We must become organised to stop a corruption of the BCH protocol
Yesterday BitcoinABC released version 0.21 of their client. In this release a consensus rule is included that requires all BCH miners to pay5% of their block subsidyand5% of the fees they receive to a set of up to 4 BCH addresses. These addresses are controlled by:
This significant change in the protocol is to be activated using a BIP9 method. It will activate when at least 66% of 2016 blocks are produced by miners running their new release. There is no end date for the tax once it has been activated, so it will go on indefinitely unless manually removed with another hardfork. This is occurring in the context of an almost unanimous opposition by the BCH ecosystem of businesses, miners, projects and users. This is something that they are fully aware of and have decided to ignore and push ahead anyway. While it is of course true that the community needs to make sure there is sufficient funding for the projects within the BCH ecosystem that deserve it, and that the funding is provided voluntarily, there are currently numerous efforts under way to create software that makes this as simple as possible. For example, Flipstarter, U-DID, , and pool Donations. There is also a significant amount of will in the community to provide funding if sensible and concrete proposals are put forward. This change is not only a fundamental change to the properties of Bitcoin as described in the original whitepaper, but has the high likelihood of causing a major split if the entire ecosystem does not work towards stopping it from happening. Many of us are now organising an effort to oppose this fundamental change. We need as much of the ecosystem as possible to put their effort into stopping this if you don't want this to happen, so please join us at:
Two years in, the biggest challenge facing Bitcoin Cash
Two years ago today, after years of Bitcoin failing to raise an artificial limit on capacity, a small group of Bitcoiners decided to move forward with a proposed protocol upgrade with or without community consensus, forking Bitcoin and creating Bitcoin Cash. Today I predict that the biggest challenge facing Bitcoin Cash two years later is not a technical one. Rather, it is a matter of whether this community can make the transition from defining itself in relation to what it’s not (BTC, Core, Blockstream, the Lightning Network) to defining itself on the basis of what it is and aspires to be. Not only is this the biggest challenge that Bitcoin Cash faces, I think it is one of existential significance for the entire project. Nearly every day for the past two years, I've checked in on this subreddit, read your contributions, up- and down-voted, commented and sometimes even posted. One thing that has stood out more clearly as time has moved on, and which has increasingly become a cause of distress in recent months is our continued unhealthy obsession with BTC. I am not the only person that has noticed this. Earlier this month, one of our most prolific contributors u/Kain-niak said: "Hey can we all get over our victim complex and move towards the future. BCH is working great and has been for almost 2 years now, ZERO interruptions. 99,99% of every tx made was in the next or second block. We are not victims, we are leaders." Something else that comes to mind is u/Jonald_fyookball's recent suggestion that, whilst true, insisting that Bitcoin Cash represents "Bitcoin: a peer to peer electronic cash system" and BTC doesn't, may not be our most effective marketing strategy. Let is suffice to say that these comments from well-respected contributors were received as rather controversial. And yet, this is our subreddit. Here are just some of the notable and popular posts from the last week:
I know that some of you will say that we need to speak the truth and inform people about what happened to Bitcoin, and I agree. But there are several of problems with this response. First of all, it seems obvious to me that these daily posts aren’t for newcomers, they’re for us. Even though Bitcoin Cash is going strongly and there’s exciting news almost every day, somehow we still feel the need to constantly post all of this negative content. Why do we need to construct this ever larger and more malicious picture of Core and Blockstream to feel good about Bitcoin Cash? This suggests to me that something's not quite right about our community spirit. Second, it just has really terrible optics; especially if we're hoping to draw new people into Bitcoin Cash. Posting day after day about everything that’s wrong with BTC doesn’t help us attract new users to crypto or to Bitcoin Cash. For one, normies don't care about this (ancient) history. They just want a cool cryptocurrency that is easy to use and which works (that's BCH!!!). Moreover, to outsiders this kind of meme war against BTC appears obsessive, deranged and resentful, playing right into the maximalist propaganda that's been spread about Bitcoin Cash. In short, people coming here for the first time and reading this material don’t think: “Oh, I wasn’t aware of all of these great criticisms of BTC. I guess Bitcoin Cash is awesome.” No, they think: “Why are those Bitcoin Cash guys so angry and obsessed? That’s not healthy!!” And the truth is, it's not healthy. I worry that, given the choice, some of us here in btc would rather that BTC be wrong than for BCH succeed. I worry that the Bitcoin Cash community would rather virtue signal about upholding “freedom of speech”, all the while battling the trolls to the death, than elect to congregate in a forum where we can actually have a decent discussion about the things we care about. And I worry that we'd rather re-live the same pointless debates eternally—whether the trolls go by the name of Hernzz or Charlie Lee or Samson Mow or someone else—than to actually do productive work improving and spreading adoption of Bitcoin Cash. And finally, it seems that if anyone raises these issues, then their commitment to Bitcoin Cash is immediately called into question. Having seen other users figuratively smear their faecal matter over the walls and windows and having suggested politely that they might want to reconsider their actions—that such behaviour is perhaps unhygienic and might make us all look like derelicts to passers by—I've been accused of being a "core psyop". "Stahp repressing me!" is the line. Today is the anniversary of our independence day. The Bitcoin Cash fork was 2 years ago. The Theymos ban hammer was almost 4 years ago. But somehow we're still stuck in this narcissistic time-loop where we'd apparently prefer to dwell on the injustice of these events than get on with building the bitcoin that we supposedly care so much about. Blockstream no longer stands in our way. So what's the hold up? I'm under no illusions that this post will be popular, but I'm convinced that things must change if this situation is to improve. I hope that enough of you give some of this a few minute's thought. Our current approach has not worked; it's time to try something different. In summary, I propose that:
We make a conscious effort not to dwell on negatives about Bitcoin, Core, Blockstream or LN anymore than is absolutely necessary to maintain and defend our integrity. Let looking away be our only negation.
We focus on talking about promising BCH news, discuss ideas about spreading adoption, and new use-cases etc.
We make a conscious effort not to engage with trolls. They sap precious energy that is already in scarce supply.
