one chain or none approach' and BSV winning narrative - aside from CSW!
It's been a bit quiet on here, and since a lot of things are up in the air about the court case currently, I thought I would start a discussion that is largely unrelated to CSW except for in addressing some of the broadly accepted statements and predictions for the longer term performance of BSV. I wanted to make this thread because there have been fragmented discussions on this that I have found interesting and engaging, and I would like to put it in one place. I think it also addresses a very key point which I believe both sides will agree on - the 'survival' of BSV regardless of whether CSW is Satoshi. I feel there are a few key areas around which this revolves so I will attempt to capture them below and hopefully we can address each one and why it could/couldn't leave BSV as the sole survivor without it descending into bickering.
The whole bitcoin whitepaper narrative, and the flaws of other chains, in particular bitcoin core and cash. Aside from interpretations of the whitepaper, a lot of this narrative is based on things that BTC or other chains have done wrong which prevent scaling. My issues with this argument are primarily that some the 'facts' that are used as an argument against BTC are basically not true. Blocks are not actually capped at 1MB, Segwit does not break the chain of digital signatures and non segwit nodes can still verify transactions that have happened using segwit. Obviously segwit didn't fix all the problems it was meant to and the lightning network is awful, but it seems like one of the first arguments presented against BTC in favour of BSV relates to the above, but just because they are repeated incessantly does not make them true. If core presented a valid scaling solution within certain parameters surely this is a huge setback for BSV. For other chains I'll be more general, but I think it comes across as ignorant to say that the system proposed in the whitepaper is the only thing that could ever work. What if something that does not yet exist comes along tomorrow (like it has done before) and is better. Ethereum has it's flaws, but on the back end it is a proof of work chain that has consistently achieved higher daily transactions and an order of magnitude greater functionality than bitcoin since some point in 2017 with the downside that the blockchain is bigger. This obviously does not phase the BSV camp, so why fork from something that was already 'on the back foot' with respect to the metrics that are hailed as important. I do not see BSVs unique proposition in this respect.
The crude approach to scaling metrics. I will concede this is more just a thing that annoys me which I want to address and for the purpose of my posts define, obviously people are free to disagree and discuss. A lot of the social media debates revolve around 'scaling' and for good reason. But I want to explore the definition of that word. To me, doubling a block size to double the number of transactions is not scaling, that is a crude way to increase throughput. Scaling would be fitting twice the number of transactions into the same block, for example. They are not the same thing, and crudely increasing throughput will have diminishing returns effects in relation to performance. The other scaling metric that annoys me is quotes in TPS when we're talking about bitcoin rules which is a new block every 10 minutes. Functionally this is completely misleading and should be looked at with respect to finality. If I had an account with a bitcoin in it, I could spam a bunch of 'valid' 1 bitcoin transactions to nodes, yet after the block is mined obviously only one of those can be valid. Daily transaction metrics are good, or unique address interactions etc, but quoting 'high' TPS just because a big block was mined after 10 minutes does not necessarily make that any more useful. I do not see BSVs unique proposition in this respect.
The legal compliance thing vs anarachist thing that is being pushed and about it being the 'only' legal compliant chain. This is basically nonsense, code is code, obviously it is not law. Code is a neutral ruleset which people choose to participate with and abide by. Nothing is black and white, one could choose to be completely legal things on any other chain and completely illegal things on BSV to the same effect. I don't think there is a BSV vs other chains argument to be made here from either perspective. The law is the law, it doesn't matter which software you use to abide by it or break it with.
The decentralisation debate. I have less to say on this one but I don't think it's a compelling case for any approach as being objectively better or worse. Decentralisation is a spectrum and there is no universal sweet spot. On one end we have the 'everyone run a node' approach and on the other end we have host everything on AWS. BSV is somewhere in the middle of this, no one knows what the 'correct' amount of decentralisation is for general purposes so I do not see how it can be claimed that BSV has an optimal approach as long as it remains functional.
