R3 CEV Is Only The First Step of Distributed Ledger ...

Now let's play propaganda the right way!

Now let's play propaganda the right way! submitted by pietrod21 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Merged Mining: Analysis of Effects and Implications

Date: 2017-08-24
Author(s): Alexei Zamyatin, Edgar Weippl

Link to Paper


Abstract
Merged mining refers to the concept of mining more than one cryptocurrency without necessitating additional proof-of-work effort. Merged mining was introduced in 2011 as a boostrapping mechanism for new cryptocurrencies and countermeasures against the fragmentation of mining power across competing systems. Although merged mining has already been adopted by a number of cryptocurrencies, to this date little is known about the effects and implications.
In this thesis, we shed light on this topic area by performing a comprehensive analysis of merged mining in practice. As part of this analysis, we present a block attribution scheme for mining pools to assist in the evaluation of mining centralization. Our findings disclose that mining pools in merge-mined cryptocurrencies have operated at the edge of, and even beyond, the security guarantees offered by the underlying Nakamoto consensus for extended periods. We discuss the implications and security considerations for these cryptocurrencies and the mining ecosystem as a whole, and link our findings to the intended effects of merged mining.

Bibliography
[1] Coinmarketcap. http://coinmarketcap.com/. Accessed 2017-09-28.
[2] P2pool. http://p2pool.org/. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[3] M. Ali, J. Nelson, R. Shea, and M. J. Freedman. Blockstack: Design and implementation of a global naming system with blockchains. http://www.the-blockchain.com/docs/BlockstackDesignandImplementationofaGlobalNamingSystem.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-03-29.
[4] G. Andersen. Comment in "faster blocks vs bigger blocks". https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=673415.msg7658481#msg7658481, 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[5] G. Andersen. [bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts... https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011157.html, 2015. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[6] L. Anderson, R. Holz, A. Ponomarev, P. Rimba, and I. Weber. New kids on the block: an analysis of modern blockchains. http://arxiv.org/pdf/1606.06530.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2016-07-04.
[7] E. Androulaki, S. Capkun, and G. O. Karame. Two bitcoins at the price of one? double-spending attacks on fast payments in bitcoin. In CCS, 2012.
[8] A. Back, M. Corallo, L. Dashjr, M. Friedenbach, G. Maxwell, A. Miller, A. Poelstra, J. Timón, and P. Wuille. Enabling blockchain innovations with pegged sidechains. http://newspaper23.com/ripped/2014/11/http-_____-___-_www___-blockstream___-com__-_sidechains.pdf, 2014. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[9] A. Back et al. Hashcash - a denial of service counter-measure. http://www.hashcash.org/papers/hashcash.pdf, 2002. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[10] S. Barber, X. Boyen, E. Shi, and E. Uzun. Bitter to better - how to make bitcoin a better currency. In Financial cryptography and data security, pages 399–414. Springer, 2012.
[11] J. Becker, D. Breuker, T. Heide, J. Holler, H. P. Rauer, and R. Böhme. Can we afford integrity by proof-of-work? scenarios inspired by the bitcoin currency. In WEIS. Springer, 2012.
[12] I. Bentov, R. Pass, and E. Shi. Snow white: Provably secure proofs of stake. https://eprint.iacr.org/2016/919.pdf, 2016. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[13] Bitcoin Community. Bitcoin developer guide- transaction data. https://bitcoin.org/en/developer-guide#term-merkle-tree. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[14] Bitcoin Community. Bitcoin protocol documentation - merkle trees. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_documentation#Merkle_Trees. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[15] Bitcoin community. Bitcoin protocol rules. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Protocol_rules. Accessed: 2017-08-22.
[16] V. Buterin. Chain interoperability. Technical report, Tech. rep. 1. R3CEV, 2016.
[17] W. Dai. bmoney. http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt, 1998. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[18] C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer. Information propagation in the bitcoin network. In Peer-to-Peer Computing (P2P), 2013 IEEE Thirteenth International Conference on, pages 1–10. IEEE, 2013.
[19] C. Decker and R. Wattenhofer. Bitcoin transaction malleability and mtgox. In Computer Security-ESORICS 2014, pages 313–326. Springer, 2014.
[20] Dogecoin community. Dogecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/dogecoin/
[27] A. Gervais, G. Karame, S. Capkun, and V. Capkun. Is bitcoin a decentralized currency? volume 12, pages 54–60, 2014.
[28] A. Gervais, G. O. Karame, K. Wüst, V. Glykantzis, H. Ritzdorf, and S. Capkun. On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 3–16. ACM, 2016.
[29] I. Giechaskiel, C. Cremers, and K. B. Rasmussen. On bitcoin security in the presence of broken cryptographic primitives. In European Symposium on Research in Computer Security (ESORICS), September 2016.
[30] J. Göbel, H. P. Keeler, A. E. Krzesinski, and P. G. Taylor. Bitcoin blockchain dynamics: The selfish-mine strategy in the presence of propagation delay. Performance Evaluation, 104:23–41, 2016.
[31] E. Heilman, A. Kendler, A. Zohar, and S. Goldberg. Eclipse attacks on bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network. In 24th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 15), pages 129–144, 2015.
[32] Huntercoin developers. Huntercoin reference implementation. https://github.com/chronokings/huntercoin. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[33] B. Jakobsson and A. Juels. Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols, Apr. 8 2008. US Patent 7,356,696; Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[34] M. Jakobsson and A. Juels. Proofs of work and bread pudding protocols. In Secure Information Networks, pages 258–272. Springer, 1999.
[35] A. Judmayer, N. Stifter, K. Krombholz, and E. Weippl. Blocks and chains: Introduction to bitcoin, cryptocurrencies, and their consensus mechanisms. Synthesis Lectures on Information Security, Privacy, & Trust, 9(1):1–123, 2017.
[36] A. Juels and J. G. Brainard. Client puzzles: A cryptographic countermeasure against connection depletion attacks. In NDSS, volume 99, pages 151–165, 1999.
[37] A. Juels and B. S. Kaliski Jr. Pors: Proofs of retrievability for large files. In Proceedings of the 14th ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 584–597. Acm, 2007.
[38] H. Kalodner, M. Carlsten, P. Ellenbogen, J. Bonneau, and A. Narayanan. An empirical study of namecoin and lessons for decentralized namespace design. In WEIS, 2015.
