r/Bitcoin - I'm in China and I just bought some bitcoins

I'm in China and I just bought some bitcoins from Taobao a Chinese equivalent of eBay.

I'm in China and I just bought some bitcoins from Taobao a Chinese equivalent of eBay. submitted by benjaminlam to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I'm in China and I just bought some bitcoins from Taobao a Chinese equivalent of eBay.

I'm in China and I just bought some bitcoins from Taobao a Chinese equivalent of eBay. submitted by ImagesOfNetwork to ImagesOfChina [link] [comments]

I'm in China and I just bought some bitcoins from Taobao a Chinese equivalent of eBay. /r/Bitcoin

I'm in China and I just bought some bitcoins from Taobao a Chinese equivalent of eBay. /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

BITCOIN DIVORCE – BITCOIN CORE VS BITCOIN CASH EXPLAINED

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.)
Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well.
BITCOIN WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR
For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war.
Who are they fighting against?
The government and central banks.
There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software.
BATTLE FOR ONLINE GAMBLING
Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker.
Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp
Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”.
Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre.
Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs.
ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS AND CYPHERPUNKS
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government.
Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks.
Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology.
One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government.
Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot.
Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war.
Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies.
More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com).
HOW TO WIN THE WAR
To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it.
IS BITCOIN WINNING?
Yes and no.
Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold.
However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency.
If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies.
BITCOIN LOSING TO FIAT
In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. Dell, Wikipedia and airlines have stopped accepting bitcoin. SatoshiDice and Yours switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times?
Because of small blocks.
SCALING DEBATE – THE BIG MARITAL FIGHT
Why isn't the block size increased?
Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.)
Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused.
The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
This scaling debate and in-fighting went on for several years. You can read more about it at: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
SMALL BLOCKERS VS BIG BLOCKERS
Why has Blockstream refused to increase block size? There are a few possible reasons:
  1. They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
  2. Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
  3. They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
  4. They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ
He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos.
He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased?
He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future.
Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS MINERS
According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain?
DIFFERENT AGENDAS
It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas.
Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!”
Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good."
Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.”
Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”
Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.”
Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.”
Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed”
Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.”
Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.”
Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome."
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system”
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia.
Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions.
An analogy of this scaling debate is this:
You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph.
Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS USERS
If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users). Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin.
Roger Ver's companies used to use or still use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table.
In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) are IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream.
But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems.
BLOCKSTREAM VS LIBERTARIANS
There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers.
Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08)
Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this. He pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
THE DIVORCE
To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC.
After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH.
Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while.
Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money.
This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different.
Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways.
Both parties have want they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

My biggest regret, a saved email from 2013.