This is my personal point of greatest interest. I wouldn't say I'm a die hard supporter of any chain in particular, so I do think it is a worthwhile experiment trying the big block approach to see what happens. The issue is the assumption that this is the correct and best solution for doing everything on the blockchain. This leads me to the thinking that BSV is getting stuck in a 'jack of all trades - master of none' scenario. Whilst this means it may perform 'fine' functionally at the moment, it feels that all things equal, it may not survive long term and will certainly never be the dominant chain because there will always be a better alternative for a specific purpose, four general examples that I can think of below:
Security of a significant transaction. Lets say a house purchase, if I had to choose a chain I would obviously choose BTC because it has the greatest hashrate by orders of magnitude. I will happily pay a fee and wait for a few confirmations to know that as far as blockchains go, my transaction is as final as possible. Obviously this example uses current state of things, but obviously this use case will always go to the most secure chain, which could be anything. I cannot see a compelling case for this becoming BSV.
Microtransactions. I agree this is very important, and this narrative is pushed a lot in BSV. The problem is, there are plenty of chains currently that allow fast transactions with finality in seconds that are literally fee free. Whilst it is true that BSV can do really cheap transactions, what is the point when there is a faster and cheaper alternative. The same applies to SPV and 0-conf, while they might be 'fine' most of the time, why rely on them when you don't have to. Whilst there are more concerns over security for these fast and free chains, if we're talking beer money or whatever it's less of an issue if you're paying for convenience. This sort of echoes what Craig said in the bitcoin vision video from the other day that I agree with, except for the BSV part, so again I don't think this is a compelling case for only BSV, in fact I already think it is on the back foot.
Privacy. It's a controversial topic for sure, but the fact remains that people will sometimes for whatever reason want to be able to transact privately and for illicit reasons. BSV does not intend to cater for this, but there is a market for this regardless, and a number of chains that offer it to varying degrees.
Smart contracts. Another big one which encompasses a lot of things from tokens to actual contracts to provably fair gaming and gambling. There is already a host of account based chains with far more advanced functionality and greater developer communities than BSV. The 10 minute block finality is also an issue here, as for many of the above you presumably will want finality to transactions. I know BSV is expanding the 'smart contract' capabilities but I do not see a unique or compelling case for it to suddenly dominate or even make an impact any time soon. Once again, I do not see any kind of unique selling point.
So all in all, there is a fierce discussion aside from CSW about whether BSV is superior and can survive and thrive. I am obviously of the belief that the 'one chain or none' approach will not be the case, but I would be curious to here why people on both sides of the fence agree or disagree on the various points, and whether there will be one chain to rule them all..!
Another really huge issue with the btc community in general, and this reddit especially, is the lack of nuance on price. And again, an unwillingness to accept critique. There are several scenario that can play out with price, but in some of those scenario, we may even see a huge price pump, while *still failing at adoption*. And I think that's an important distinction to make. Just because wallstreet pumps the price for reasons that only concern the rich and institutions, does not equate to adoption. It does not equate to us making vital changes for the betterment of the network and adoption. It just doesn't. Wallstreet is perfectly content with hyper regulated bitcoin that is totally irrelevant for the common man and unadopted and unused, they are perfectly fine treating bitcoin as a glorified sovereign bond and international form of settlement. That is how the institutions and rich see it. They see it much like they see bonds and gold, and are willing to treat it as such. This is even a positive in some regard because it brings monetary transparency into the banking and wealth sector. But it does not address cypherpunk, emancipatory politics, or global poverty, or individual sovereignty. And it is acheived largely through extreme centralization and hyper invasive surveillance. Be clear, they can pump the price to 250,000 while still controlling everything through Patriot Act, AMLD5, NDAA, and FACTA and the banking secrecy Act. All of which Bitcoin is entirely ideologically incompatible with. But that's just