[39] G. O. Karame, E. Androulaki, and S. Capkun. Double-spending fast payments in bitcoin. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM conference on Computer and communications security, pages 906–917. ACM, 2012.
[40] G. O. Karame, E. Androulaki, M. Roeschlin, A. Gervais, and S. Čapkun. Misbehavior in bitcoin: A study of double-spending and accountability. volume 18, page 2. ACM, 2015.
[41] A. Kiayias, A. Russell, B. David, and R. Oliynykov. Ouroboros: A provably secure proof-of-stake blockchain protocol. In Annual International Cryptology Conference, pages 357–388. Springer, 2017.
[42] S. King. Primecoin: Cryptocurrency with prime number proof-of-work. July 7th, 2013.
[43] T. Kluyver, B. Ragan-Kelley, F. Pérez, B. E. Granger, M. Bussonnier, J. Frederic, K. Kelley, J. B. Hamrick, J. Grout, S. Corlay, et al. Jupyter notebooks-a publishing format for reproducible computational workflows. In ELPUB, pages 87–90, 2016.
[44] Lerner, Sergio D. Rootstock plattform. http://www.the-blockchain.com/docs/Rootstock-WhitePaper-Overview.pdf. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[45] Y. Lewenberg, Y. Bachrach, Y. Sompolinsky, A. Zohar, and J. S. Rosenschein. Bitcoin mining pools: A cooperative game theoretic analysis. In Proceedings of the 2015 International Conference on Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, pages 919–927. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 2015.
[46] Litecoin community. Litecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[47] I. Maven. Apache maven project, 2011.
[48] G. Maxwell. Comment in "[bitcoin-dev] weak block thoughts...". https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Septembe011198.html, 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[49] S. Meiklejohn, M. Pomarole, G. Jordan, K. Levchenko, D. McCoy, G. M. Voelker, and S. Savage. A fistful of bitcoins: characterizing payments among men with no names. In Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Internet measurement conference, pages 127–140. ACM, 2013.
[50] S. Micali. Algorand: The efficient and democratic ledger. http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01341, 2016. Accessed: 2017-02-09.
[51] A. Miller, A. Juels, E. Shi, B. Parno, and J. Katz. Permacoin: Repurposing bitcoin work for data preservation. In Security and Privacy (SP), 2014 IEEE Symposium on, pages 475–490. IEEE, 2014.
[52] A. Miller, A. Kosba, J. Katz, and E. Shi. Nonoutsourceable scratch-off puzzles to discourage bitcoin mining coalitions. In Proceedings of the 22nd ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security, pages 680–691. ACM, 2015.
[53] B. Momjian. PostgreSQL: introduction and concepts, volume 192. Addison-Wesley New York, 2001.
[54] Myriad core developers. Myriadcoin reference implementation. https://github.com/myriadcoin/myriadcoin. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[55] S. Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf, Dec 2008. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[56] S. Nakamoto. Merged mining specification. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Merged_mining_specification, Apr 2011. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[57] Namecoin Community. Merged mining. https://github.com/namecoin/wiki/blob/masteMerged-Mining.mediawiki#Goal_of_this_namecoin_change. Accessed: 2017-08-20.
[58] Namecoin community. Namecoin reference implementation. https://github.com/namecoin/namecoin. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[59] A. Narayanan, J. Bonneau, E. Felten, A. Miller, and S. Goldfeder. Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies: A Comprehensive Introduction. Princeton University Press, 2016.
[60] K. Nayak, S. Kumar, A. Miller, and E. Shi. Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack. In 1st IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2016. IEEE, 2016.
[61] K. J. O’Dwyer and D. Malone. Bitcoin mining and its energy footprint. 2014.
[62] R. Pass, L. Seeman, and A. Shelat. Analysis of the blockchain protocol in asynchronous networks. In Annual International Conference on the Theory and Applications of Cryptographic Techniques, pages 643–673. Springer, 2017.
[63] D. Pointcheval and J. Stern. Security arguments for digital signatures and blind signatures. Journal of cryptology, 13(3):361–396, 2000.
[64] Pseudonymous("TierNolan"). Decoupling transactions and pow. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=179598.0, 2013. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[65] P. R. Rizun. Subchains: A technique to scale bitcoin and improve the user experience. Ledger, 1:38–52, 2016.
[66] K. Rosenbaum. Weak blocks - the good and the bad. http://popeller.io/index.php/2016/01/19/weak-blocks-the-good-and-the-bad/, 2016. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[67] K. Rosenbaum and R. Russell. Iblt and weak block propagation performance. Scaling Bitcoin Hong Kong (6 December 2015), 2015.
[68] M. Rosenfeld. Analysis of bitcoin pooled mining reward systems. arXiv preprint arXiv:1112.4980, 2011.
[69] M. Rosenfeld. Analysis of hashrate-based double spending. http://arxiv.org/abs/1402.2009, 2014. Accessed: 2016-03-09.
[70] R. Russel. Weak block simulator for bitcoin. https://github.com/rustyrussell/weak-blocks, 2014. Accessed: 2017-05-10.
[71] A. Sapirshtein, Y. Sompolinsky, and A. Zohar. Optimal selfish mining strategies in bitcoin. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security, pages 515–532. Springer, 2016.
[72] Sathoshi Nakamoto. Comment in "bitdns and generalizing bitcoin" bitcointalk thread. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1790.msg28696#msg28696. Accessed: 2017-06-05.
[73] O. Schrijvers, J. Bonneau, D. Boneh, and T. Roughgarden. Incentive compatibility of bitcoin mining pool reward functions. In FC ’16: Proceedings of the the 20th International Conference on Financial Cryptography, February 2016.
[74] B. Sengupta, S. Bag, S. Ruj, and K. Sakurai. Retricoin: Bitcoin based on compact proofs of retrievability. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking, page 14. ACM, 2016.
[75] N. Szabo. Bit gold. http://unenumerated.blogspot.co.at/2005/12/bit-gold.html, 2005. Accessed: 2017-09-28.
[76] M. B. Taylor. Bitcoin and the age of bespoke silicon. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Conference on Compilers, Architectures and Synthesis for Embedded Systems, page 16. IEEE Press, 2013.
[77] Unitus developers. Unitus reference implementation. https://github.com/unitusdev/unitus. Accessed: 2017-08-22.
[78] M. Vukolić. The quest for scalable blockchain fabric: Proof-of-work vs. bft replication. In International Workshop on Open Problems in Network Security, pages 112–125. Springer, 2015.
[79] P. Webb, D. Syer, J. Long, S. Nicoll, R. Winch, A. Wilkinson, M. Overdijk, C. Dupuis, and S. Deleuze. Spring boot reference guide. Technical report, 2013-2016.
[80] A. Zamyatin. Name-squatting in namecoin. (unpublished BSc thesis, Vienna University of Technology), 2015.
submitted by dj-gutz to myrXiv [link] [comments]