12/20/13 K: Hey man, it's K. Is your name D? Anyway...getting money onto BTC-e can be tricky if you are trying to deposit USD. I kind of just had to learn by trial an error because I didn't know anyone that could teach me, because i am the only one that invests in crypto currency that I know.
Anyway, coinbase is probably the best bitcoin wallet service in the United States. It is definitely the largest and most reputable. Use this referral link: Once you sign up using this link, it will give us both some free money after you have purchased some bitcoins. The process takes a little while to get all started up, but it is worth it because it is so easy to use after. You can instantly buy bitcoins, and then use those bitcoins to send to BTC-E to purchase whatever other coins you want. I invest pretty heavily in LTC. The only way I have been able to do that is by buying bitcoins on coinbase, and then sending them to btc-e. Let me know if this works for you..
K: Let me know if the email reached you
D: Yep. I got it. Two to three days for the deposit verification into my bank account. Thanks for the advice. I take it you work in finance?
K: Yeah I do :). Coinbase takes a bit for the verification process but it is super easy to use after that. When you sell bitcoins, they just deposit the money right back into your bank account. It's the easiest service that I have found that is reputable.
D: Have you ever tried trading for small margins? I made about 0.60 USD since I started last night. I got my initial funding by mining FTC. I'm trading BTC.
D: Actually up to 10.81 after my last trade. Got in at 625 and sold at 639.
K: I mainly buy and hold for long term. I bought some NMC to flip, but it dropped in value steeply so im still holding it. I buy more every time it dips. Sent via wireless, please excuse any typos...
D: Cool. No worry about typos. I type all day at work so don't mind as well. I give up on accuracy at 5. My friends also aren't very much into crytpo currencies. I like the technical aspect but I'm more interested in trading on BTC-E. I must have watched about 12 hours of bitcoinwisdom since yesterday. It was my first time analyzing real time data. I can't believe how much info you can obtain just from identifying patterns. I have a quick question about a 401k if you don't mind. So far my year to date is 26%, is that good?
K: Yes, very good. You must have had it set up aggressively with the investing choices (which is better to do when you are young). Good stock market returns are around 12% so you are more than double, but don't be surprised if there is a correction to lower on the returns there too.
D: Yes. I'm over 50% in small cap and am young. Is there anyway to avoid that correction by reallocating?
K: Nah, just leave it. At least you have a 401k, most people are paycheck to paycheck
D: Defiantly. I can't imagine how some of my co-workers get by paying overdraft fees each month. Have a good night. I'll let you know when I buy some coins on that site.
K: Cool, let me know. Let's make some money! :)
12/22/13 D: Howdy K, I'm still waiting on the deposits in my bank account by Coinbase. Thanks for the referral link, I'm looking forward to that free $5 of BTC. Up to $12.30 USD on BTCE, looking to break $13 tonight. Can't wait to get some more trading funds.
K: It takes a bit for the initial deposit. I think it took my bank almost a week :(. Once you are done though everything is quick. If you add a credit card too, you can buy up to 10 btc instantly per week
D: Awesome. Have any suggestions? (pic) attaches picture of small gains trade history
K: What do you mean by sugggestions? Like on your trading?
K: Can you deposit more money? It looks like you aren't fully able to enjoy the full gains of your trades because the amounts that you are trading are a little small. If possible I would suggest buying 1 btc when the price is the lowest of the day, and then trade from there..
K: Also i would stay away from ftc for time being
12/24/13 K: Hey bud, i just got some free money from coinbase :) did you get it too? Pretty cool huh?
D: Yes sir. 4 days for my order to fill, can't wait.
12/25/13 D: Merry Christmas!
K: Merry xmas! If you add a credit card you can instant buy up to 10btc. What other coins are you buying right now? I mainly just have BTC and LTC
D: Does the credit card have to be a Visa? I'm mining about 8 FTC per day and trading for BTC at market. Then I trade BTC/USD for 0.10 - 0.40 profits. Working on a spreadsheet right now which you can see if you are interested.
D: spreadsheet sends corny orange and grey spreadsheet
K: Think it can be mastercard or amex too...
K: Nice LTC rally today :). I just picked up more LTC yesterday too
D: I tried adding a mastercard and discover but it wouldn't work. I've been watching the rally. Waiting to buy in to BTC at $656.
K: Shit that sucks, email support and ask if they accept mastercard? I find that odd that they would only accept visa
D: No worries. Deposit should clear 12/31
12/29/2013 K: Hows it going? Did you get your btc?
D: Hey K. Not yet, they will be deposited 12/31. Bought at $651
K: Nice so you are already up :)
K: How much did you buy? You should buy some and hold long term if possible too
1/2/2014 D: Happy New Year, K. I only bought 0.2 BTC for about $131. I'm at a total balance of $179.07. Started mining FTC again for the few extra dollars per day.
I think I read somewhere that there is a cap of 21 million BTC that will ever be in existence. 21 million on the internet is subtle considering how many views cat videos get on youtube. 21 million out 7 billion people is even smaller. Sometimes I find it hard to imagine millions and billions but I always think about this one thing: 1 million seconds is about 11 days, 1 billion seconds around 31 years. I'm very optimistic about the long term. Probably going to set aside at least 1 BTC in the near future.
Have you ever seen BTC listed on ebay? I created an auction yesterday for 0.1 BTC, $120.00. It sold within 3 hours but the buyer flaked out after I told them they would be receiving the BTC-E redeemable code in the mail. They created a dispute stating that the ebay/pal accounts were accessed by an unauthorized third party which is currently in process. I didn't lose anything and actually sold back the 0.1 at $775 after buying at $740 last night. I'm considering re-listing some BTC on Ebay but don't want to deal with reversed payments. Have any insight?
K: I heard ebay can be a nightmare with sellers getting scammed by buyers with chargebacks. If you are going to do it, I would recommend selling maybe paper wallets only, that you actually have to mail to them. That way you can have a tracking number for your shipping. If you want to sell through paypal, be careful, I think any mention of crypto currency can get your account frozen. Not positive about that though. Try selling to people on the forums, I think that would be easy. Honestly, I think just buying what you can and holding long is the best option to make the best returns. Look how the market has gone today D
K: 21 million BTC is not even enough btc for each person in my state to have 1, let alone the United States, or the entire world. As long as the demand stays high, the price could become astronomical if some major players like wall street enter the game. Just think, if Wall Street threw like 100 mill at Bitcoins (which is not that far-fetched), the price would probably jump to like 3-4k per BTC after that 1 day alone…
D: I don't think I'm going to sell anything else on Ebay until I come up with a better way of protecting against charge backs. The market has been awesome today.
D: That's very true. I think my next purchase will be 0.5 BTC to keep in my wallet.
K: Have you seen the stuff on zerocoin? Looks interesting, should be out this year...there has been a lotta hype around it..
D: Haven't heard anything about it until just reading an article now. Looks interesting and they make a good argument about anonymity. I only read over it briefly, but it appears what they're proposing would add an additional transaction fee the the process. Cool concept. Are you good with candlestick charts and patterns?
K: Somewhat. I learned them in college but stopped using them until now, so I am pretty rusty…I get the concepts and all, but I am not a professional at them by any means. I saw my buddies wallet the other day…he is pretty stacked. Over 250btc and over 1000 LTC!
D: That is pretty stacked. About 500k stacked, right? Are you familiar with the creator(s) of bitcoin "Satoshi Nakamoto"? Is it actually one person? There are quite a few claims as to who or whom Satoshi may be.
K: Im not familiar, i heard it was a team of people under that one name
D: I wonder if it was created by a goverment. Like some NSA type agency. Kinda like how the darknet started off as a Navy project.
K: Nah I doubt it. Government wouldn't create something that could possibly pose a threat to its own currency.
D: That's a good point. The future of BTC is exciting.
1/6/2014 D: Started trading NMC recently. Check ou the spreadsheet attaches another shitsheet Still just testing the water before I start making bigger trades. Buy any more BTC/LTC lately?
K: Cool man.. Year i got some LTC at $16 right before it went back up :)
1/7/2014 D: Nice buy. Catch the market today? China's equivalent of Ebay banned the sell of btc, ltc, mining gear, etc.
My understanding on of China: China’s central bank regulated the virtual currency for the first time on Dec. 5 by banning financial institutions and payment providers from conducting transactions in the virtual currency
Chinese central bank officials told third-party payment service providers to stop offering clearing services to online Bitcoin exchanges
