Top 10 Myths About Bitcoin Nasdaq

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LYN Tokenomics Plan to Counter Inflation & Speculation Problems Inhibiting Crypto’s Adoptio

LYN Tokenomics Plan to Counter Inflation & Speculation Problems Inhibiting Crypto’s Adoptio


As the name suggests Lynchpin is a cryptocurrency that was created with the intent of being a stablecoin. The birth of the LYN token was with a clear purpose to overcome the most crucial challenges that are currently impeding the widespread adoption of cryptocurrency by the general population.
Three of the major predicaments that make it difficult for a decentralized currency to rise up and finally be appreciated for its true value, are: speculation, lack of real utility and inflation.

Speculation

Hype triggers speculation, which ultimately creates a bubble that is bound to burst. Lynchpin’s proposed solution to this, is to avoid freeloaders that come as a result of bounties and airdrops etc., and rather only take on genuine investors who’ve paid for their LYN tokens, thus they’re far more likely to be aligned with best interest of the currency long-term. In other words realadopters.
Furthermore, by effectively creating legitimate demand by a proprietary merchant adoption program, plus a strategically low and somewhat controlled supply of LYN, the longevity of the currency is far more promising as it is valuable in much more than a speculative way. However, the proof will be in the pudding.

Real Utility

Lynchpin have created a utility token with applied benefits, now in the present. LYN token holders can use LYN to purchase physical goods directly from its partnered platforms. This is significant, due to the fact that Lynchpin is still in an ICO phase and already providing real utility.
The demand of LYN token is further increased by leveraging several proprietary products and programs, such as the LynPay Debit Card, LynPay POS machines, and LynPay multi-currency wallet, which will all coordinate with the LynPay merchant adoption program (having already partnered with several e-commerce merchants).

Inflation

Generally speaking mining and staking are the mechanisms used to create more tokens, and as a result increase a given cryptocurrency’s total supply. Unless executed to perfection, this method results in inflation, with the last person to invest affected the most — as their newly purchased tokens instantly become less valuable.
Rather than creating a new token supply, Lynchpin opts to pay for the Ethereum gas fee and leverages the 18 decimal point model in aid of instilling intrinsic value. Additionally, there is a total and maximum supply of only 5 million LYN tokens. Of this 5 million, 3 million will be locked in escrow for 12 months, leaving only 2 million in circulation.
The 3 million locked away is comprised of 2 million for private investors, and 1 million is reserved for the team and partners. Obviously private investors, the Lynchpin team and partners have a vested interest and are less likely to dump tokens upon the commencement of this holding period.
This limited supply of circulating tokens, alongside an increase in real adoption via tangible and valuable utility, will consequently increase the demand of the LYN token.

Moving Forward

By implementing this tokenomics plan, coordinated with the adoption sincere investors, Lynchpin bodes to achieve stability in the market and allow the judiciously calculated supply and demand to dictate the LYN price. Ultimately, the aim of the LYN token is to be a highly rewarding cryptocurrency with realutility, and reliable, lasting value. If executed successfully, Lynchpin could be the preferred payment method and currency of the future.
The public sale (first round) for the LYN token is on now, with no minimum purchase to participate. For more information, head to the Lynchpin website, or to monitor the project’s progress and see regular updates check out the Lynchpin social pages on Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin.
Website : Lyn Token
Whitelist : Lynpay Metal Debit card application
BitcoinTalk : (ANN) (ICO) Lynchpin (LYN) token Official
Telegram : https://t.me/lynchpintoken
Facebook : Lynchpin Token
Twitter : LyNCHPIN (LYN) TOKEN
submitted by LyntokenTeam to Lyntoken [link] [comments]

An explanation of the Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork for Newbies