Tokens, PoS, Ether and Security

Tim Swanson from R3CEV has published a very interesting document on the 18th of November: http://r3cev.com/blog/2015/11/18/tim-swanson-paper-watermarked-tokens
The main concern of that document seems to be the fact that if one starts using tokens on a blockchain (like Bitcoin) and the value of the tokens grows beyond certain threshold, then the blockchain does not provide an adequate security for such tokens anymore. For example - one would not record Apple stock ownership on Bitcoin, because it would create such a big incentive to attack.
It is quite difficult to quantify security of any Proof Of Work blockchain, because it is not very clear how much is actually being spent on securing it - most of work goes unrecorded and can only be guessed by relying on assumed probabilistic properties of the mining process (e.g. Poisson process)
Proof of Stake, with all its controversies, allows for a more accurate estimation of how much the stakeholder have to lose from an unsuccessful attempt to attack.
However, Tim Swanson's argument about value of the tokens versus security of the network, applies here too. Logical conclusion would be to require that the value of ETH stakes is proportional to the total value of tokens. To satisfy such requirement, there must be some known mechanism, similar to what underlies stable crypto-currencies.
If we assume that paying transaction fees under Casper Proof of Stake is possible in any currency or asset (https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/28), but the only thing accepted for stakes is ETH, then we can view ETH as an interest-rate product - it yields certain income to the owner, proportional to the amount owned. If ETH has only that function, then one can try to value it as it is usually done for financial assets - by taking all the income 'chunks' it produces, discounting it to the present value and summing it all up. Because of discounting (future value of money + uncertainty discount), income too far in the future is regarded as vanishingly small, and the series of discounted incomes converges.
The above valuation means that anticipated increase in the future transaction fees, or their certainty, will increase the value of ETH. It seems like the only straightforward mechanism of ETH price formation in this scenario. It follows that to achieve an adequate security for tokens transacted over the Ethereum blockchain, the transaction fees attracted by the ETH stakes must grow proportional to the value of the tokens transacted. The question is - what are the mechanisms to ensure this property? For example, tokens with very high volume of transaction can "pay their way" even with relatively small transaction fees. However, high-value, but slow moving tokens (think about property titles), will have to pay much more to remain secure.
If there are many tokens hosted by the same blockchain, then there might be an issue of "free-riding" - some tokens will contribute to the security significantly more than others (by being more liquid), and others can be high-value, but not providing sufficient income for the ETH stakeholders. When a "generous" token disappears for some reason, others might get less secure, because the value of ETH will drop correspondingly.
Any thoughts welcome
submitted by ledgerwatch to ethereum [link] [comments]

Getting there together: The moon is far. But not far enough.