China's Ebay bans sell of BTC in accordance to the central bank's ban effective Jan. 31. Acting as a clearing house of BTC.
I'm now $180 long NMC. I might invest 1k soon on BTC, any thoughts on an upcoming entry point?
K: Hmmm not quite sure on entry point. I am in the red as of today on NMC. Im trying to get it back to 0.01 btc to convert my nmc back to btc, i missed it on the last push. If you are investing 1k and holding long, then any of the daily ups and downs dont matter because in the long run we hope it will be way up. If i were you, i would just wait for a big red candle and then try to by at the bottom. Maybe $800/btc is good?
K: The part that sucks is that it seems like BTC value works so hard to creep up and up slowly, and right when it seems like it is going to pick up some momentum, BAM! More bad news comes out and slams the market. This cycle seems to keep repeating over and over right now…
1/9/14 K: I got 2 more btc :)
1/27/14 D: Sorry, haven't check this email account for a few weeks. Been working a lot of OT. What price did you buy in at on 1/9? I just sold a majority of my coins for cash. I picked up 3 LTC at 19.50 though. What's gonna happen 2/1/14?
Also, do you know how long it would take for a tax return check if you have your taxes in prior to the 31st? I finished those 2 weeks ago if it matters.
The other day the dow finished pretty low. Do you have any thoughts about the US economy over the next 6-12 months?
K: What’s up man…huge dump off of BTC right now on almost all exchanges (except gox which is bs anyway). I bought some more LTC at around $19 too.
I am holding all for long haul, although it would have been profitable to sell this morning, and re-buy after this dump off. I have no idea what is going to happen on 2/1. Last time when senate met, everyone thought the party was over, and then there was a huge rally in prices instead.
I am trying to figure out the right price to buy more btc right now… what do you think?
D: Sorry. Copied and pasted instead of attaching the pic. I think we'll have to see if it breaks that support. What about the arrest of that guy at bitinstant? *attaches picture of BTC 4h chart with a random line pointing downward
K: I don’t think that one arrest will tank the market like that. I am wondering if the confiscated silk road funds are being trickled through the exchanges by the feds. It seems weird the sell off right now. It almost seems systematic. Like there is a huge sell off that clears all the buy orders. Then it is calm for a few minutes, then repeat. Really strange…
D: But I wonder how they brought charges on him? Could they hold anyone accountable who sold BTC to a person using it to buy drugs on silk road? If the Feds are selling that would explain it. They seized 144,000 and they're saying the owner of silkroad may have 600,000 stashed in a wallet.
K: I think the number is more like 30,000 btc
D: The spokesperson says the approximately 26,000 Bitcoins seized are just the ones that were held in Silk Road accounts. In other words, it’s Silk Road users’ Bitcoin. The FBI has not been able to get to Ulbricht’s personal Bitcoin yet. “That’s like another $80 million worth,” she said, explaining that it was held separately and is encrypted. If that is indeed what he’s holding, that’s close to 600,000 Bitcoin all together or about 5% of all Bitcoin currently in existence. (Update 10-25: The FBI says it’s seized 144,000 Bitcoins, or about $28 million, that it believes belong to Ross Ulbricht.)
K: I don’t understand how they were able to confiscate them, when bitcoins are not yet considered money, so they shouldn’t fall under forfeiture rules…
1/17/18 - D: Wish you the best K and hope you held those coins longer than I did.
TLDR: Meet a friend in December 2013 that gave me advice to buy and hold BTC long term. This is one of our email threads from around that time, edited to remove personally identifying information. I used all my bitcoin for pizza following the fall of Mt. Gox and the subsequent bubble burst.
submitted by hampering to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.)
Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well.
BITCOIN WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR
For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war.
Who are they fighting against?
The government and central banks.
There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software.
BATTLE FOR ONLINE GAMBLING
Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker.
Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp
Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”.
Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre.
Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs.
ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS AND CYPHERPUNKS
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government.
Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks.
Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared after 2010, but we can refer to his writings. He wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology.
One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government.
Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot.
Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war.
Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies.
More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com).
HOW TO WIN THE WAR
To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it.
IS BITCOIN WINNING?
Yes and no.
Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold.
However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency.
If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies.
BITCOIN LOSING TO FIAT
In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. SatoshiDice, Yours.org and Bitmain switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times?
Because of small blocks.
SCALING DEBATE – THE BIG MARITAL FIGHT
Why isn't the block size increased?
Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.)
Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused.
The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
This scaling debate and in-fighting went on for several years. During this time, the controllers of bitcoin and Bitcointalk censored big blockers. Comments that criticized small blocks or supported big blocks, were deleted. You can read more about it at: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
SMALL BLOCKERS VS BIG BLOCKERS
Why has Blockstream refused to increase block size? There are a few possible reasons:
  1. They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
  2. Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
  3. They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
  4. They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ
He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos.
He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased?
He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future.
Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS MINERS
According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain?
DIFFERENT AGENDAS
It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas.
Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!”
Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good."
Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.”
Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”
Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.”
Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.”
Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed”
Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.”
Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.”
Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome."
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system”
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia.
Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions.
An analogy of this scaling debate is this:
You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph.
Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS USERS
If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users).
Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin. Roger Ver's companies use use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table.
In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) is IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream.
But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems.
BLOCKSTREAM VS LIBERTARIANS
There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers.
Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08) According to this video, Luke-jr believes that the government should tax you and the government should execute heretics. Luke-jr's values are diametrically opposed to libertarians'.
Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this, so he pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
MIKE HEARN EXPLAINS BLOCKSTREAM
Mike Hearn is one of the first Bitcoin developers. He explained how Core/Blockstream developers (source):
THE DIVORCE
To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC.
After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH.
Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while.
Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money.
This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different.
Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways.
Both parties have what they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
submitted by curt00 to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Divorce - Bitcoin [Legacy] vs Bitcoin Cash Explained