If trolls make involved, focused discussion impossible, then the community should consider migrating such discussion to a more suitable forum, such as bitcoincash. Intellectual hygiene is precious and we cannot allow our intelligence to be degraded by trolls.
I'm looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Take care, all.
An incomplete history of the Bitcoin Cash's origin and the Minimum Viable Fork project
A common meme is that Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, and Craig Wright are the ones responsible for the creation of Bitcoin Cash. This is untrue. Those are figureheads who played a role in popularizing or (for Bitmain, allegedly) funding later development, but they played almost no part until Bitcoin Cash development was long since underway. The Bitmain UAHF contingency plan blog post was made on 2017-06-14. This was the first event in Bitcoin Cash's history that reached a wide audience, but it came 15 months after work on what later became Bitcoin Cash began. The public decision to do a minority hard fork happened 2016-07-31, and was spearheaded by singularity87 and ftrader. ftrader did most of the initial development, which he had started back in March 2016. Even back then, the plan to fork before Segwit's activation was clear:
Bitmain was merely joining their effort in 2017, not starting it. Bitcoin Cash evolved out of the Minimum Viable Fork project that ftradeFreetrader started in March 2016, and which was discussed in /btcfork and /btc. Freetrader blogged about it quite a bit. If you read through his posts, you can see his initial prototype was built on Bitcoin Classic. In Oct 2016, a MVF version based on Bitcoin Core was made. Development on MVF stalled during the latter half of 2016 when it seemed like Bitcoin Unlimited's emergent consensus proposal was likely to gain adoption, but heated up again in early 2017 when BU lost support after a few remote crash 0-day exploits were found and used against BU on March 15 and again in April. Freetrader restarted his MVF work on Bitcoin Unlimited in April. The first mention of Bitcoin ABC is from May 7, 2017. The ABC project was started by deadalnix, but with mostly the same goal as ftrader's work using Core as the base instead of BU or Classic. At that time, ABC was just Core 0.14 minus RBF and Segwit; it didn't yet have any blocksize changes. Deadalnix reached out to Freetrader and asked him if he wanted to help, which Freetrader did. Freetrader made the first prototype of Bitcoin ABC with a blocksize limit other than 1 MB on or before May 21, 2017, while still working in parallel on the Bitcoin Unlimited version of the MVF. Ftrader and deadalnix continued to work on Bitcoin ABC for a couple months before Bitmain even mentioned their support for the contingency plan, and their contingency plan was basically the same as what ftrader and singularity87 had proposed back in June 2016 (but with more refinements and details worked out) -- perform a minority hard fork from BTC before Segwit activates to increase the blocksize limit, and do so in a way that ensures as clean a split as possible. Bitcoin ABC was announced to the public on July 1st, 2017, by ftrader and by deadalnix, about 2-3 months after deadalnix and ftrader began working on it, and 2 weeks after Bitmain announced its intent to support the UAHF. On the date that BCH forked, there were four separate compatible full-node clients:
Bitcoin ABC, developed mostly by Amaury Sechet/deadalnix and freetrader;
Bitcoin Unlimited, developed by the BU team (Andrew Stone/thezerg, Peter Tchipper, Andrea Suisani/sickpig, Peter Rizun, freetrader, and a few others, and funded by anonymous donors in 2016 for their Emergent Consensus proposal);
Bitcoin XT, developed initially by Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn, and later by Tom Harding/dgenr8 and dagurval
Of those developers, the only ones who received money while they were working on these clients were possibly deadalnix (alleged but unconfirmed to be paid by Bitmain), and Gavin (MIT Digital Currency Initiative). Everybody else was a volunteer. At the time, BU's funds only paid for conferences, travel expenses, and a $20,000 bug bounty; BU didn't start paying its developers until after the BCH hard fork. A lot of Bitcoin Cash's early support came from Haipo Yang of ViaBTC. ViaBTC's exchange was the first to offer BCH trading pairs, and ViaBTC's pool was the first public pool to support BCH. I've also heard that Haipo Yang was the one who coined the name Bitcoin Cash -- can anyone confirm or deny this? ViaBTC played a significant role in BCH's deployment, far more than Roger Ver or Craig Wright, and had a comparable amount of influence to Bitmain. However, this was not obvious on the outside, because Haipo Yang is the kind of person who quietly builds things that work, instead of just being a prominent talking head like Craig Wright and Roger Ver are. Roger himself actually didn't fully support Bitcoin Cash until after the fork. Initially, he had his hopes up for Segwit2x, as did I. His name was conspicuously missing in an Aug 1, 2017 article about who supports Bitcoin Cash. It was only after Segwit2x failed on Nov 8, 2017 that he started to support BCH. Craig Wright on the other hand did praise the Bitcoin Cash initiative early on, probably largely because he hated Segwit for some reason. But he didn't do anything to help create BCH; he only spoke in favor of it. (I really wish he hadn't. His involvement in BCH fostered a lot of false beliefs among Bitcoin Cash's userbase, like the belief that selfish mining doesn't exist. We were only able to get rid of his crazed followers when BSV forked off. I'm very grateful that happened. But I digress.) Most people didn't take him seriously, but a modest minority bought his narrative hard. He was a pretty minor player at the time, and remained so until 2018. These are the people who created Bitcoin Cash. It's easy to place all the credit/blame on the most vocal figureheads, but the marketing department does not create the product; they just sell it. If you weren't around during the product's development, it's hard to know who actually built the thing and who was just a bandwagon joiner. CSW and Roger just hopped on the bandwagon. Jihan Wu/Bitmain and Haipo Yang/ViaBTC joined the crew of the bandwagon and contributed substantially to its development and survival, but by the time they had joined the bandwagon was already in motion. The real instigators were the community members like ftrader, deadalnix, singularity87, the BU crew, the Electron Cash crew (Calin Culianu, kyuupichan, Jonald Fyookball, etc.) and the many others who contributed in various ways that I haven't documented. For those of you who played a role or know of someone else who did but whom I didn't mention in this post, please make a comment below so we can all hear about it.