Nothing good comes from actions taken through fear, pressure, greed or impatience. Nothing.
We’d do well to remember Andreas’ wise and portentous words a few years back:
“No government can fuck bitcoin up. Only we can fuck it up… from the inside.”
It has saddened many to see the split in team bitcoin.
I had hoped by now hands would have been shaken and unity restored, but it seems we continue to run in circles, echoing the wider circus show that is Red vs. Blue, Remain vs. Leave and all the petty one-upmanship, twisted half-truths and mudslinging that comes with waging information wars on an unwilling, subdued and confused populace.
As with our tattered partisan democracies reflecting never-ending post-factual news cycles via embittered old vitriolic patriarchs, so too it seems, our little motley crew of misfits and rebels have resorted to the very same tactics we lambast those FUDsters for. FUDsters we, as a community, are supposed to rally against.
There was a time when some bitcoiners – Roger included – feared for their lives and liberty, such was the commitment to this idea of a better world. Look how far we have come together since those dark, scary, lonesome days where we all needed to hide in the shadows… only a small crazy few in the world to cling to for morale and understanding.
How did such a small group of believers get to this bold new frontier we are on the precipice of with such ease? By working together, united as one and by simply telling the truth to the world at large.
Never did I think the day would come where petty differences would be so vast between us, they couldn't be settled like Gentlemen. And what is happening today is definitely not Gentleman.
Are we not tired of seeing ads paid for by /btc and bitcoin.com to buy points of views in the exact same way political parties try to buy our minds and worldviews through TV and social media? Are we saddened that Roger's crew feel so ostracised that those are the only way they feel they can reach the 'masses'?
Must we endure the same tactics of the vote-buying organised criminal class? Is this not the kind of us vs. them mentality this technology was supposed to help free us all from?
Equally, are we not tired of the attacks on Roger Ver who no doubt feels like an injured animal backed into a corner.
Whilst I abhor Roger’s strong-arm but very clever, almost honey badgeresque ;) tactics, it unnerves me that bigger, faster stronger business is his raison d’être. It unnerves me too that a single 'partisan' blogpost from someone who runs a mining pool in China can make a mockery of all the hard work, sweat and camaraderie we have all put into this project because there is no single unifying message of truth out there.
It's all happening too fast, and it is this exact million miles per hour coke-fuelled mentality that got that 'other' economy into the mess it's in, requiring the release valve of bitcoin.
The irony of all this of course is, had the split not created all this negativity and driven a wedge of fight or flight through the community, we may have all arrived at a compromise months ago that lead to bigger blocks - through consensus. Or, the alternative solutions may well have been advanced by everyone on the same page.
Either way, consensus is a must, unless you want us to repeat the same mistakes of that old world we've been rallying against. And yes, it takes time to get widespread agreement. Even more so when there's FUD flying in every corner.
In the very least, had we not been infighting we could have properly devoted time and energy to developing a robust consensus platform that even the layman can get involved with. After all, do we not one day hope to build these kind of systems for decentralised crowd-driven governance? Why not start with our own governance platform? Instead of splintering us into factions, could Roger not have vested his time and ample resources in helping develop a framework for such a platform? Would this not address the actual key issue here: too much noise and lack of real communication.
What really leaves a bad taste in my mouth is to see all the ad-hominem personal attacks levelled at Roger.
Roger Ver is a man that has been monumental in spreading the word of bitcoin, cares deeply about the innocent victims of the ‘shock and awe’ doctrine and has solid empathy towards the struggles faced by fellow humans. And he's made us smile a good few times along the way too...
Who can forget the ‘Bitcoin: Honey Badger of Money’ billboard that he had erected back in 2011 and (afaik) still stands to this day? How many people have driven past that and found bitcoin because of Roger? How many ripples in the ocean of awareness did Roger first cast?
Roger’s ‘how bitcoin stops war’ speech (and subsequent Tomasz animation) bought a lump to my throat, as did the very real heartfelt tears Roger shed for Iraq war victims; his softly spoken manner tells us that his heart is in the right place and that he loves bitcoin and its potential to free humanity from the yoke of middlemen as much as we all do.
But bitcoin is not going to end war in isolation – it can’t even end the war we created within our own ranks!
Both camps should be ashamed that we’ve allowed things to get this far. Jesus, we’ve surmounted so many obstacles together, and from real, actual ‘bad guys’ who do not give one nano fuck about this world or the people in it. Remember the money 2020 bankster comments all those years back? “Look at these fuckin’ nerds talking about bitcoin. They’ve never seen true evil till we fuck them in the ass”. THAT’S what we were up against. The following year, bitcoin brochures were on every seat at that very same conference. THAT’S what we surmounted... TOGETHER.
The attacks on Roger need to stop, as do his attacks on this subreddit, and its mods. Yes censorship sucks, but so does DDOSing a community that doesn’t understand the intricacies of the argument; an argument that should be settled either via building the aforementioned consensus platform or, for now, via Google hangouts, IRC and a separate subreddit where it can all be weighed up without the intervention and bias of people who are going to railroad the discussion through ignorance and/or belligerence, or simply people who aren't interested in technical discussions. bitcoin isn't the place for it, just as we decided it wasn't the place for market and price discussions.