Bitcoin and Bitcoin Cash are confusing, especially to newbies. They are likely unaware of the history and reasoning for the existence of these two coins. This ignorance is likely persisted by the censorship practised at bitcoin and Bitcointalk.org for several years. (rbitcoinbanned includes examples of the censoring.)
Most of the following is an explanation of the history of Bitcoin, when there was only one Bitcoin. Then it explains the in-fighting and why it forked into two Bitcoins: 1) Bitcoin Legacy and 2) Bitcoin Cash, which happens in the last section (THE DIVORCE). Feel free to suggest edits or corrections. Later, I will publish this on Medium as well.
BITCOIN WAS AN INSTRUMENT OF WAR
For Satoshi Nakamoto, the creator, and the initial supporters, Bitcoin was more than just a new currency. It was an instrument of war.
Who are they fighting against?
The government and central banks.
There is an abundance of evidence of this, starting with Satoshi Nakamoto’s original software.
BATTLE FOR ONLINE GAMBLING
Governments around the world ban online gambling by banning their currency from being used as payment. The original Bitcoin software included code for Poker. Yes, Poker.
Here is the original code: https://github.com/trottieoriginal-bitcoin/blob/mastesrc/uibase.cpp
Search for “Poker”, “Deal Me Out”, “Deal Hand”, “Fold”, “Call”, “Raise”, “Leave Table”, “DitchPlayer”.
Bitcoin gave the middle finger to the government and found a way to get around their ban. In the initial years, it was mainly gambling operators that used Bitcoin, such as SatoshiDice. Was this a coincidence? Gambling is one of the best, if not, the best application for Bitcoin. It was no wonder that gambling operators embraced Bitcoin, including gambling mogul Calvin Ayre.
Bitcoin enabled people to rebel against the government in other ways as well, such as Silk Road, which enabled people to buy and sell drugs.
ANTI-GOVERNMENT LIBERTARIANS AND CYPHERPUNKS
Libertarians seek to maximize political freedom and autonomy. They are against authority and state power. Cypherpunks are activists advocating widespread use of cryptography as a route to social and political change. Their common thread is their dislike for the government.
Bitcoin was created by libertarians and cypherpunks.
Satoshi Nakamoto used cryptography mailing lists to communicate with other cypherpunks such as Wei Dai. Satoshi Nakamoto disappeared after 2010, but we can refer to his writings. He wrote:
“It’s very attractive to the libertarian viewpoint if we can explain it properly. I’m better with code than with words though.”
Satoshi Nakamoto was rebellious to government control. Someone argued with Satoshi by stating: “You will not find a solution to political problems in cryptography.” Satoshi replied:
"Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years.
Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own.”
Nakamoto was critical of the central bank. He wrote:
"The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts.”
It is no wonder that the first supporters of Bitcoin were libertarians as well, who agreed with Satoshi’s ideology and saw the potential of Bitcoin to fulfill their ideology.
One of the biggest benefits that Bitcoin supporters want, is “censorship resistance”. What does this mean? It means: to be able to spend your money any way you want. It means: how to get around government regulations and bans. It means: how to do something despite the government.
Roger Ver, an early Bitcoin supporter, heavily criticizes the government for engaging in wars around the world that kills civilians and children. When he ran as a Libertarian candidate in an election against the Republicans and Democrats, he criticized the ATF and FBI for murdering children in their raid in Waco, Texas. At the time, Ver and many other merchants were selling fireworks on eBay without a license. The ATF charged Ver and sent him to prison, but did not charge any of the other merchants. (https://youtu.be/N6NscwzbMvI?t=47m50s) This must have angered Ver a lot.
Since then, Ver has been on a mission to weaken and shrink the government. When he learned about Bitcoin in February 2011, he saw it as his weapon to accomplish his goal…his instrument of war.
Ver was already a multi-millionaire entrepreneur. He sold his company, bought Bitcoins and was the first to invest in Bitcoin startups, such as Bitpay, Blockchain.info, Kraken, Bitcoin.com, Bitcoinstore.com and others. Then he worked full-time to promote Bitcoin. Bitpay became the largest Bitcoin payment processor. Blockchain.info became the largest provider of Bitcoin wallets. Much of the growth of Bitcoin since 2011 can be attributed to Ver's companies.
More evidence of Ver’s anti-government sentiment emerged when he recently announced that he is working to create a society with no government at all (FreeSociety.com).
HOW TO WIN THE WAR
To win the war, Bitcoin must be adopted and widely used by the masses. When people use Bitcoin instead of their national fiat currency, the government becomes weaker. The government can no longer do the following:
It is not only important to get the masses to adopt Bitcoin, but it is also important to get them to adopt it quickly. If it takes a long time, governments will have more time to think twice about allowing Bitcoin to exist and will have more justifications to ban it. They can claim that Bitcoin is used for ransomware, terrorism, etc. If Bitcoin is adopted by the masses to buy everyday goods, such as food and clothing, then it will be harder for them to stop it.
IS BITCOIN WINNING?
Yes and no.
Bitcoin has definitely become more popular over the years. But, it is not achieving Satoshi Nakamoto’s goals.
Satoshi defined Bitcoin and his goal. The title of his white paper is:
“Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”
Is Bitcoin being used as cash? Unfortunately, it is not. It is being used as a store of value. However, the title of Satoshi’s white paper was not:
“Bitcoin: A Store of Value”
There is utility in having a store of value, of course. People need it and Bitcoin has superior features to gold. Therefore, it is likely that Bitcoin can continue gaining in popularity and price as it continues to compete and take market share away from gold.
However, both gold and Bitcoin are not being used as currency.
If Bitcoin does not replace fiat currencies, will it weaken governments? No, because no matter how many people buy gold or Bitcoin (as a store of value), they do not weaken governments. To do so, Bitcoin must replace fiat currencies.
BITCOIN LOSING TO FIAT
In the initial years, Bitcoin was taking market share from fiat currencies. But, in the past year, it is losing market share. SatoshiDice, Yours.org and Bitmain switched to Bitcoin Cash. According to Businessinsider:
"Out of the leading 500 internet sellers, just three accept bitcoin, down from five last year.”
Why is Bitcoin losing market share to fiat? According to Businessinsider:
“when they do try to spend it, it often comes with high fees, which eliminates the utility for small purchases, or it takes a long time to complete the transaction, which could be a turn-off.”
Why are there high fees and long completion times?
Because of small blocks.
SCALING DEBATE – THE BIG MARITAL FIGHT
Why isn't the block size increased?
Because Core/Blockstream believes that big blocks lead to centralization to fewer people who can run the nodes. They also believe that off-chain solutions will provide faster and cheaper transactions. There are advocates for bigger blocks, but because Core/Blockstream control the software, Bitcoin still has the original, one megabyte block since 8 years ago. (Core developers control Bitcoin’s software and several of the key Core developers are employed by Blockstream, a private, for-profit company.)
Businesses, users and miners have asked for four years for the block size to be increased. They point out that Satoshi has always planned to scale Bitcoin by increasing the block size. For four years, Core/Blockstream has refused.
The Bitcoin community split into two factions:
This scaling debate and in-fighting went on for several years. During this time, the controllers of bitcoin and Bitcointalk censored big blockers. Comments that criticized small blocks or supported big blocks, were deleted. You can read more about it at: https://np.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/6rxw7k/informative_btc_vs_bch_articles/dl8v4lp/?st=jaotbt8m&sh=222ce783
SMALL BLOCKERS VS BIG BLOCKERS
Why has Blockstream refused to increase block size? There are a few possible reasons:
  1. They truly believe that big blocks means that fewer people would be able to run full nodes, which would lead to centralization and that the best roadmap is with off-chain solutions. (However, since 2009, hard disk space has exploded. A 4TB disk costs $100 and can store 10 years of blocks. This price is the equivalent to a handful of Bitcoin transaction fees. Also, Satoshi never planned on having every user run full nodes. He envisioned server farms. Decentralization is needed to achieve censorship-resistance and to make the blockchain immutable. This is already accomplished with the thousands of nodes. Having millions or billions of nodes does not increase the censorship-resistance and does not make the blockchain more immutable.)
  2. Blockstream wants small blocks, high fees and slow confirmations to justify the need for their off-chain products, such as Liquid. Blockstream sells Liquid to exchanges to move Bitcoin quickly on a side-chain. Lightning Network will create liquidity hubs, such as exchanges, which will generate traffic and fees for exchanges. With this, exchanges will have a higher need for Liquid. This is the only way that Blockstream will be able to repay the $76 million to their investors.
  3. They propose moving the transactions off the blockchain onto the Lightning Network, an off-chain solution. By doing so, there is a possibility of being regulated by the government (see https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/7gxkvj/lightning_hubs_will_need_to_report_to_irs/). One of Blockstream’s investors/owners is AXA. AXA’s CEO and Chairman until 2016 was also the Chairman of Bilderberg Group. The Bilderberg Group is run by politicians and bankers. According to GlobalResearch, Bilderberg Group wants “a One World Government (World Company) with a single, global marketplace…and financially regulated by one ‘World (Central) Bank’ using one global currency.” Does Bilderberg see Bitcoin as one component of their master plan?