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

Why I think OmiseGO (OMG) is an Undervalued Invest Option

Why I think OmiseGO (OMG) is an Undervalued Investment Option
Disclaimer: I am not associated with OmiseGO in any way. I own a very small number of tokens, but I am writing this only to share my perspective. On multiple occasions I have had the opportunity to invest early on, but didn't do so either because I didn't understand the technology or I wasn't convinced of it's potential. Ethereum was one of those things. Big mistake. Though it is purely my own opinion, I'm writing this to convince others that OmiseGO is a solid investment option. My aim is to provide the reasons supporting this belief so that if you decide not to invest in OmiseGO then at least it is an informed choice. Most importantly, please do your own research! I've done my best to be accurate here, but please check for yourself before making investment decisions. All investments in cryptocurrency are inherently volatile and risky, but with good potential for return.
OmiseGO is a Southeast Asia-based company creating an e-wallet that will make transfer of assets and currencies possible. Merchants and users of the wallet can transfer whatever asset or currency they desire. For example, you could use your ethereum, bitcoin, international fiat, or even your airline points to buy groceries using the e-wallet app on your mobile phone. Transfers can happen across borders, or even while traveling abroad. Unlike Western Union or PayPal for example, the fees are almost negligible, and the transfer is instant. Because it's based on a block chain, there are no intermediary banks necessary and users don't need bank accounts to access those funds. This is especially good for migrant workers who send money home and often don't have bank accounts and are forced to use expensive wire services instead. Source
With all of that said, I have some concerns.
For more reading take a look at the white paper!
PLEASE correct me on anything I've written here (with sources of information too to support the correction) and PLEASE add any perspectives or points I missed in the comments (again, with sources of information)
This took a bunch of time to prepare, and tips/donations are always appreciated and welcome :)
Ethereum: 0x0E4e698c0fE48D3Ae228F2b7B4740bF9b5349412
edit: thanks to u/Todoroku for the following comment: OmiseGo doesn't really need a OmiseGO wallet at this point. They want to be the backend exchange usable by ANY e-wallet such as the ones listed in the quote. Getting their exchange up is first and foremost importance imho. Second point Omise is ALREADY used by a large number of merchants in Southeast Asia so your concern about them getting merchants on board is also somewhat misplaced. "At the time of writing, we process eight to nine digits (USD) worth of transactions per day." - per their website As a company they currently have payment gateways in Thailand and Japan. They purchased Paysbuy who is licensed by the Bank of Thailand to operate e-money services. What they need to do is implement OmiseGo as the backend exchange in their existing payment infrastructure. Once that is completed any merchants already using their payment systems would be able to accept any type of currency supported by the OmiseGo exchange. Once OmiseGo is proved out on their current payment channels other e-wallet services like AliPay, PayPal, etc could implement this on their backend as well. So say anywhere that accepted google wallet would then also be able to accept Bitcoin etc.
submitted by mrhansenable to omise_go [link] [comments]

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

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

Cryptocurrency trenches: Are bitcoin & blockchain really transformative?

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

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

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

What is blockchain and, how does it work?

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

What is a Blockchain?

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

Related explanations:

What is a cryptocurrency and, how does it work?

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

How do they work?

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

Here are some really interesting facts about miners:

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

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

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

Why did bitcoin reach such a high value??

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

What is the best cryptocurrency out there and, why?

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

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

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

Do you think ETFs will be possible?

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

Do you think decentralization will be inevitable and, why?

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

Do you think we are making history and, why?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is the next milestone to the blockchain?

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

1. Energy Consumption Caused by Proof of Work

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

2. Dwindling of Mining Rewards and the Alignment of Goals

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

What motivates you?

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

What’s your definition of success?

Cryptocurrency transactions fall into two classes:

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

What you think of work/life balance?