Your Guide to Monero, and Why It Has Great Potential
/////Your Guide to Monero, and Why It Has Great Potential/////
Marketing. It's a dirty word for most members of the Monero community. It is also one of the most divisive words in the Monero community. Yet, the lack of marketing is one of the most frustrating things for many newcomers. This is what makes this an unusual post from a member of the Monero community. This post is an unabashed and unsolicited analyzation of why I believe Monero to have great potential. Below I have attempted to outline different reasons why Monero has great potential, beginning with upcoming developments and use cases, to broader economic motives, speculation, and key issues for it to overcome. I encourage you to discuss and criticise my musings, commenting below if you feel necessary to do so.
Bulletproofs - A Reduction in Transaction Sizes and Fees Since the introduction of Ring Confidential Transactions (Ring CT), transaction amounts have been hidden in Monero, albeit at the cost of increased transaction fees and sizes. In order to mitigate this issue, Bulletproofs will soon be added to reduce both fees and transaction size by 80% to 90%. This is great news for those transacting smaller USD amounts as people commonly complained Monero's fees were too high! Not any longer though! More information can be found here. Bulletproofs are already working on the Monero testnet, and developers were aiming to introduce them in March 2018, however it could be delayed in order to ensure everything is tried and tested. Multisig Multisig has recently been merged! Mulitsig, also called multisignature, is the requirement for a transaction to have two or more signatures before it can be executed. Multisig transactions and addresses are indistinguishable from normal transactions and addresses in Monero, and provide more security than single-signature transactions. It is believed this will lead to additional marketplaces and exchanges to supporting Monero. Kovri Kovri is an implementation of the Invisible Internet Project (I2P) network. Kovri uses both garlic encryption and garlic routing to create a private, protected overlay-network across the internet. This overlay-network provides users with the ability to effectively hide their geographical location and internet IP address. The good news is Kovri is under heavy development and will be available soon. Unlike other coins' false privacy claims, Kovri is a game changer as it will further elevate Monero as the king of privacy. Mobile Wallets There is already a working Android Wallet called Monerujo available in the Google Play Store. X Wallet is an IOS mobile wallet. One of the X Wallet developers recently announced they are very, very close to being listed in the Apple App Store, however are having some issues with getting it approved. The official Monero IOS and Android wallets, along with the MyMonero IOS and Android wallets, are also almost ready to be released, and can be expected very soon. Hardware Wallets Hardware wallets are currently being developed and nearing completion. Because Monero is based on the CryptoNote protocol, it means it requires unique development in order to allow hardware wallet integration. The Ledger Nano S will be adding Monero support by the end of Q1 2018. There is a recent update here too. Even better, for the first time ever in cryptocurrency history, the Monero community banded together to fund the development of an exclusive Monero Hardware Wallet, and will be available in Q2 2018, costing only about $20! In addition, the CEO of Trezor has offered a 10BTC bounty to whoever can provide the software to allow Monero integration. Someone can be seen to already be working on that here. TAILS Operating System Integration Monero is in the progress of being packaged in order for it to be integrated into TAILS and ready to use upon install. TAILS is the operating system popularised by Edward Snowden and is commonly used by those requiring privacy such as journalists wanting to protect themselves and sources, human-right defenders organizing in repressive contexts, citizens facing national emergencies, domestic violence survivors escaping from their abusers, and consequently, darknet market users. In the meantime, for those users who wish to use TAILS with Monero, u/Electric_sheep01 has provided Sheep's Noob guide to Monero GUI in Tails 3.2, which is a step-by-step guide with screenshots explaining how to setup Monero in TAILS, and is very easy to follow. Mandatory Hardforks Unlike other coins, Monero receives a protocol upgrade every 6 months in March and September. Think of it as a Consensus Protocol Update. Monero's hard forks ensure quality development takes place, while preventing political or ideological issues from hindering progress. When a hardfork occurs, you simply download and use the new daemon version, and your existing wallet files and copy of the blockchain remain compatible. This reddit post provides more information. Dynamic fees Many cryptocurrencies have an arbitrary block size limit. Although Monero has a limit, it is adaptive based on the past 100 blocks. Similarly, fees change based on transaction volume. As more transactions are processed on the Monero network, the block size limit slowly increases and the fees slowly decrease. The opposite effect also holds true. This means that the more transactions that take place, the cheaper the fees! Tail Emission and Inflation There will be around 18.4 million Monero mined at the end of May 2022. However, tail emission will kick in after that which is 0.6 XMR, so it has no fixed limit. Gundamlancer explains that Monero's "main emission curve will issue about 18.4 million coins to be mined in approximately 8 years. (more precisely 18.132 Million coins by ca. end of May 2022) After that, a constant "tail emission" of 0.6 XMR per 2-minutes block (modified from initially equivalent 0.3 XMR per 1-minute block) will create a sub-1% perpetual inflatio starting with 0.87% yearly inflation around May 2022) to prevent the lack of incentives for miners once a currency is not mineable anymore. Monero Research Lab Monero has a group of anonymous/pseudo-anonymous university academics actively researching, developing, and publishing academic papers in order to improve Monero. See here and here. The Monero Research Lab are acquainted with other members of cryptocurrency academic community to ensure when new research or technology is uncovered, it can be reviewed and decided upon whether it would be beneficial to Monero. This ensures Monero will always remain a leading cryptocurrency. A recent end of 2017 update from a MRL researcher can be found here.