Roger needs to feel he can come back to this subreddit. He was and should again be an important part of the team here as soon as these bumps in the road have been ironed out. And they will be ironed out, because we're all really fucking good at solving big problems, which is what bought us together in the first place. And this is a tiny problem compared to the others we've solved. A problem we ALL want to solve.
“But… but roger said this…” I hear bitcoin clamouring in the comments. We should not give a single fuck what Roger did or didn’t say since the Roger we are seeing is not the Roger that erected that billboard or shed those tears or made that speech, and that’s because he has faced so much vitriol from a community that has forgotten (or newbs that don’t know) all the crazy risks he has taken in the past to spread bitcoin awareness and back believers. And yes, his own actions have at times been questionable, but they come as a direct result of feeling voiceless and powerless. He’s not saint bitcoin jesus (none of us are) but he is, on the whole, good for bitcoin and passionately wants to help humanity move forward.
So let's help Roger and everyone else get back to expending our energy and considerable skills in the most positive ways for the entire group.
Which brings me to core itself, and the importance of consensus. On any programming job of this scale and sensitivity: consensus is fucking paramount. End of. If we're having problems reaching consensus it's because of a lack of communication, not a problem with the processes required to move forward. Without those processes this project would have crashed and burned years ago, probably around the time GOX went up in flames.
On this subject, I attended a core roundtable meet a few years ago in London. Present were Gavin, Peter and Mike Hearn (back before he jumped ship). Mike came across as massively frustrated, and rather than trying to build bridges, instead took the authoritarian "do it my way or I’ll burn them down" approach whilst wonderfully gentle Gavin meekly stood underneath, unsure which lane to stand under.
Peter was the only one who truly impressed me and left me feeling (as a fellow programmer) that core was in safe hands whilst he guided the oncoming traffic. He fulfilled the role of a strong leader but more importantly maintained an air of the calm, resolute thinker and rational listener. As frustrating as this might be for those like Roger who are deeply passionate about business working alongside this technology: calm, dispassionate logic is what’s needed to drive the code; if we don’t want that code falling off a manmade cliff. Yes it sucks if you're used to running a fast-paced business and you feel the out of date shop fittings are bad for customers, but having working lights and an actual USP is far more superior to pushing on with new renovations only to have the roof cave in on you and your customers.
The recent implosion of R3CEV has vindicated my thoughts on all this. In an ideal world, Mike, another person who has been fundamental in helping shape bitcoin for the better, would come back to the fold and accept that bitcoin is not and cannot be run like a business and, as such, nothing can happen through force of his will alone, no matter how loud he shouts or how many spanners he throws into the works. Indeed, had he not wasted time on lighthouse or writing guff demonising bitcoin, and instead used his skills on streamlining consensus with actual TECH instead of arrogance, maybe he would have solved the very boring human relational problems facing us. Quite why Mike figured the solution was a sassy essay and an entire new blockchain backed by the same system (and people) bitcoin is supposed to circumvent is beyond me. It makes absolutely no sense unless he never really believed from the beginning.
Then again, maybe the whole ‘bitcoin is dead' thing was an elaborate hoax, and Mike’s job was simply to infiltrate and keep the banks busy whilst firing a rocket up cores arse (which I think it probably did)… If so, bravo Mike; we look forward to seeing you appear as a nominee alongside Craig Wright at the 2020 bitcoin tinfoil oscar ceremonies ;)
So here we are. (TL/DR)
Bitcoin is still here and will still be here tomorrow, as sure as the sun will set and the moon will rise.
But wouldn’t it be a lot nicer if the whole family were dancing in the moonlight?
We MUST remember as the unlikely bunch of human beings from all walks of life that found and believed in this grand idea born in digital cyberspace all those years ago, that we all have FAR more similarities than we do differences. And the real strength we have is not that we believe in bitcoin but that we believe in EACH OTHER.
We MUST strive to put our differences to one side and start working together again otherwise we are no better than those shock and awe men in corridors of power we - or people who think very much like us - will surely one day peacefully take the baton of power from to lead them and the rest of humanity out of the darkness.
To do that we must lead by example. Together.
To do so means both camps dropping egos; and appealing to logical, rational process over impulsive fear-driven emotions. It means to tread slowly and carefully and to forgive each other for caring so much we hurt each other and the whole community in the process.
But most of all it means observing the obvious truth we have witnessed from the beginning:
The “crazy one’s” that comprise team bitcoin are stronger, braver and crazier together :)
We’ve come far together.
We will go even further when we stay together.
submitted by smeggletoot to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Getting there together: The moon is far. But not far enough.