  4. They do not like the fact that most of the miners are in China. In this power-struggle, they would like to take away control and future revenues from China, by scaling off-chain.
Richard Heart gives his reasons why block size should not be increased, in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2941&v=iFJ2MZ3KciQ
He cites latency as a limitation and the reason for doing off-chain scaling. However, latency has been dramatically reduced since 2009 when Bitcoin started with 1MB blocks. Back then, most residential users had 5-10 Mbps internet speed. Now, they have up to 400 Mbps up to 1 Gbps. That’s a 40 to 200X increase. Back in 2009, nobody would’ve thought that you can stream 4k videos.
He implies that 10 minute intervals between block creations are needed in order for the blocks to sync. If internet speed has increased by 40-200X, why can’t the block size be increased?
He claims that bigger blocks make it more difficult for miners to mine the blocks, which increases the chances of orphaned blocks. However, both speeds and the number of mining machines have increased dramatically, causing hashing power on the network to exponentially increase since 2009. This will likely continue increasing in the future.
Richard says that blocks will never be big enough to do 2,000 transactions per second (tps). He says that all of the forks in the world is only going to get 9 tps. Since his statement, Peter Rizun and Andrew Stone have shown that a 1 core CPU machine with 3 Mbps internet speed can do 100 tps. (https://youtu.be/5SJm2ep3X_M) Rizun thinks that visa level (2,000 tps) can be achieved with nodes running on 4-core/16GB machines, bigger blocks and parallel processing to take advantage of the multiple CPU cores.
Even though Rizun and Stone are showing signifiant increases in tps with bigger blocks, the big blockers have never been against a 2nd layer. They’ve always said that you can add a 2nd layer later.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS MINERS
According to Satoshi, Bitcoin should be governed by those with the most hashing power. One hash, one vote. However, Core/Blockstream does not agree with this. Due to refusals for four years to increase block size, it would seem that Core/Blockstream has been able to wrestle control away from miners. Is this because they want control? Is this because they don’t want the Chinese to have so much, or any, control of Bitcoin? Is this because they prefer to eventually move the revenue to the West, by moving most of the transactions off chain?
DIFFERENT AGENDAS
It would seem that Businesses/Users and Core/Blockstream have very different agendas.
Businesses/Users want cheap and fast transactions and see this as an immediate need. Core/Blockstream do not. Here are some quotes from Core/Blockstream:
Greg Maxwell: "I don't think that transaction fees mattering is a failing-- it's success!”
Greg Maxwell: "fee pressure is an intentional part of the system design and to the best of the current understanding essential for the system's long term survial. So, uh, yes. It's good."
Greg Maxwell: "There is a consistent fee backlog, which is the required criteria for stability.”
Peter Wuille: "we - as a community - should indeed let a fee market develop, and rather sooner than later”
Luke-jr: "It is no longer possible to keep fees low.”
Luke-jr: "Just pay a $5 fee and it'll go through every time unless you're doing something stupid.”
Jorge Timón: "higher fees may be just what is needed”
Jorge Timón: "Confirmation times are fine for those who pay high fees.”
Jorge Timón: “I think Adam and I agree that hitting the limit wouldn't be bad, but actually good for an young and immature market like bitcoin fees.”
Mark Friedenbach: "Slow confirmation, high fees will be the norm in any safe outcome."
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions.”
Greg Maxwell: “There is nothing wrong with full blocks, and blocks have been “full” relative to what miners would produce for years. Full blocks is the natural state of the system”
Wladimir J. van der Laan: “A mounting fee pressure, resulting in a true fee market where transactions compete to get into blocks, results in urgency to develop decentralized off-chain solutions. I'm afraid increasing the block size will kick this can down the road and let people (and the large Bitcoin companies) relax”
Why don’t Core/Blockstream care about cheap and fast transactions? One possible reason is that they do not use Bitcoin. They might own some, but they do not spend it to buy coffee and they do not use it to pay employees. They aren’t making hundreds of transactions per day. They do not feel the pain. As engineers, they want a technical utopia.
Businesses/Users on the other hand, feel the pain and want business solutions.
An analogy of this scaling debate is this:
You have a car that is going 50 kph. The passengers (Bitcoin users) want to go 100 kph today, but eventually in the future, they want to go 200 kph. The car is capable of going 100 kph but not 200 kph. Big blockers are saying: Step on the accelerator and go 100 kph. Small blockers are saying: Wait until we build a new car, which will go 200 kph. Meanwhile, the passengers are stuck at 50 kph.
Not only do Big blockers think that the car can simply go faster by stepping on the accelerator, they have already shown that the car can go even faster by adding a turbocharger (even bigger blocks) and making sure that every cylinder is firing (parallel process on multiple CPU cores). In addition, they are willing to use the new car if and when it gets built.
CORE/BLOCKSTREAM VS USERS
If you watch this debate from 2017-02-27 (https://youtu.be/JarEszFY1WY), an analogy can be made. Core/Blockstream is like the IT department and Bitcoin.com (Roger Ver and Jake Smith) is like the Sales/Marketing department (users).
Core/Blockstream developers hold, but do not use Bitcoin. Blockstream does not own nor use Bitcoin. Roger Ver's companies use use Bitcoin every day. Ver’s MemoryDealers was the first company to accept Bitcoin. Johnny seems to think that he knows what users want, but he rarely uses Bitcoin and he is debating one of the biggest users sitting across the table.
In all companies, Marketing (and all other departments) is IT’s customer. IT must do what Marketing wants, not the other way around. If Core/Blockstream and Roger Ver worked in the same company, the CEO would tell Core/Blockstream to give Roger what he wants or the CEO would fire Core/Blockstream.
But they don’t work for the same company. Roger and other businesses/users cannot fire Core/Blockstream.
Core/Blockstream wants to shoot for the best technology possible. They are not interested in solving short term problems, because they do not see high fees and long confirmation times as problems.
BLOCKSTREAM VS LIBERTARIANS
There are leaders in each camp. One can argue that Blockstream is the leader of the Small Blockers and Roger Ver (supported by Gavin Andresen, Calvin Ayre, businesses and some miners) is the leader of the Big Blockers.
Blockstream has openly called for full blocks and higher fees and they are preparing to scale with Lightning Network. As mentioned before, there is a possibility that Lightning hubs will be regulated by the government. Luke-jr tweeted “But State has authority from God” (https://twitter.com/LukeDashjstatus/934611236695789568?s=08) According to this video, Luke-jr believes that the government should tax you and the government should execute heretics. Luke-jr's values are diametrically opposed to libertarians'.
Roger Ver wants Bitcoin to regulate the government, not the other way around. He wants to weaken and shrink the government. In addition to separation of church and state, he wants to see separation of money and state. He felt that Bitcoin can no longer do this, so he pushed for solutions such as Bitcoin Unlimited.
MIKE HEARN EXPLAINS BLOCKSTREAM
Mike Hearn is one of the first Bitcoin developers. He explained how Core/Blockstream developers (source):
THE DIVORCE
To prepare for off-chain scaling, Core/Blockstream forked Bitcoin by adding Segwit, which I will refer to as Bitcoin Legacy. This is still referred to by the mainstream as Bitcoin, and it has the symbol BTC.
After four years of refusal by Blockstream, the big blockers, out of frustration, restored Bitcoin through a fork, by removing Segwit from Bitcoin Legacy and increased the block size. This is currently called Bitcoin Cash and has the symbol BCH.
Bitcoin Legacy has transformed from cash to store-of-value. It had a 8 year head start in building brand awareness and infrastructure. It’s likely that it will continue growing in popularity and price for a while.
Bitcoin Cash most resembles Satoshi’s “peer-to-peer cash”. It will be interesting to see if it will pick up from where Bitcoin Legacy left off and take market share in the fiat currency space. Libertarians and cypherpunks will be able to resume their mission of weakening and shrinking the government by promoting Bitcoin Cash.
Currently, Bitcoin Cash can fulfill the role of money, which includes medium of exchange (cash) and store-of-value functions. It will be interesting to see if off-chain scaling (with lower fees and faster confirmations) will enable Bitcoin Legacy to be used as a currency as well and fulfill the role of money.
This is an example of the free market and open competition. New companies divest or get created all the time, to satisfy different needs. Bitcoin is no different.
Small blockers and big blockers no longer need to fight and bicker in the same house. They have gone their separate ways.
Both parties have what they want. Blockstream can store value and generate revenue from their off-chain products to repay their investors. Libertarians (and gambling operators) can rejoice and re-arm with Bitcoin Cash to take on the government. They can continue with their mission to get freedom and autonomy.
submitted by curt00 to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Battle Over Bitcoin: China Backs US Startup Coinbase And US Falls Behind In Virtual Currencies.