///Monero's Technology - Rising Above The Rest///
Monero Has Already Proven Itself To Be Private, Secure, Untraceable, and Trustless Monero is the only private, untraceable, trustless, secure and fungible cryptocurrency. Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies are TRACEABLE through the use of blockchain analytics, and has lead to the prosecution of numerous individuals, such as the alleged Alphabay administrator Alexandre Cazes. In the Forfeiture Complaint which detailed the asset seizure of Alexandre Cazes, the anonymity capabilities of Monero were self-demonstrated by the following statement of the officials after the AlphaBay shutdown: "In total, from CAZES' wallets and computer agents took control of approximately $8,800,000 in Bitcoin, Ethereum, Monero and Zcash, broken down as follows: 1,605.0503851 Bitcoin, 8,309.271639 Ethereum, 3,691.98 Zcash, and an unknown amount of Monero". Privacy CANNOT BE OPTIONAL and must be at a PROTOCOL LEVEL. With Monero, privacy is mandatory, so that everyone gets the benefits of privacy without any transactions standing out as suspicious. This is the reason Darknet Market places are moving to Monero, and will never use Verge, Zcash, Dash, Pivx, Sumo, Spectre, Hush or any other coins that lack good privacy. Peter Todd (who was involved in the Zcash trusted setup ceremony) recently reiterated his concerns of optional privacy after Jeffrey Quesnelle published his recent paper stating 31.5% of Zcash transactions may be traceable, and that only ~1% of the transactions are pure privacy transactions (i.e., z -> z transactions). When the attempted private transactions stand out like a sore thumb there is no privacy, hence why privacy cannot be optional. In addition, in order for a cryptocurrency to truly be private, it must not be controlled by a centralised body, such as a company or organisation, because it opens it up to government control and restrictions. This is no joke, but Zcash is supported by DARPA and the Israeli government!. Monero provides a stark contrast compared to other supposed privacy coins, in that Monero does not have a rich list! With all other coins, you can view wallet balances on the blockexplorers. You can view Monero's non-existent rich list here to see for yourself. I will reiterate here that Monero is TRUSTLESS. You don't need to rely on anyone else to protect your privacy, or worry about others colluding to learn more about you. No one can censor your transaction or decide to intervene. Monero is immutable, unlike Zcash, in which the lead developer Zooko publicly tweeted the possibility of providing a backdoor for authorities to trace transactions. To Zcash's demise, Zooko famously tweeted:
" And by the way, I think we can successfully make Zcash too traceable for criminals like WannaCry, but still completely private & fungible. …"
Ethereum's track record of immutability is also poor. Ethereum was supposed to be an immutable blockchain ledger, however after the DAO hack this proved to not be the case. A 2016 article on Saintly Law summarised the problematic nature of Ethereum's leadership and blockchain intervention:
" Many ethereum and blockchain advocates believe that the intervention was the wrong move to make in this situation. Smart contracts are meant to be self-executing, immutable and free from disturbance by organisations and intermediaries. Yet the building block of all smart contracts, the code, is inherently imperfect. This means that the technology is vulnerable to the same malicious hackers that are targeting businesses and governments. It is also clear that the large scale intervention after the DAO hack could not and would not likely be taken in smaller transactions, as they greatly undermine the viability of the cryptocurrency and the technology."
Monero provides Fungibility and Privacy in a Cashless World As outlined on GetMonero.org, fungibility is the property of a currency whereby two units can be substituted in place of one another. Fungibility means that two units of a currency can be mutually substituted and the substituted currency is equal to another unit of the same size. For example, two $10 bills can be exchanged and they are functionally identical to any other $10 bill in circulation (although $10 bills have unique ID numbers and are therefore not completely fungible). Gold is probably a closer example of true fungibility, where any 1 oz. of gold of the same grade is worth the same as another 1 oz. of gold. Monero is fungible due to the nature of the currency which provides no way to link transactions together nor trace the history of any particular XMR. 1 XMR is functionally identical to any other 1 XMR. Fungibility is an advantage Monero has over Bitcoin and almost every other cryptocurrency, due to the privacy inherent in the Monero blockchain and the permanently traceable nature of the Bitcoin blockchain. With Bitcoin, any BTC can be tracked by anyone back to its creation coinbase transaction. Therefore, if a coin has been used for an illegal purpose in the past, this history will be contained in the blockchain in perpetuity. A great example of Bitcoin's lack of fungibility was reposted by u/ViolentlyPeaceful:
"Imagine you sell cupcakes and receive Bitcoin as payment. It turns out that someone who owned that Bitcoin before you was involved in criminal activity. Now you are worried that you have become a suspect in a criminal case, because the movement of funds to you is a matter of public record. You are also worried that certain Bitcoins that you thought you owned will be considered ‘tainted’ and that others will refuse to accept them as payment."
This lack of fungibility means that certain businesses will be obligated to avoid accepting BTC that have been previously used for purposes which are illegal, or simply run afoul of their Terms of Service. Currently some large Bitcoin companies are blocking, suspending, or closing accounts that have received Bitcoin used in online gambling or other purposes deemed unsavory by said companies. Monero has been built specifically to address the problem of traceability and non-fungibility inherent in other cryptocurrencies. By having completely private transactions Monero is truly fungible and there can be no blacklisting of certain XMR, while at the same time providing all the benefits of a secure, decentralized, permanent blockchain. The world is moving cashless. Fact. The ramifications of this are enormous as we move into a cashless world in which transactions will be tracked and there is a potential for data to be used by third parties for adverse purposes. While most new cryptocurrency investors speculate upon vaporware ICO tokens in the hope of generating wealth, Monero provides salvation for those in which financial privacy is paramount. Too often people equate Monero's features with criminal endeavors. Privacy is not a crime, and is necessary for good money. Transparency in Monero is possible OFF-CHAIN, which offers greater transparency and flexibility. For example, a Monero user may share their Private View Key with their accountant for tax purposes. Monero aims to be adopted by more than just those with nefarious use cases. For example, if you lived in an oppressive religious regime and wanted to buy a certain item, using Monero would allow you to exchange value privately and across borders if needed. Another example is that if everybody can see how much cryptocurrency you have in your wallet, then a certain service might decide to charge you more, and bad actors could even use knowledge of your wallet balance to target you for extortion purposes. For example, a Russian cryptocurrency blogger was recently beaten and robbed of $425k. This is why FUNGIBILITY IS ESSENTIAL. To summarise this in a nutshell:
"A lack of fungibility means that when sending or receiving funds, if the other person personally knows you during a transaction, or can get any sort of information on you, or if you provide a residential address for shipping etc. – you could quite potentially have them use this against you for personal gain"
Major Investors And Crypto Figureheads Are Interested Ari Paul is the co-founder and CIO of BlockTower Capital. He was previously a portfolio manager for the University of Chicago's $8 billion endowment, and a derivatives market maker and proprietary trader for Susquehanna International Group. Paul was interviewed on CNBC on the 26th of December and when asked what was his favourite coin was, he stated "One that has real fundamental value besides from Bitcoin is Monero" and said it has "very strong engineering". In addition, when he was asked if that was the one used by criminals, he replied "Everything is used by criminals including the US dollar and the Euro". Paul later supported these claims on Twitter, recommending only Bitcoin and Monero as long-term investments. There are reports that "Roger Ver, earlier known as 'Bitcoin Jesus' for his evangelical support of the Bitcoin during its early years, said his investment in Monero is 'substantial' and his biggest in any virtual currency since Bitcoin. Charlie Lee, the creator of Litecoin, has publicly stated his appreciation of Monero. In a September 2017 tweet directed to Edward Snowden explaining why Monero is superior to Zcash, Charlie Lee tweeted:
All private transactions, More tested privacy tech, No tax on miners to pay investors, No high inflation... better investment.