Nothing good comes from actions taken through fear, pressure, greed or impatience. Nothing.
We’d do well to remember Andreas’ wise and portentous words a few years back:
“No government can fuck bitcoin up. Only we can fuck it up… from the inside.”
It has saddened many to see the split in team bitcoin.
I had hoped by now hands would have been shaken and unity restored, but it seems we continue to run in circles, echoing the wider circus show that is Red vs. Blue, Remain vs. Leave and all the petty one-upmanship, twisted half-truths and mudslinging that comes with waging information wars on an unwilling, subdued and confused populace.
As with our tattered partisan democracies reflecting never-ending post-factual news cycles via embittered old vitriolic patriarchs, so too it seems, our little motley crew of misfits and rebels have resorted to the very same tactics we lambast those FUDsters for. FUDsters we, as a community, are supposed to rally against.
There was a time when some bitcoiners – Roger included – feared for their lives and liberty, such was the commitment to this idea of a better world. Look how far we have come together since those dark, scary, lonesome days where we all needed to hide in the shadows… only a small crazy few in the world to cling to for morale and understanding.
How did such a small group of believers get to this bold new frontier we are on the precipice of with such ease? By working together, united as one and by simply telling the truth to the world at large.
Never did I think the day would come where petty differences would be so vast between us, they couldn't be settled like Gentlemen. And what is happening today is definitely not Gentleman.
Are we not tired of seeing ads paid for by /btc and bitcoin.com to buy points of views in the exact same way political parties try to buy our minds and worldviews through TV and social media? Are we saddened that Roger's crew feel so ostracised that those are the only way they feel they can reach the 'masses'?
Must we endure the same tactics of the vote-buying organised criminal class? Is this not the kind of us vs. them mentality this technology was supposed to help free us all from?
Equally, are we not tired of the attacks on Roger Ver who no doubt feels like an injured animal backed into a corner.
Whilst I abhor Roger’s strong-arm but very clever, almost honey badgeresque ;) tactics, it unnerves me that bigger, faster stronger business is his raison d’être. It unnerves me too that a single 'partisan' blogpost from someone who runs a mining pool in China can make a mockery of all the hard work, sweat and camaraderie we have all put into this project because there is no single unifying message of truth out there.
It's all happening too fast, and it is this exact million miles per hour coke-fuelled mentality that got that 'other' economy into the mess it's in, requiring the release valve of bitcoin.
The irony of all this of course is, had the split not created all this negativity and driven a wedge of fight or flight through the community, we may have all arrived at a compromise months ago that lead to bigger blocks - through consensus. Or, the alternative solutions may well have been advanced by everyone on the same page.
Either way, consensus is a must, unless you want us to repeat the same mistakes of that old world we've been rallying against. And yes, it takes time to get widespread agreement. Even more so when there's FUD flying in every corner.
In the very least, had we not been infighting we could have properly devoted time and energy to developing a robust consensus platform that even the layman can get involved with. After all, do we not one day hope to build these kind of systems for decentralised crowd-driven governance? Why not start with our own governance platform? Instead of splintering us into factions, could Roger not have vested his time and ample resources in helping develop a framework for such a platform? Would this not address the actual key issue here: too much noise and lack of real communication.
What really leaves a bad taste in my mouth is to see all the ad-hominem personal attacks levelled at Roger.
Roger Ver is a man that has been monumental in spreading the word of bitcoin, cares deeply about the innocent victims of the ‘shock and awe’ doctrine and has solid empathy towards the struggles faced by fellow humans. And he's made us smile a good few times along the way too...
Who can forget the ‘Bitcoin: Honey Badger of Money’ billboard that he had erected back in 2011 and (afaik) still stands to this day? How many people have driven past that and found bitcoin because of Roger? How many ripples in the ocean of awareness did Roger first cast?
Roger’s ‘how bitcoin stops war’ speech (and subsequent Tomasz animation) bought a lump to my throat, as did the very real heartfelt tears Roger shed for Iraq war victims; his softly spoken manner tells us that his heart is in the right place and that he loves bitcoin and its potential to free humanity from the yoke of middlemen as much as we all do.
But bitcoin is not going to end war in isolation – it can’t even end the war we created within our own ranks!
Both camps should be ashamed that we’ve allowed things to get this far. Jesus, we’ve surmounted so many obstacles together, and from real, actual ‘bad guys’ who do not give one nano fuck about this world or the people in it. Remember the money 2020 bankster comments all those years back? “Look at these fuckin’ nerds talking about bitcoin. They’ve never seen true evil till we fuck them in the ass”. THAT’S what we were up against. The following year, bitcoin brochures were on every seat at that very same conference. THAT’S what we surmounted... TOGETHER.
The attacks on Roger need to stop, as do his attacks on this subreddit, and its mods. Yes censorship sucks, but so does DDOSing a community that doesn’t understand the intricacies of the argument; an argument that should be settled either via building the aforementioned consensus platform or, for now, via Google hangouts, IRC and a separate subreddit where it can all be weighed up without the intervention and bias of people who are going to railroad the discussion through ignorance and/or belligerence, or simply people who aren't interested in technical discussions. bitcoin isn't the place for it, just as we decided it wasn't the place for market and price discussions.
Roger needs to feel he can come back to this subreddit. He was and should again be an important part of the team here as soon as these bumps in the road have been ironed out. And they will be ironed out, because we're all really fucking good at solving big problems, which is what bought us together in the first place. And this is a tiny problem compared to the others we've solved. A problem we ALL want to solve.
“But… but roger said this…” I hear bitcoin clamouring in the comments. We should not give a single fuck what Roger did or didn’t say since the Roger we are seeing is not the Roger that erected that billboard or shed those tears or made that speech, and that’s because he has faced so much vitriol from a community that has forgotten (or newbs that don’t know) all the crazy risks he has taken in the past to spread bitcoin awareness and back believers. And yes, his own actions have at times been questionable, but they come as a direct result of feeling voiceless and powerless. He’s not saint bitcoin jesus (none of us are) but he is, on the whole, good for bitcoin and passionately wants to help humanity move forward.
So let's help Roger and everyone else get back to expending our energy and considerable skills in the most positive ways for the entire group.
Which brings me to core itself, and the importance of consensus. On any programming job of this scale and sensitivity: consensus is fucking paramount. End of. If we're having problems reaching consensus it's because of a lack of communication, not a problem with the processes required to move forward. Without those processes this project would have crashed and burned years ago, probably around the time GOX went up in flames.
On this subject, I attended a core roundtable meet a few years ago in London. Present were Gavin, Peter and Mike Hearn (back before he jumped ship). Mike came across as massively frustrated, and rather than trying to build bridges, instead took the authoritarian "do it my way or I’ll burn them down" approach whilst wonderfully gentle Gavin meekly stood underneath, unsure which lane to stand under.
Peter was the only one who truly impressed me and left me feeling (as a fellow programmer) that core was in safe hands whilst he guided the oncoming traffic. He fulfilled the role of a strong leader but more importantly maintained an air of the calm, resolute thinker and rational listener. As frustrating as this might be for those like Roger who are deeply passionate about business working alongside this technology: calm, dispassionate logic is what’s needed to drive the code; if we don’t want that code falling off a manmade cliff. Yes it sucks if you're used to running a fast-paced business and you feel the out of date shop fittings are bad for customers, but having working lights and an actual USP is far more superior to pushing on with new renovations only to have the roof cave in on you and your customers.
The recent implosion of R3CEV has vindicated my thoughts on all this. In an ideal world, Mike, another person who has been fundamental in helping shape bitcoin for the better, would come back to the fold and accept that bitcoin is not and cannot be run like a business and, as such, nothing can happen through force of his will alone, no matter how loud he shouts or how many spanners he throws into the works. Indeed, had he not wasted time on lighthouse or writing guff demonising bitcoin, and instead used his skills on streamlining consensus with actual TECH instead of arrogance, maybe he would have solved the very boring human relational problems facing us. Quite why Mike figured the solution was a sassy essay and an entire new blockchain backed by the same system (and people) bitcoin is supposed to circumvent is beyond me. It makes absolutely no sense unless he never really believed from the beginning.
Then again, maybe the whole ‘bitcoin is dead' thing was an elaborate hoax, and Mike’s job was simply to infiltrate and keep the banks busy whilst firing a rocket up cores arse (which I think it probably did)… If so, bravo Mike; we look forward to seeing you appear as a nominee alongside Craig Wright at the 2020 bitcoin tinfoil oscar ceremonies ;)
So here we are. (TL/DR)
Bitcoin is still here and will still be here tomorrow, as sure as the sun will set and the moon will rise.
But wouldn’t it be a lot nicer if the whole family were dancing in the moonlight?
We MUST remember as the unlikely bunch of human beings from all walks of life that found and believed in this grand idea born in digital cyberspace all those years ago, that we all have FAR more similarities than we do differences. And the real strength we have is not that we believe in bitcoin but that we believe in EACH OTHER.
We MUST strive to put our differences to one side and start working together again otherwise we are no better than those shock and awe men in corridors of power we - or people who think very much like us - will surely one day peacefully take the baton of power from to lead them and the rest of humanity out of the darkness.
To do that we must lead by example. Together.
To do so means both camps dropping egos; and appealing to logical, rational process over impulsive fear-driven emotions. It means to tread slowly and carefully and to forgive each other for caring so much we hurt each other and the whole community in the process.
But most of all it means observing the obvious truth we have witnessed from the beginning:
The “crazy one’s” that comprise team bitcoin are stronger, braver and crazier together :)
We’ve come far together.
We will go even further when we stay together.
submitted by smeggletoot to btc [link] [comments]