Indeed, virtual currencies are nothing new to the Chinese. For example, more than 100 million people on the social platform QQ have used the Q coin for more than 10 years. And after China’s state-run China Central Television, or CCTV, ran a half-hour-long documentary on bitcoins, downloads of apps for processing and “mining” bitcoins soared in the world’s second largest economy.
Bitcoin, long the plaything of the Western ubernerd, now appears poised to grow substantially in China and other markets, like the euro zone, where government meddling in native currency valuations has left many distrustful of the money in their bank accounts.
Americans don’t have this problem -- yet. And that may be a problem in itself. According to bitcoin proponents, if the U.S. tries to ignore the nascent currency, writing it off as a financial fad with less value than the seemingly stable dollar, Americans risk ceding to the Chinese and others control of the future of what could be the most disruptive force in monetary exchanges since the credit card. In turn, the dollar and the ability of the U.S. to navigate global currency conflicts could be seriously weakened.
“Here’s the bottom line: Bitcoin has much higher popularity outside the U.S. and much higher potential outside the U.S.,” observed Andreas M. Antonopoulos of the Bitcoin Foundation. “If you go to an American and say, ‘Hey, there’s this new thing, bitcoin,’ they say, ‘Well, what’s wrong with the dollar?’ That question is different in other countries.”
Bitcoins are a finite, Web-based currency created in 2009 by a group of hackers working under the nom-de-Internet Satoshi Nakamoto. Exactly 10,952,975 bitcoins are in circulation, all of which have been purchased on exchange networks or mined. The currency is mined using software that processes transactions on the bitcoin network, adding groups of transactions, called blocks, to the chain. Miners are paid about 25 bitcoins per block. That digital money can then be used to purchase a variety of goods online, from legitimate software to heroin on the infamous virtual black-market Silk Road.
Bitcoin surged in value to $266 last month, thrusting the currency into the mainstream spotlight as investment poured in from sources as diverse as the hapless Brothers Winklevoss (of Facebook infamy) and Union Capital Ventures principal Fred Wilson (an early investor in Zynga, Twitter, and Kickstarter). Suddenly, everyone was talking about buying bitcoins. But the bubble burst in late April, and in the U.S. at least, bitcoin faded from the news. That was not the case in China, where Antonopoulos said downloads of bitcoin clients have eclipsed those in the U.S.
Bitcoins are mined in several steps. After downloading a bitcoin client, such as Coinbase (which serves as a wallet in which to store the bits of code that constitute the digital money), miners often join pools where they share computing power to decode algorithms in which bitcoins are hidden. The concept of bitcoins and bitcoin mining is cryptic for many people, even some otherwise forward-thinking American investors. The irony is that, for now, American startups are leading the bitcoin charge, and the U.S. government was the first to issue guidance on using the currency as payment -- a seemingly tacit recognition of bitcoin’s validity as legal tender.
Why China Poses A Threat
Feng Li, the IDG partner who chose to fund Coinbase, said the Chinese have yearned for access to a virtual currency since the central government cracked down on the use of Q coins.
Q coins were introduced in March 2002 by Tencent Holdings Ltd. (HKG:0700), the parent company of the country’s most popular instant-messaging service, QQ , and they currently average an annual transaction value of more than 1 billion yuan ($163 million). That value is growing at about 15 to 25 percent each year.
Q coins, purchased with yuan, are predominantly used to buy virtual products and services in QQ and its related online games and social media. Originally, Tencent regulations prevented Q coins from being traded between users or converted back to yuan, but allowed users to trade points and purchase Q coins with their game accounts, then use the black market to convert them into cash. That caused concerns at the People’s Bank of China, China’s central bank. In January 2007, converting game points to Q coins was banned, and Tencent reiterated that Q coins constitute a product, not a currency, which seemed to satisfy the concerns.
“There has already been proof with the Q coin,” Feng said of the Chinese likeliness to start using bitcoin. “It’s been very well circulated and very well adopted.”
Already, shops on Taobao -- the Chinese equivalent to eBay Inc. (NASDAQ:EBAY), owned by Alibaba.com Ltd. (HKG:1688) -- accept bitcoins as payment for goods, as does the similar service, Tencent’s PaiPai.com.
The Chinese are embracing bitcoins in other ways. The first bitcoin fund began to raise money in June, with the goal of raising 20 million yuan. The fund’s investment threshold is 10,000 yuan, and it will mature in four years.
Q coin’s popularity isn’t the only reason bitcoin has appeal in China. As it turns out, China is the perfect place for bitcoin mining. While much of the developed world is well into the transition from personal computers to mobile devices, China’s PC market is still thriving, which provides the necessary computing power to run a successful business converting electricity into mined coins. Price caps on electricity already create wasteful use of energy in China, so running a code-crunching computer for hours on end isn’t as costly an investment as it would be in the U.S. And so-called “gold-mining” or “gold-farming” businesses already exist in China’s cybersphere. None of that will come as a surprise to any “World of Warcraft” player: Gamers in Chinese urban sweatshops are known to sit in front of glowing blue screens for hours, slaughtering players in the game for their spoils or mining gold deposits found in the sprawling milieu of Blizzard Entertainment’s international blockbuster. Those treasures are then sold to players in the game for real money.
China has a heavily controlled currency, which also makes bitcoin attractive.
“The more controlled the currency is, the harder the transactions are, the more friction there is in the national currency, the more appealing the coin is,” Antonopoulos said, noted that the most appealing place to use bitcoin would be a country whose economy is a veritable train wreck -- like Zimbabwe, except that the southern African nation lacks the necessary technology. “I would say China is perfect,” he said. “It’s got the penetration, it’s got the smartphones, it’s got the Internet and the people are familiar with virtual currencies. And, it’s got the not-as-appealing national currency.”
Regulation In The U.S.
Guidance issued in March by the U.S. Treasury Department said that companies issuing or exchanging online cash, including bitcoin, would be subject to the same scrutiny as traditional firms such as the Western Union Co. (NYSE:WU) to prevent money laundering.
Less than two months later, the Department of Homeland Security proved that edict had teeth.
Federal officials obtained a warrant Tuesday to seize an account tied to Mt.Gox, the Tokyo-based exchange company that handles about 80 percent of all bitcoin trades. Authorities accused Mt.Gox’s U.S. subsidiary, Mutum Sigillum LLC, of failing to register as a money-services company with the Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. An account held by the online-payments firm Dwolla was subsequently seized.
Many feared the warrant execution could cast a chill over the bitcoin industry as a sector centered on a borderless, decentralized money came under the scrutiny of the federal government.
That proved not to be the case, Coinbase’s Ehrsam said. “For bitcoin to go mainstream, or as it goes mainstream, it will be used in a higher and higher amount of transactions,” he said, adding that Coinbase is registered as a money-services firm. “There’s no way there will be all this money flowing through an unregulated system.”
Chris Larsen -- the CEO of OpenCoin, a fellow San Francisco-based payment platform that processes most national currencies as well as bitcoin and its own virtual cash, Ripple -- agreed. “They definitely are regulating them, [and] we actually think that’s a really good thing for the industry,” he told IBTimes. “I thought the guidance was a good idea. One of the things the guidelines seem to make clear for the first time is that a virtual currency could be used for goods and services.”
The Price Of Regulation
But such regulation is a slippery slope, said Jerry Brito, a senior research fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.
Perhaps it begins with measures to prevent money-laundering, he said. But what measures would the government take to prevent the untraceable currency from being used for child pornography or human trafficking?
“Bitcoin has the potential to be a disruptive technology that would be beneficial to the economy, and we don’t want to kill off that potential to get at the other potential for bad stuff,” he observed. Brito, who plans to speak next month at a conference on virtual currencies organized by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, added: “We’re already the first country to enforce money-laundering laws against bitcoin. But the U.S. would be shooting itself in the foot if it went too far [with regulations] and either outlawed bitcoin or made the legal guidelines impossible to comply with.”
Will China Step In?
So far, Chinese bitcoin merchants have little to fear. For many, the CCTV segment on bitcoin seemed to be a signal from Beijing, which heavily controls the channel’s content, that the currency is worth exploring.
Some of those interviewed speculated that the Communist Party wants to see bitcoin stockpiled in China, allowing the government to invest in it if, or when, the dollar is shaken from its perch as the world’s reserve currency.
It remains to be seen whether -- or, more likely, when -- China will intervene in the trade of bitcoin in its own economy. But for the U.S. to experience widespread adoption of the currency, which is considered a necessary step for gaining a grasp on the bitcoin market, limited government control will have to allow the money, like the Internet that birthed it, to develop organically.
submitted by kazzZZY to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Sharing in ShareRing – the prefect match