John McAfee, arguably cryptocurrency's most controversial character at the moment, has publicly supported Monero numerous times over the last twelve months(before he started shilling ICOs), and has even claimed it will overtake Bitcoin. Playboy instagram celebrity Dan Bilzerian is a Monero investor, with 15% of his portfolio made up of Monero. Finally, while he may not be considered a major investor or figurehead, Erik Finman, a young early Bitcoin investor and multimillionaire, recently appeared in a CNBC Crypto video interview, explaining why he isn't entirely sold on Bitcoin anymore, and expresses his interest in Monero, stating:
"Monero is a really good one. Monero is an incredible currency, it's completely private."
There is a common belief that most of the money in cryptocurrency is still chasing the quick pump and dumps, however as the market matures, more money will flow into legitimate projects such as Monero. Monero's organic growth in price is evidence smart money is aware of Monero and gradually filtering in. The Bitcoin Flaw A relatively unknown blogger named CryptoIzzy posted three poignant pieces regarding Monero and its place in the world. The Bitcoin Flaw: Monero Rising provides an intellectual comparison of Monero to other cryptocurrencies, and Valuing Cryptocurrencies: An Approach outlines methods of valuing different coins. CryptoIzzy's most recent blog published only yesterday titled Monero Valuation - Update and Refocus is a highly recommended read. It touches on why Monero is much more than just a coin for the Darknet Markets, and provides a calculated future price of Monero. CryptoIzzy also published The Power of Money: A Case for Bitcoin, which is an exploration of our monetary system, and the impact decentralised cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin and Monero will have on the world. In the epilogue the author also provides a positive and detailed future valuation based on empirical evidence. CryptoIzzy predicts Monero to easily progress well into the four figure range. Monero Has a Relatively Small Marketcap Recently we have witnessed many newcomers to cryptocurrency neglecting to take into account coins' marketcap and circulating supply, blindly throwing money at coins under $5 with inflated marketcaps and large circulating supplies, and then believing it's possible for them to reach $100 because someone posted about it on Facebook or Reddit. Compared to other cryptocurrencies, Monero still has a low marketcap, which means there is great potential for the price to multiply. At the time of writing, according to CoinMarketCap, Monero's marketcap is only a little over $5 billion, with a circulating supply of 15.6 million Monero, at a price of $322 per coin. For this reason, I would argue that this is evidence Monero is grossly undervalued. Just a few billion dollars of new money invested in Monero can cause significant price increases. Monero's marketcap only needs to increase to ~$16 billion and the price will triple to over $1000. If Monero's marketcap simply reached ~$35 billion (just over half of Ripple's $55 billion marketcap), Monero's price will increase 600% to over $2000 per coin. Another way of looking at this is Monero's marketcap only requires ~$30 billion of new investor money to see the price per Monero reach $2000, while for Ethereum to reach $2000, Ethereum's marketcap requires a whopping ~$100 billion of new investor money. Technical Analysis There are numerous Monero technical analysts, however none more eerily on point than the crowd-pleasing Ero23. Ero23's charts and analysis can be found on Trading View. Ero23 gained notoriety for his long-term Bitcoin bull chart published in February, which is still in play today. Head over to his Trading View page to see his chart: Monero's dwindling supply. $10k in 2019 scenario, in which Ero23 predicts Monero to reach $10,000 in 2019. There is also this chart which appears to be freakishly accurate and is tracking along perfectly today. Coinbase Rumours Over the past 12 months there have been ongoing rumours that Monero will be one of the next cryptocurrencies to be added to Coinbase. In January 2017, Monero Core team member Riccardo 'Fluffypony' Spagni presented a talk at Coinbase HQ. In addition, in November 2017 GDAX announced the GDAX Digit Asset Framework outlining specific parameters cryptocurrencies must meet in order to be added to the exchange. There is speculation that when Monero has numerous mobile and hardware wallets available, and multisig is working, then it will be added. This would enable public accessibility to Monero to increase dramatically as Coinbase had in excess of 13 million users as of December, and is only going to grow as demand for cryptocurrencies increases. Many users argue that due to KYC/AML regulations, Coinbase will never be able to add Monero, however the Kraken exchange already operates in the US and has XMfiat pairs, so this is unlikely to be the reason Coinbase is yet to implement XMfiat trading. Monero Is Not an ICO Scam It is likely most of the ICOs which newcomers invest in, hoping to get rich quick, won't even be in the Top 100 cryptocurrencies next year. A large portion are most likely to be pumps and dumps, and we have already seen numerous instances of ICO exit scams. Once an ICO raises millions of dollars, the developers or CEO of the company have little incentive to bother rolling out their product or service when they can just cash out and leave. The majority of people who create a company to provide a service or product, do so in order to generate wealth. Unless these developers and CEOs are committed and believed in their product or service, it's likely that the funds raised during the ICO will far exceed any revenue generated from real world use cases. Monero is a Working Currency, Today Monero is a working currency, here today. The majority of so called cryptocurrencies that exist today are not true currencies, and do not aim to be. They are a token of exchange. They are like a share in a start-up company hoping to use blockchain technology to succeed in business. A crypto-assest is a more accurate name for coins such as Ethereum, Neo, Cardano, Vechain, etc. Monero isn't just a vaporware ICO token that promises to provide a blockchain service in the future. It is not a platform for apps. It is not a pump and dump coin. Monero is the only coin with all the necessary properties to be called true money. Monero is private internet money. Some even describe Monero as an online Swiss Bank Account or Bitcoin 2.0, and it is here to continue on from Bitcoin's legacy. Monero is alleviating the public from the grips of banks, and protests the monetary system forced upon us. Monero only achieved this because it is the heart and soul, and blood, sweat, and tears of the contributors to this project. Monero supporters are passionate, and Monero has gotten to where it is today thanks to its contributors and users.