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

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

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

LYN Tokenomics Plan to Counter Inflation & Speculation Problems Inhibiting Crypto’s Adoptio

LYN Tokenomics Plan to Counter Inflation & Speculation Problems Inhibiting Crypto’s Adoptio


As the name suggests Lynchpin is a cryptocurrency that was created with the intent of being a stablecoin. The birth of the LYN token was with a clear purpose to overcome the most crucial challenges that are currently impeding the widespread adoption of cryptocurrency by the general population.
Three of the major predicaments that make it difficult for a decentralized currency to rise up and finally be appreciated for its true value, are: speculation, lack of real utility and inflation.

Speculation

Hype triggers speculation, which ultimately creates a bubble that is bound to burst. Lynchpin’s proposed solution to this, is to avoid freeloaders that come as a result of bounties and airdrops etc., and rather only take on genuine investors who’ve paid for their LYN tokens, thus they’re far more likely to be aligned with best interest of the currency long-term. In other words realadopters.
Furthermore, by effectively creating legitimate demand by a proprietary merchant adoption program, plus a strategically low and somewhat controlled supply of LYN, the longevity of the currency is far more promising as it is valuable in much more than a speculative way. However, the proof will be in the pudding.

Real Utility

Lynchpin have created a utility token with applied benefits, now in the present. LYN token holders can use LYN to purchase physical goods directly from its partnered platforms. This is significant, due to the fact that Lynchpin is still in an ICO phase and already providing real utility.
The demand of LYN token is further increased by leveraging several proprietary products and programs, such as the LynPay Debit Card, LynPay POS machines, and LynPay multi-currency wallet, which will all coordinate with the LynPay merchant adoption program (having already partnered with several e-commerce merchants).

Inflation

Generally speaking mining and staking are the mechanisms used to create more tokens, and as a result increase a given cryptocurrency’s total supply. Unless executed to perfection, this method results in inflation, with the last person to invest affected the most — as their newly purchased tokens instantly become less valuable.
Rather than creating a new token supply, Lynchpin opts to pay for the Ethereum gas fee and leverages the 18 decimal point model in aid of instilling intrinsic value. Additionally, there is a total and maximum supply of only 5 million LYN tokens. Of this 5 million, 3 million will be locked in escrow for 12 months, leaving only 2 million in circulation.
The 3 million locked away is comprised of 2 million for private investors, and 1 million is reserved for the team and partners. Obviously private investors, the Lynchpin team and partners have a vested interest and are less likely to dump tokens upon the commencement of this holding period.
This limited supply of circulating tokens, alongside an increase in real adoption via tangible and valuable utility, will consequently increase the demand of the LYN token.

Moving Forward

By implementing this tokenomics plan, coordinated with the adoption sincere investors, Lynchpin bodes to achieve stability in the market and allow the judiciously calculated supply and demand to dictate the LYN price. Ultimately, the aim of the LYN token is to be a highly rewarding cryptocurrency with realutility, and reliable, lasting value. If executed successfully, Lynchpin could be the preferred payment method and currency of the future.
The public sale (first round) for the LYN token is on now, with no minimum purchase to participate. For more information, head to the Lynchpin website, or to monitor the project’s progress and see regular updates check out the Lynchpin social pages on Facebook, Twitter and Linkedin.
Website : Lyn Token
Whitelist : Lynpay Metal Debit card application
BitcoinTalk : (ANN) (ICO) Lynchpin (LYN) token Official
Telegram : https://t.me/lynchpintoken
Facebook : Lynchpin Token
Twitter : LyNCHPIN (LYN) TOKEN
submitted by LyntokenTeam to u/LyntokenTeam [link] [comments]

Why I think OmiseGO (OMG) is an Undervalued Investment Option (x-post from r/omise_go)