The sharing economy is claimed to be the future trend by many visionaries and experts. But we can state that it is still in its infancy state. Analytic companies such as PwC gave an estimate that the volume of the sharing economy will be more than 335 billion dollars by 2025, whereas in 2014 it had a volume of only 14 billion dollars. Not many people can name even one company from this sphere. First of all experts call Uber and Airbnb. But there are thousands of such companies around that rent housing, cars, bicycles, tools, etc. What causes a relatively small popularity of such services? The fact is that each time the recipient of the service falls into an uncomfortable and burdensome situation - this is the need to provide each time documents, signing of contracts, payment by foreign currency (in case of trips abroad), opacity of conditions, and finding a company that provides the necessary services is not an easy process.
Decentralized blockchain platform ShareRing is designed to solve all these problems for mass adoption of sharing economy. It was created so that any person who once passed the authentication procedure in the future could easily and simply rent any things or services, whether it is an apartment or an umbrella. And for this, first of all, unite on one platform thousands of scattered companies that provide millions of goods and services.
Feasibility
Why blockchain and decentralization? After all, without it, companies like Uber work fine ...
In the case of renting a car or an apartment, filling a pile of documents can be justified, but don’t you think it's unnecessary when renting tools or renting a baby stroller for a holiday abroad?
Unlike many projects with pseudo-products that use the huge popularity of the term "blockchain" and the desire to make money on it, the developers of the ShareRing platform had a real need for this. Blockchain will allow to ensure transparency of relations between the parties, storage of history, safety and reliability of data to prevent fraud and theft. At the same time, decentralization will guarantee the availability of services at any time in any place.
A simple example: in China in 2017, was launched a project of renting umbrellas on the streets of cities in case you forgot an umbrella or rain caught you off guard. Due to the fact that most of the umbrellas were "accidentally forgotten" at home of people who rented them, the project was closed.
Competitiveness
Among the competitors we can mention two large companies that were recently considered startups, such as Uber and AirBNB, and blockchain projects like Beetoken, Odyssey, Origin protocol, etc.
Many "experts" refer to the universality and orientation of the platform in various directions as a drawback. But what, for example, distinguishes Amazon and Ebay from an ordinary online store - this is the range and the choice of goods at the most appropriate prices and conditions. Universality assumes that anyone with his idea or thing can offer his services. Management of ShareRing will provide only the maximum convenience and control over the quality of services. Even Uber or AirBNB can implement their applications on the ShareRing platform with almost nothing to change. But at the same time, Uber users from Russia will be able to rent an apartment through AirBNB without going through reauthentication there. And so in all applications on ShareRing.
If you compare ShareRing with other blockchain projects (Beetoken, Odyssey, Origin protocol), then its advantage from a technical point of view is their own blockchain, while competitors use Ethereum blockchain and are ERC20 tokens. What is the danger using Ethereum blockchain? Do you remember the situation with CryptoKitties?.. Transactions were confirmed by hours and days, the cost of the transaction was almost $20, etc. Imagine that you are at the airport and want to take a car or you want to rent an umbrella in the rain for $ 1, and the money transfer services cost $ 20. Add to this the constant threat of Ethereum’s blockchain hardfork, only because some ETH were stolen, ETH got stuck in the blockchain forever because of a careless programmer, then because of the threat of ASICs from Bitmain for the mining of ETH. The result of any hardfork or algorithm change may be the ineffectiveness of Origin, Bee and other smartcontracts. In addition, all the bugs of smart contracts in Ethereum (like the newly discovered BatchOverflow) automatically become bugs of your platform, that leads to significant risks. If you have your own blockchain, this greatly improves the stability of the entire platform and you can customize it for your tasks.
ShareRing Ecosystem’s Economy
It is planned to use two types of SHR (Share) and SHRP (SharePay) tokens on the ShareRing platform. This system is designed to combine the benefits of the cryptocurrency and the real economy.
To ensure that the prices of goods and services are predictable and do not jump depending on the course of the cryptocurrency, an internal payment token SHRP will be used, which will be tied to the rate of fiat (some analogue of the USDT), such as dollar and euro.
A "fuel" for working on the ShareRing platform will be the SHR utility-token. It will be used to pay for placing goods and services on the platform, changing their attributes, executing smart contracts, etc. The more goods/services and the demand for them, the greater the demand for SHR, and consequently, the SHR price will grow with the growth of the ecosystem. Investors get their profits from the growth of SHR.
In addition, this is one of the few projects that allow passive income to holders of SHR tokens. On the ShareRing platform will be used DPoS (Delegated Proof of Stake) to confirm transactions, and only a limited number of delegates will have the right to check transactions in the blockchain, and therefore receive a reward for confirming transactions. To obtain this right, the owner of the masternode will must have a certain amount of SHR. For this, he can have its own SHRs or delegated by other SHR owners, for which they receive a share from the remuneration for confirmation of transactions.
Hard Cap: $ 48 million
The number of tokens for mainsale: 500 mln (the equivalent of $10 mln)
Date of ICO: from June 4, 2018 to July 4, 2018 (or until the date of acquisition of the entire volume of tokens).
The price for 1 token per ICO: 1 SHR = 0.02 USD.
The experience of the team in the blockchain industry and in the sharing economy
All members of the team are blockchain enthusiasts and many of them have the experience of mining both bitcoin and other altcoins. The backbone of the development team are the winners of the competition for programming smartcontracts on the blockchain in Vietnam in 2017.
In the field of shared economy, the team also has rich experience. Their car rental service Keaz with offices in the US, Vietnam, Australia and Hong Kong brings an annual income of over $ 3 million.
Product
The above-mentioned time-tested working product Keaz, will be one of the first integrated into the blockchain ShareRing.
In addition, the ShareRing App shell, which is already at the final stage of development, allows to quickly find the necessary services nearby based on the built-in geolocation.
The launch of its own blockchain is scheduled for October 2018. Until then, the SHR will be an ERC20 token.
Team
The track record of the manager’s staff leaves behind most of the projects in the field of blockchain.
The development team has more than 5 people with many years of experience in the field of blockchain and frontend-backend programming.
Partners
Recently ShareRing became the founding member of MOBI consortium with such famous companies like BMW, Bosch, Ford, General Motors, Renault, ZF, Accenture, Context Labs, IBM and many others. Among the announced partners are already listed heavyweights like DJI and BYD. DJI is the largest manufacturer of quadrocopters in the world. The company's revenue in 2015 was $ 1 billion, the company's value is estimated at $ 10 billion. BYD is a Chinese automaker, one of the largest in the world. Annual revenue in 2016 was $ 100 billion.
Reach to audience
PR company was started recently, but a lot of articles in leading journals and on biggest resources has already been devoted to this project, including Cointelegraph.
The ShareRing at the moment has more than 14 thousand members in its Telegram group.
Protection of the interests of investors
This component of any blockchain project has become especially relevant after the ICO and cryptocurrency ban in China, and the similar restrictions in the US, South Korea and other countries.
The developers of the project took the legal side of the design and implementation of the ICO, as well as the protection of investors in the future very seriously, by conducting a detailed audit and analysis of all aspects of ICO in specialized legal companies.
submitted by golpan to ShareRing [link] [comments]