///Key Issues for Monero to Overcome///
Scalability While Bulletproofs are soon to be implemented in order to improve Monero's transaction sizes and fees, scalability is an issue for Monero that is continuously being assessed by Monero's researchers and developers to find the most appropriate solution. Ricardo 'Fluffypony' Spagni recently appeared on CNBC's Crypto Trader, and when asked whether Monero is scalable as it stands today, Spagni stated that presently, Monero's on-chain scaling is horrible and transactions are larger than Bitcoin's (because of Monero's privacy features), so side-chain scaling may be more efficient. Spagni elaborated that the Monero team is, and will always be, looking for solutions to an array of different on-chain and off-chain scaling options, such as developing a Mimblewimble side-chain, exploring the possibility of Lightning Network so atomic swaps can be performed, and Tumblebit. In a post on the Monero subreddit from roughly a month ago, monero moderator u/dEBRUYNE_1 supports Spagni's statements. dEBRUYNE_1 clarifies the issue of scalability:
"In Bitcoin, the main chain is constrained and fees are ludicrous. This results in users being pushed to second layer stuff (e.g. sidechains, lightning network). Users do not have optionality in Bitcoin. In Monero, the goal is to make the main-chain accessible to everyone by keeping fees reasonable. We want users to have optionality, i.e., let them choose whether they'd like to use the main chain or second layer stuff. We don't want to take that optionality away from them."
"Monero has all the mechanisms it needs to find the balance between transaction load, and offsetting the costs of miner infrastructure/profits, while making sure the network is useful for users. But like the interviewer said, the question is directed at "right now", and Fluffys right to a certain extent, Monero's transactions are huge, and compromises in blockchain security will help facilitate less burdensome transactional activity in the future. But to compare Monero to Bitcoin's transaction sizes is somewhat silly as Bitcoin is nowhere near as useful as monero, and utility will facilitate infrastructure building that may eventually utterly dwarf Bitcoin. And to equate scaling based on a node being run on a desktop being the only option for what classifies as "scalable" is also an incredibly narrow interpretation of the network being able to scale, or not. Given the extremely narrow definition of scaling people love to (incorrectly) use, I consider that a pretty crap question to put to Fluffy in the first place, but... ¯_(ツ)_/¯"
u/xmrusher also contributed to the discussion, comparing Bitcoin to Monero using this analogous description:
"While John is much heavier than Henry, he's still able to run faster, because, unlike Henry, he didn't chop off his own legs just so the local wheelchair manufacturer can make money. While Morono has much larger transactions then Bitcoin, it still scales better, because, unlike Bitcoin, it hasn't limited itself to a cripplingly tiny blocksize just to allow Blockstream to make money."
Setting up a wallet can still be time consuming It's time consuming and can be somewhat difficult for new cryptocurrency users to set up their own wallet using the GUI wallet or the Command Line Wallet. In order to strengthen and further decentralize the Monero network, users are encouraged to run a full node for their wallet, however this can be an issue because it can take up to 24-48 hours for some users depending on their hard-drive and internet speeds. To mitigate this issue, users can run a remote node, meaning they can remotely connect their wallet to another node in order to perform transactions, and in the meantime continue to sync the daemon so in the future they can then use their own node. For users that do run into wallet setup issues, or any other problems for that matter, there is an extremely helpful troubleshooting thread on the Monero subreddit which can be found here. And not only that, unlike some other cryptocurrency subreddits, if you ask a question, there is always a friendly community member who will happily assist you. Monero.how is a fantastic resource too! Despite still being difficult to use, the user-base and price may increase dramatically once it is easier to use. In addition, others believe that when hardware wallets are available more users will shift to Monero.
I actually still feel a little shameful for promoting Monero here, but feel a sense of duty to do so. Monero is transitioning into an unstoppable altruistic beast. This year offers the implementation of many great developments, accompanied by the likelihood of a dramatic increase in price. I request you discuss this post, point out any errors I have made, or any information I may have neglected to include. Also, if you believe in the Monero project, I encourage you to join your local Facebook or Reddit cryptocurrency group and spread the word of Monero. You could even link this post there to bring awareness to new cryptocurrency users and investors. I will leave you with an old on-going joke within the Monero community - Don't buy Monero - unless you have a use case for it of course :-) Just think to yourself though - Do I have a use case for Monero in our unpredictable Huxleyan society? Hint: The answer is ? Edit: Added in the Tail Emission section, and noted Dan Bilzerian as a Monero investor. Also added information regarding the XMR.TO payment service. Added info about hardfork
Found this insightful comment on Craig being the founder of The Bitcoin protocol.
Written by Silverjustice So many things. Only when you read all of his material, inventions and countless hours of videos will you be able to understand his knowledge of how bitcoin works is second to none. Secondly, 3 independant personalities have witnessed him sign. So much so, that they have been scathed and publicly ridiculed for even saying so. These people are not idiots, and are professionals and scientific intellectuals in their own right. There are others that witnessed this also. He also did offer Roger Ver the opportunity to witness a signature on a machine of Roger's choosing, but at the time, Roger believed him wholeheartedly and said it wasn't necessary for Craig to sign. It wasn't until the height of the BCH civil war that Roger beleived he was duped - ...he should have just asked for a sig. Thirdly, I have spoken to people who were working for DeMorgan's in the 2000's, and they have offered their testimonials that he was working on Bitcoin back then. I have spoken to one of his sisters who straight out admitted she had inside knowledge of his working for Bitcoin. Fourthly, my personal interactions with Craig, showed insightful knowledge of the code and particularly design decisions. Nobody in 2016 knew why the Alt Stack was in the code or its specific purpose. But he offered that it was vital to include it in order to complete alan's turing machine, in Bitcoin. I did have the advantage of discussing these things with him at a time where he was much less public, but there was a lot covered including his vision for blacknet (metanet) as well which is all coming into fruition. There are a plethora of reasons why publicly signing is a bad move. It's best that he does not sign publicly.
Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? An analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). Part 3
Part 1 Part 2 So I have been subbed to /bitcoin since it had less than two thousand subs but haven't posted there in years. I think I took a break from researching bitcoin to take a foray into the world of conspiracy around 2014 and only got back in to it around the beginning of 2017 but with a bit of sense of skepticism and cynicism about everything. I think I returned to /bitcoin around that time but there had been a rift that had emerged in the community between those that said that bitcoin was censoring any discussion around big blocks but then also just censorship in general. This lead to the formation of /btc which became the main spot for big blockers to gather to talk about protocol development. Following the fork of Bitcoin Cash and SegWit (BTC) in August 2017 the camps were further divided when the fence sitters were denied their SegWit2x compromise. Many from the fence sitters then deferred back to the incumbent bitcoin as citing muh network effect, liquidity, and hashpower while some who felt betrayed by the failure of getting S2X through went to support BCH for some attempt at on chain scaling rather than through pegged side chains or Lightning Network. Bitcoin cash initially went with a modest doubling of the blocksize to 2MB but implemented some other features like a new more rapidly adjusting difficulty algorithm to protect themselves against hashpower fluctuations from the majority chain. In about July of that year I had seen what I potentially thought was someone LARPing on /biz/ but screencapped, that segwit2x which was scheduled for november 2017 would be called off and then hashpower would switch to BCH causing congestion and chain death spiral on BTC and BCH would pump massively. I was partial to the idea as the game theory and incentives on a big block bitcoin should attract miners. About a month after SegWit2x was indeed called off while the BTC blockchain was hugely congested, BCH went through a violent pump reaching 0.5 BTC/BCH on a European exchange called Kraken while it also pumped ridiculously on American exchange coinbase. Shortly afterwards the market took a giant dump all over those people who bought the top and it has since retraced to roughly 30:1 or so now. After that pump though BCH kind of gained some bagholders I guess who started to learn the talking points presented by personalities like Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, Peter Rizun and Amaury Sechet. Craig S Wright by this time had been outed as Satoshi but had in 2016 publicly failed to convince the public with the cryptographic proof he provided. To which he later published the article I don't have the courage to prove I am the bitcoin creator. In essence this allowed many to disregard anything he offered to the crypto community though his company nChain was very much interested in providing the technical support to scale what he saw as the true implementation of bitcoin. Following debate around a set of planned protocol upgrades between a bitcoin node implementation by his company nChain and the developers of another client Bitcoin ABC (adjustable block cap), the two parties both dug their heels in and wouldn't compromise. As it became clear that a fork was imminent there was a lot of vitriol tossed out towards Wright, another big billionaire backer Calvin Ayre and other personalities like Roger Ver and Jihan Wu. Craig's credibility was disregarded because of his failure to provide convincing cryptographic proof but still people who wanted to pursue the protocol upgrades that nChain were planning (as it best followed their interpretation of the bitcoin white paper) pursued his variant, while others who followed the socia consensus deferred to the positions of their personalities like Wu, Ver, and Sechet but even developers from Ethereum and other protocols chimed in to convince everyone that CSW is a fraud. This was referred to as the hash war and was the first time that the bitcoin protocol had been contentiously hard forked. Hashpower is the CPU cycles you can commit to the Proof of Work function in bitcoin and the majority will generate the longest chain as they have the most proof of work. To win the contentious hard fork legitimately and make sure your chain will always be safe going forward you need to maintain your version of the blockchain with 51% of the hashpower on the network and force the other parties to continue to spend money on building a blockchain that is never going to be inserted in to the majority chain. As well as this you need to convince exchanges that you have the majority chain and have them feel safe to accept deposits and withdrawals so that they don't lose money in the chaos. This is how it would play out if both parties acted according to the rules of bitcoin and the Nakamoto Consensus. There was a lot of shit talking between the two parties on social media with Craig Wright making a number of claims such as "you split, we bankrupt you" "I don't care if there is no ability to move coins to an exchange for a year" and other such warnings not to engage in foul play.. To explain this aftermath is quite tedious so It might be better to defer to this video for the in depth analysis but basically Roger Ver had to rent hashpower that was supposed to be mining BTC from his mining farm bitcoin.com, Jihan Wu did the same from his Bitmain Mining Farm which was a violation of his fiduciary duty as the CEO of a company preparing for an IPO. In this video of a livestream during the hashwar where Andreas Brekken admits to basically colluding with exchange owners like Coinbase, Kraken (exchange Roger Ver invested in), Bitfinex and others to release a patched ABC client to the exchanges and introducing "checkpoints" in to the BCH blockchain (which he even says is arguably "centralisation") in order to prevent deep reorgs of the BCH blockchain. >"We knew we were going to win in 30 mins we had the victory because of these checkpoints that we released to a cartel of friendly businesses in a patch so then we just sat around drinking beers all day". By releasing a patched client that has code in it to prevent deep reorgs by having the client refer to a checkpoint from a block mined by someone who supported BCHABC if another group of hash power was to try to insert a new chain history, this cartel of exchanges and mining farm operators conspired in private to change the nature of the bitcoin protocol and Nakamoto Consensus. Since the fork there have been a number of other BCH clients that have come up that require funding and have their own ideas about what things to implement on the BCH chain. What began to emerge was actually not necessarily an intention of scaling bitcoin but rather to implement Schnorr signatures to obfuscate transactions and to date the ABC client still has a default blocksize of 2MB but advertised as 16MB. What this demonstrates for BCH is that through the collusion, the cartel can immediately get a favourable outcome from the developers to keep their businesses secure and from the personalities/developers to work on obfuscating records of transactions on the chain rather than scaling their protocol. After the SegWit fork, many from the BCH camp alleged that through the funding to Blockstream from AXA and groups that tied to the Bilderbergs, Blockstream would be beholden to the legacy banking and would be a spoke and hub centralised