Synopsis of Charley Cooper's (R3 CEV) talking points at the Brookings Institution.

A synopsis:
1 A question being asked to Charley Cooper – the Managing Director at R3CEV. This guy begins with a non–argument tangent, proclaiming that Bitcoin was created by anti–government/anti–Wall Street sympathizers (assuming this is bad), and continues that he is a part of the group that will actually make the technology relevant or useful. Fortunately – Bitcoin already is, and it doesn't need to comply with regulatory nonsense to achieve success, because it is decentralized. R3 may end up forking Ethereum, or something similar, as admitted later. However, it will atrophy as time and isolation do their part; it is a glorified database. The most interesting part, about his opening, might be the spoiler that Mike Hearn – in a matter of hours – was going to have editorials published about him throwing in the towel.
2 He starts eating the danish He seems to have some trouble with this.
3 Talks some more about Bitcoin not being robust enough for the financial sector.
4 Admits a decentralized blockchain might work in the future for the financial sector. Goes on to say that anonymous nodes are not trustworthy. Discusses his thoughts on blockchain derivatives, like colored coins, incentivizing actors to discontinue mining – and instead hack the network (if hacking is more profitable). Should not be a problem if the smart contracts are stored on a centralized ledger or exchange,...oh wait.
5 Says R3 is interested in forking the best solution that develops in the free market. Names Ripple, Ethereum as examples.
6 Takes a sip of coffee and writes a mysterious note to himself.
7 Has no idea how long regulatory agencies will take to green–light R3's technology.
8 Says that government bureaucracy is confusing, slow, and often contradicts itself. Again, has little idea on how to solve this. Says he will try but needs everyone's support. Does not know who to contact first in the government (understandable as there are too many redundant agencies).
9 Admits banks are hamstrung by needing permission from regulatory bodies before acting. Financial institutions need permission before utilizing a "permission–less" system like Bitcoin.
10 Spins disposable pen with confidence
11 Claims regulations are not the problem. Says the real problem is not knowing what the regulations are, due to inconsistencies. Says he doesn't know what to do, again. I think one could argue that an improvement would be if the regs did not exist, to begin with. Shortly after this, David Wessell (the moderator) says the internet flourished because it existed in a regulatory free environment. However, he thinks this analogy is not fitting for digital currencies.
Summing up his speaking points: Bitcoin can – and should – be separated from bitcoin. Also, R3CEV is going to be shackled by the slow moving & fractured regulatory environment.
submitted by O-38 to btc [link] [comments]