Peer to Peer Remittances Platform? [Idea]

Scenario: 'Alice' (in the US) wants to send money to 'Bob' (family back in China).
Alice is familiar with Bitcoin, Bob is not.
Alice logs on to our hypothetical web based p2p remittance platform, finds a local money exchanger, 'Carol', in the area of China when Bob lives. Based on ebay style reputation and Carol's low fees, Alice chooses Carol to facilitate the transaction of the in person, local currency remittance to Bob.
Alice sends BTC into the site's escrow service.
Carol arranges an in person meeting with Bob, delivers the yuan equivalent amount and the BTC funds are released (by either Bob or Alice) to Carol.
Alice and Bob avoid the 8-10% fees they pay using traditional remittance methods, Carol makes a cut (fee) based on supply and demand of "exchangers" and the site takes a fraction of a percentage for facilitation.
What am I missing?
submitted by chiefy81 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why Pandacoin (PND) is awesome

Stolen from the bitcointalk thread - https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=568529.msg6872025#msg6872025
the dev team expanded from 2 to 7 ppl around a month and half ago, and things started happening:
Quote from: Joesixpack9000 on May 18, 2014, 02:07:09 AM Quote from: Unluckyduck on May 18, 2014, 01:44:16 AM I like the name but I'm getting sick of coins with ridiculous max amounts (over 10B)
It is these coins with a "ridiculous max amounts" that actually have serious plans to be widely used as a form of currency in the future, instead of being another 'alt-commodity' like bitcoin. Just think of most fiat currencies and see how much of it is in circulation. You don't see only 21 million USD being circulated and used worldwide do you?
I wonder if people later on when crypto is more mainstream and accepted by the majority of the populatoin, if they would psychologically prefer to pay 0.000309 of X cryptocurrency or 1.29 of Y cryptocurrency for a can of coke, or get paid a weekly wage of .309 of X cryptocurrency or 1290 of Y cryptocurrency.
Think about the above for a second, and have a read of the dev's official vision statement of the direction that they want to take the coin. Pandacoin (PND) has the fundamentals to be a serious contender to be THE gateway crypto for the internet, over in SE Asia, and even large parts of the Western market.
Think of what we're seeing now in the current alt-coin space as a dot-com bubble similar to what happened in the late 1990's. When the bubble crashes, the survivors will become the equivalent of the Googles, Ebays and Amazons of the future alt-coin space.
I personally predict that much of the coins that DO NOT have a 'ridiculous max amounts' will die off during the equivalent of the next 'alt-coin' crash. When you have a small coin cap, the coin is automatically grouped with Bitcoin. Most simply can not replace bitcoin, which have the first movers advantage, adoption and is still having infrastructure added towards their ecosystem.
Long story short - If a coin does not have a high coin cap, they are not a serious contender to be used as a form of currency at all, and shall die off in the next alt-coin crash, similar to the dot.com crash of the late 1990's. Pandacoin PND has all the fundamentals to be one of the survivors of that inevitable alt-coin crash, and has the inherent qualities which could make it function as a unit of exchange (definition of a currency) in the future.
submitted by randomISgood to PandacoinPND [link] [comments]

Bitcoin for MTG!

If I told you that you can easily and quickly setup your own MTG virtual card shop for free; would that be of any interest to this community?
In these past few months Bitcoin has reached new levels of stability. With the downfall of Silkroad, the price spiked downwards briefly only to equalize back to it's previous rate only a half hour later.
With it becoming a legal currency in Germany, Canada is not only encouraging bitcoin; but is also planning it's own crypto-currency, China's google equivalent now accepts bitcoin along with it's government announcing no plans to regulate bitcoin; it's obvious that bitcoin is not what a lot of skeptics expected it to be.
With the average Bitcoin price constantly rising, and more merchants and vendors accepting Bitcoin, the benefits that bitcoin can offer MTG players is only more realistic.
Benefits MTG Players can get using Bitcoin
/MTG4BTC is coming back with a refreshed philosophy of facilitating a MTG/BTC economy.
We realize that reddit is no place for an auction house, yet this niche is specifically hindered by a lack of selection.
Thus we are requesting users to search bitmit for cards they want; and if the card(s) is not available, to request it on the subreddit.
If the card is not on bitmit; it is surely in someone's collection. The benefit of this model is that it allows MTG players without bitcoin to start earning and thus able to buy and request cards themselves. If bitcoiners request cards, and then pay someone who is new to bitcoin; that new bitcoiner can then spend their coin on cards themselves from another (potential) new user... or they can drop the savings into their wallet and watch it grow over the years! The point is that the choice is yours to make!
If your interested in participating in this new community, we'd love to see you stop by our humble home. There is information on the sidebar further detailing how to start selling and buying. I hope to see some of you on the flip side!
Side note: This sub is brand new in terms of a refresh and thus needs some fresh leadership. Vendors on bitmit with high karma level (anyone who sells cards and is friendly basically) are eligible to become moderators to help keep sub consistency and quality (as well as answer questions).
submitted by ForestOfGrins to magicTCG [link] [comments]

Anyone have any ideas on how to get BTC trade into China legally?

If we can find a way for people to buy/sell bitcoin they'd be able to fund BTC China exchange account and gets them back in the game.
Are there any other ways of allowing China citizens to obtain/sell bitcoin legally? E.g.
I'm sure all of this has been considered so curious what other ideas have been floated?
submitted by 5tu to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

China’s ‘Google’ Baidu Halts Bitcoin Ads, Leaves Market Guessing (The Cryptoverse #81) thebitcoingroup - YouTube Who ACTUALLY Created Bitcoin New Bitcoin Private Key Finder Non Spendable Bitcoin “1 Bitcoin Will Equal $20,000 By The End Of 2020. I FEEL REAL CONFIDENT ABOUT IT” + ETH Prediction!

In 2017, Bitcoin went from trading at just over $900 to about $20,000. This was a journey with many ups and downs along the way, a drop in trading volumes due to the People’s Bank of China tightening oversight of Bitcoin exchanges and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission rejecting a Bitcoin exchange-traded fund. Bitcoin Cash (BCH) holds an important place in the history of altcoins because it is one of the earliest and most successful hard forks of the original bitcoin. In the cryptocurrency world, a fork The only physical stores accepting bitcoin are a couple of enthusiast cafes in Beijing and, while about 134 individual sellers on Taobao (China’s answer to eBay) accept bitcoin, it is far from a Easy-to-use alternative to eBay. www.mercari.com. Launched in 2013, Mercari is a growing site for both the U.S. and Japan. Mercari is similar to eBay in that hosts all sorts of product categories and does well with used items. You can sell just about anything on the site. Mercari is known for being easy-to-use and describes itself the Bitcoin is a distributed, worldwide, decentralized digital money. Bitcoins are issued and managed without any central authority whatsoever: there is no government, company, or bank in charge of Bitcoin. You might be interested in Bitcoin if you like cryptography, distributed peer-to-peer systems, or economics.

[index] [28957] [7591] [22194] [15261] [13206] [28107] [22572] [20008] [24598] [25908]

China’s ‘Google’ Baidu Halts Bitcoin Ads, Leaves Market Guessing (The Cryptoverse #81)

After its release in 2009 hardly anyone had heard of it, and when people started to hear the word Bitcoin not many of them gave it a second’s thought. Now millions of folks use it and some have ... Use Bitcoin, Ethereum or any other cryptocurrency to buy from Amazon, eBay, Alibaba, Rakuten, Flipkart, and 100+ retailers. The crypto based online shopping mall app is expected to go live in ... China’s most popular search engine, Baidu, froze bitcoin ads Thursday in what Bloomberg suggests is a “growing wariness” on behalf of business and government. WATCH MY NEWEST VIDEO: https://youtu.be/zzfkA1_X2tA Today we compare a $10 vs $20,000 Ebay mystery box! Download the Stay Juicy album https://itunes.appl... Bitcoin Technical Analysis & Bitcoin News Today: I'll use technical analysis on the Bitcoin price to make a Bitcoin price prediction. Watch the video to learn more! 0:40 Bitcoin

Flag Counter