fine, because the rich already comply with those laws (mostly). They already price in the regulatory and compliance costs of an institution, of an offshore tax haven. That's just it. IT's fine for them to do this to btc, because the laws are designed for them. They create the barriers only they can afford to play in, while hurting it for everyone else. The average common man in the world, and any developing country should be able to easily acquire btc without kyc. Period. It shouldn't be a surveillance state. I recently listened to Peter McCormack interview a darkmarket guy and I completely agree. We need to engineer away from on ramps, we need to engineer away from payment gates that involve fiat, and we need to all use coinjoiners and mixing technology. It needs to be the standard. There are so many reasons to use coinjoining for non illegality. Privacy is a fundamental need. And internet 4.0 for finance is contingent on a lot of technology. These aren't really coins either. It is backbone technology to better facilitate bitcoin. But we have to have layer two solutions. It doesn't matter whether it's RSK or plasma, or both, we just need the secondary layer to pay for distributed processing, server function, matching, liquidity, file storage, atomic swaps, network gas, etc. DeFi network value cannot be conflated with the supply and demand of btc itself, we don't need permissioned side chains, we need permissionless open source side chains and interoperatibilty platforms that will protect the privacy of bitcoin and facilitate it on decentralized exchanges. On exchanges that cannot be taken down. To do that we need staggering amounts of technology innovation and thoroughput, that will require people to host nodes, mine and stake these ancillary services to protect the backbone of bitcoin commerce. Anyone who is into toxic maximalism. Let it be known that you are willfully promoting corporate bitcoin supported by massive centralized players who will treat it as a bond or settlement statist instrument. You're promoting the support of bitcoin on an entirely captured regulatory framework and an entirely captured unsafe unsecure regular internet controlled by the clearnet and amazon and google and heavily surveiled. .Org just privatize for fuck sakes. And any DNS can be compromised, any .com site can be siezed. This normal backbone is entirely inappropriate for bitcoin. Centralized exchanges and payment apps like cash app are entirely inappropriate for bitcoin. You should be able to visit a IFPS site, connect a hardware wallet to any DEX or DAPP and immediately trade with the same speed and liquidity of binance and bitmex. The user interface should be simple and approachable to the layman. We need a liquidity interbank controlled by SPV server and dark node. Payment incentives for people to host liquidity to the network on plasma, radon, cosmos, uniswap, eventually all the DEX will simply be connected by interchain liquidity. Crypto has to be extremely unfettered. The regulators and wallstreet have strangled it and will continue to do so. Some people have forgotten that this is a battle for financial sovereignty and protection against wealth confiscation. Only when they realize that they can't control us, will they be forced to sit down at the legislative table and negotiate with common people. You have to bring your government to heel.
Let's use Mike Hearn's Coinbase Reallocation to stop the censoring scammer KnCMiner!
Mike Hearn posted Coinbase Reallocation this morning to let the honest majority of hashing power regulate criminal miners like BitUndo. It's a really simple idea! Dishonest blocks and the miners who mine them are identified out-of-band by the community of reputable mining pools. For BitUndo that means submitting double-spends via the service and watching for them to be included in blocks. When they are the honest miners vote with their hashing power, just like they voted on whether or not Bitcoin needs new soft-forked features like P2SH. When a coinbase output, the reward for mining, reaches the 100 block maturity the protocol simply counts up all the votes for the block. If a majority agrees the block is honest, great! But if not the coinbase reward is put into a pot of funds that subsequent honest blocks are allowed to claim for themselves. Unlike re-orging out dishonest blocks this isn't disruptive - confirmations are never undone - and at the same time it ensures that the bad miners can't profit from their malicious actions. It's compatible with nearly all major clients too because SPV clients, like Android Wallet and Multibit, just check that transactions are included in blocks and leave validation up to the mining community. (the idea being that majority of hashing power is honest and wouldn't include invalid transactions or give themselves un-earned Bitcoins) KnC has been ripping off customers by self-mining rather than shipping hardware out the door. Their solo pool all pays to