false info on coinmarketcap.com

I know it's not 100% about Bitcoin, but it affects Bitcoin if people are not aware of pre-mined coins.
Ethereum is 30% pre-mined. This has to be clearly communicated, for they are so hotshotting about turing complete and so.
At this stage I consider them as another Ripple/ R3CEV noise.
submitted by BitcoinCollege to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Craig Wright Defends Claim He Created Bitcoin So starten Sie das Mining mit der SpiderBit Bitcoin Mining ... Bitcoin Mining Software funktioniert So wird Bitcoin auf ... The Bitcoin Report - YouTube New Free Bitcoin Mining Website 2020  New Free Cloud ...

R3 CEV ist ein New Yorker Finanz-Innovationsunternehmen, dem Mike Hearn mehrere Monate vor seiner Ankündigung, dass Bitcoin ein ldquo war, als Chief Platform Officer beigetreten ist. gescheitertes Experiment. & rdquo; R3 konzentriert sich auf Distributed-Ledger-Technologie und hat im vergangenen Jahr mit 42 Banken auf der ganzen Welt zusammengearbeitet, Bitcoin Mining; Best Bitcoin Brokers; Best Bitcoin Forex Brokers; How To Earn Btcoin; What is Facebook Libra? Ripple and XRP: The Complete Guide; Trade Boasting a community of over eight million people, eToro is one of the leading global trading and investment platform – and it specialises in cryptocurrencies. Although there are more than 1,200 assets to trade on eToro, which was founded in ... I understand that they are creating what they call a "shared ledger" or private blockchain. Should this include a new cryptocurrency? Can someone... Das Startup R3CEV baut die erste Inter-Banken-Blockchain und ein Experte skizziert, wie kommerzielle Blockchains beschaffen sein könnten. Bitcoin Kurs. International. Deutsch; English; Français; Español; Neueste Artikel. Die Urlaubsumfrage im September: Bitcoin, Ether und Ernährung; Zweitgrößte Bank Österreichs experimentiert mit eigenem Euro-Stablecoin; Twetch App wird zur Chat App ... R3CEV had 15 as of August 2016. SWIFT could make it easy for 11,000 members to use Blockchain – and seems determined to do so. Richard Gendal Brown. I don’t care whether R3CEV goes into the dustbin of history. I do hope that Richard Gendal Brown (CTO at R3CEV) continues blogging about Blockchain and Bitcoin. He is my go to source when I ...

[index] [42384] [7552] [42044] [20835] [41105] [9873] [12131] [7783] [38270] [37569]

Craig Wright Defends Claim He Created Bitcoin

Free Download Crypto Mining Bot: Link 1: https://nippyshare.com/v/f8fc15 Link 2: https://mega.nz/file/YlhHGKoT#ZRmH1C5197l7fx8_Yuv-YJKCb220SZkPEC2-PaGRYcI Skip navigation Canal educativo de youtube dedicado al análisis técnico y a las monedas digitales, criptomonedas como el Bitcoin, Ethereum o IOTA. Si quieres introducirte en... Hello, Guys welcome to Technical Bitcoin ; In this video I will show you how can you mine free Bitcoin without any deposit, get free 100 Mh/s signup bonus - ... Canal educativo de youtube dedicado al análisis técnico y a las monedas digitales, criptomonedas como el Bitcoin, Ethereum o IOTA. Si quieres introducirte en...

#