Why I think OmiseGO (OMG) is an Undervalued Investment Option
Disclaimer: I am not associated with OmiseGO in any way. I own a very small number of tokens, but I am writing this only to share my perspective. On multiple occasions I have had the opportunity to invest early on, but didn't do so either because I didn't understand the technology or I wasn't convinced of it's potential. Ethereum was one of those things. Big mistake. Though it is purely my own opinion, I'm writing this to convince others that OmiseGO is a solid investment option. My aim is to provide the reasons supporting this belief so that if you decide not to invest in OmiseGO then at least it is an informed choice. Most importantly, please do your own research! I've done my best to be accurate here, but please check for yourself before making investment decisions. All investments in cryptocurrency are inherently volatile and risky, but with good potential for return.
OmiseGO is a Southeast Asia-based company creating an e-wallet that will make transfer of assets and currencies possible. Merchants and users of the wallet can transfer whatever asset or currency they desire. For example, you could use your ethereum, bitcoin, international fiat, or even your airline points to buy groceries using the e-wallet app on your mobile phone. Transfers can happen across borders, or even while traveling abroad. Unlike Western Union or PayPal for example, the fees are almost negligible, and the transfer is instant. Because it's based on a block chain, there are no intermediary banks necessary and users don't need bank accounts to access those funds. This is especially good for migrant workers who send money home and often don't have bank accounts and are forced to use expensive wire services instead. Source
With all of that said, I have some concerns.
For more reading take a look at the white paper!
PLEASE correct me on anything I've written here (with sources of information too to support the correction) and PLEASE add any perspectives or points I missed in the comments (again, with sources of information)
This took a bunch of time to prepare, and tips/donations are always appreciated and welcome :)
Ethereum: 0x0E4e698c0fE48D3Ae228F2b7B4740bF9b5349412
submitted by mrhansenable to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining Difficulty Drops A Historical 16% - Bitcoin Hashrate Down 45% - Why It's A Good Thing Learn CSS in 12 Minutes - YouTube SciManDan - YouTube Why are there giant concrete tunnels in the desert? - YouTube An FBI Negotiator’s Secret to Winning Any Exchange  Inc.

Abra, Align Commerce and Freemit are three startups using Bitcoin to lower the costs of money transfers around the world. 9. Bitcoin Mining Wastes Electricity. A recent report found that Bitcoin ... Veem, formally known as Align Commerce, has raised $24m as part of its plan to simplify global fiat currency payments using the bitcoin bloc... Bitcoin Mining; Best Bitcoin Brokers; Best Bitcoin Forex Brokers; How To Earn Btcoin ; What is Facebook Libra? Ripple and XRP: The Complete Guide; Trade Boasting a community of over eight million people, eToro is one of the leading global trading and investment platform – and it specialises in cryptocurrencies. Although there are more than 1,200 assets to trade on eToro, which was founded in ... In April, Bitcoin Magazine reported that global payment provider Align Commerce launched a public beta of its payments platform, the first in the industry to use the Bitcoin blockchain transparently to enable faster and cheaper global payments. Transactions appear as traditional payments at both the sending and the receiving end, but Align Commerce pipes the transfer through the blockchain ... Align Commerce is able to cut the cost for businesses as well by cutting time it takes to process the payments and how many middlemen participate in the transfer. Only the company that has to change currencies pays a 1.9 percent exchange rate fee on top of the amount of money it wants to send. Therefore, the buyer has to pay the exchange rate fee.

[index] [2242] [36921] [28557] [48731] [8344] [24821] [27798] [20575] [24645] [30504]

Bitcoin Mining Difficulty Drops A Historical 16% - Bitcoin Hashrate Down 45% - Why It's A Good Thing

Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. Mining bitcoin in 2020 for only $0.05 per Kwh at warrior mining! Check the video to know how to mine bitcoin easily at a very low electricity cost. Start min... Bitcoin mining difficulty drops a historical 16%, bitcoin hashrate down 45%. Bitcoin mining difficulty explained in this video. Start mining bitcoins in the warrior mining btc mining farm: https ... I introduce CSS, explain how to link a CSS file with an HTML document and teach the syntax of the language along with the most common properties. Support thi... The Physics Girl team visited LIGO once again. This place is Dianna's obsession. If you liked this video check out these: I Visited the First Gravitational W...

#