the address 1BGbGFBhsXYq6kTyjSC9AHRe1dhe76tD6i. We can stop this fraud right now with just the co-operation of just three people: the operators of GHash.io, BTC Guild, and Discus Fish, together a majority of the hashing power. Of course, they might try to hide their illegal mining activities and make their blocks indistinguishable from others, like by paying out to a random address in each block. This is easily fixed too by voting to reallocate funds from any block without proper identification on hand. When that identification is provided to the honest and reputable hashing power the funds can be easily released from the pot and given back. Remember too that if we had proper identification for miners available the BitUndo criminals would be facing legal liability, a potent tool to stop fraud. (I guess P2Pool shares could be accompanied by identity proofs based on smartcard-enabled passports, although it'd be even better if that hashing power moved to a professionally run and secure pool that has the resources to comply with their reallocation regulation duties) Finally, we can't forget our tax obligations. As much as we hate paying taxes - I know I'm putting off my April 31st deadline with Revenue Canada - they're an integral part of lawful society. With Coinbase Reallocation the honest majority can make sure that mining income not allocated properly to the relevant authorities is reallocated appropriately. If Bitcoin is to succeed it has to be reputable, and reputable means recourse from fraud. Please tell the hashing power majority, GHash.io, BTC Guild, and Discus Fish, that we want a regulated and safe Bitcoin! Serious edit: Of course, as nearly everyone realized, the above is satire. What far fewer realize is what I'm saying with that satire: Mike proposed a simple mechanism that essentially acts as a way for miners to vote with their hashing power to blacklist block rewards. Yes, you can do that already, but blacklists via reorgs are expensive, risky, and very difficult to co-ordinate; automated voting on what to blacklist is cheap and easy. I'm sure he intended it to be used for exactly one thing - punishing miners who violate his notion of double-spending rules - but once such a mechanism is in place it can be used for a lot more than originally intended. If you were a big publicly known mining pool, could you really resist the pressure to just flip "one little switch" and vote to blacklist blocks produced by a "bad" pool at no cost to you? As I showed above, the definition of "bad" can extend to a lot more than just double-spends, and the pressures on pools to blacklist can and will be legal and regulatory.
After allegedly declaring bitcoin illegal, the Bank of Thailand issued a backtracking statement in 2014, clarifying that it is not legal tender (but not technically illegal), and warning of the risks. Although there is nothing illegal about SPV or SPY mining, there is definitely controversy since empty blocks reduce the transaction capacity of Ethereum and Bitcoin, which could lead to higher transaction fees and, therefore, could be detrimental to the economy of Bitcoin and Ethereum, at least in the short term. SPV, on the other hand, are light-weight wallets and they operate without downloading the entire blockchain. SPV wallets rely on the their connected nodes which have full copy of the blockchain ... The bitcoin blockchain is a public ledger that records bitcoin transactions.  It is implemented as a chain of blocks, each block containing a hash of the previous block up to the genesis block [lower-alpha 4] of the chain. A network of communicating nodes running bitcoin software maintains the blockchain. : 215–219 Transactions of the form payer X sends Y bitcoins to payee Z are ... 28 Bitcoin mining is a waste of energy and harmful for ecology; 29 Shopkeepers can't seriously set prices in bitcoins because of the volatile exchange rate; 30 Like Flooz and e-gold, bitcoins serve as opportunities for criminals and will be shut down; 31 Bitcoins will be shut down by the government just like Liberty Dollars were; 32 Bitcoin is not decentralized because the developers can ...
The Merkle - How to make money with Bitcoin - The Merkle
Hi, Friends Welcome To Joy Of Wealth By Mohsin For All Links Click see more Friends, in this Video, i have shown the Never Miss How To Earn Money Online - Flashearn Full Income Plan How To Turn ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Queue A compilation of Andreas M. Antonopoulos (@aantonop) Bitcoin questions & answers from the month of December 2019. Links for the Q&A sessions below. All source videos published under a creative ... Crypto News: Vechain, Stellar, Binance, Modum, Elastos, EtherDelta, SEC (5th - 11th of November) SEC Targeting Crypto Exchanges On 8th of November the U.S. S... My genesis mining week 3 video is now up! I was able to do another upgrade but i got a little scared because my transaction timed out due to the transaction ...