model, so naturally many of the "down with central banks anarcho capitalist types" had gathered in the BCH community. Through these sympathies it seems that people have been susceptible to being sold things like coin mixing and obfuscation with developers offering their opinions about how money needs to be anonymous to stop the evil government and central banks despite ideas like Mises’ Regression Theorem, which claims that in order for something to be money in the most proper sense, it must be traceable to an originally non-monetary barter commodity such as gold. What this suggests is that there is an underlying intent from the people that have mechanisms to exert their will upon the protocol of bitcoin and that if obfuscation is their first priority rather than working on creating a scalable platform, this demonstrates that they don't wish to actually be global money but more so something that makes it easier to move money that you don't want seen. Roger Ver has often expressed sentiments of injustice about the treatment of Silk Road found Ross Ulbricht and donated a large amount of money to a fund for his defence. I initially got in to bitcoin seeking out the Silk Road and though I only wanted to test it to buy small quantities of mdma, lsd, and mescaline back in 2011 there was all sorts of criminal activity on there like scam manuals, counterfeits, ID, Credit Card info, and other darknet markets like armoury were selling pretty crazy weapons. It has been alleged by Craig Wright that in his capacity as a digital forensics expert he was involved with tracing bitcoin that was used to fund the trafficking of 12-16 year olds on the silk road. There have been attempts at debunking such claims by saying that silk road was moderated for such stuff by Ulbricht and others, but one only has to take a look in to the premise of pizza gate to understand that there it may be possible to hide in plain site with certain code words for utilising the market services and escrow of websites like the silk road. The recent pedo bust from South Korea demonstrates the importance of being able to track bitcoin transactions and if the first thing BCH wanted to do after separating itself from Satoshi's Vision and running on developer and cartel agendas was to implement obfuscation methods, this type of criminal activity will only proliferate. Questions one must ask oneself then are things like why do they want this first? Are some of these developers, personalities and cartel businesses sitting on coins that they know are tarnished from the silk road and want to implement obfuscation practices so they can actually cash in some of the value they are unable to access? Merchants from the silk road 1 are still being caught even as recently as this year when they attempted to move coins that were known to have moved through the silk road. Chain analytics are only becoming more and more powerful and the records can never be changed under the original bitcoin protocol but with developer induced protocol changes like Schnorr signatures, and coinjoin it may be possible to start laundering these coins out in to circulation. I must admit with the cynicism I had towards government and law enforcement and my enjoying controlled substances occasionally I was sympathetic to Ross and donated to his legal fund back in the day and for many years claimed that I wouldn't pay my taxes when I wanted to cash out of bitcoin. I think many people in the space possess this same kind of mentality and subsequently can be preyed upon by people who wish to do much more in the obfuscation than dodge tax and party. Another interesting observation is that despite the fact that btc spun off as a result of censorship around big block scaling on bitcoin, that subreddit itself has engaged in plenty of censorship for basically anyone who wants to discuss the ideas presented by Dr Craig Wright on that sub. When I posted my part 2 of this series in there a week ago I was immediately met with intense negativity and ad hominems so as to discourage others from reading the submission and my post history was immediately throttled to 1 comment every 10 mins. This is not quite as bad as cryptocurrency where my post made it through the new queue to gather some upvotes and a discussion started but I was immediately banned from that sub for 7 days for reason "Content standards - you're making accusations based on no evidence just a dump of links that do nothing to justify your claims except maybe trustnodes link (which has posted fabricated information about this subreddit mods) and a Reddit post. Keep the conspiracy theories in /conspiracy" My post was also kept at zero in bitcoin and conspiracy so technically btc was the least censored besides C_S_T. In addition to the throttling I was also flagged by the u/BsvAlertBot which says whether or not a user has a questionable amount of activity in BSV subreddits and then a break down of your percentages. This was done in response to combat the "toxic trolls" of BSV but within bitcoincashSV there are many users that have migrated from what was originally supposed to be a uncensored subreddit to discuss bitcoin and many such as u/cryptacritic17 has have switched sides after having been made to essentially DOXX themselves in btc to prove that they aren't a toxic troll for raising criticisms of the way certain things are handled within that coin and development groups. Other prominent users such as u/jim-btc have been banned for impersonating another user which was in actual fact himself and he has uploaded evidence of him being in control of said account to the blockchain. Mod Log, Mod Damage Control, Mod Narrative BTFO. Interestingly in the comments on the picture uploaded to the blockchain you can see the spin to call him an SV shill when in actual fact he is just an OG bitcoiner that wanted bitcoin to scale as per the whitepaper. What is essentially going on in the Bitcoin space is that there is a battle of the protocols and a battle for social consensus. The incumbent BTC has majority of the attention and awareness as it is being backed by legacy banking and finance with In-Q-Tel and AXA funding blockstream as well as Epstein associates and MIT, but in the power vaccum that presented itself as to who would steward the big block variant, a posse of cryptoanarchists have gained control of the social media forums and attempted to exert their will upon what should essentially be a Set In Stone Protocol to create something that facilitates their economic activity (such as selling explosives online)) while attempting to leverage their position as moderators who control the social forum to spin their actions as something different (note memorydealers is Roger Ver). For all his tears for the children killed in wars, it seems that what cryptoanarchists such as u/memorydealers want is to delist/shut down governments and they will go to any efforts such as censorship to make sure that it is their implementation of bitcoin that will do that. Are we really going to have a better world with people easier able to hide transactions/launder money? Because of this power vacuum there also exists a number of different development groups but what is emerging now is that they are struggling for money to fund their development. The main engineering is done by self professed benevolent dictator Amaury Sechet (deadalnix) who in leaked telegram screen caps appears to be losing it as funding for development has dried up and money raised in an anarchist fashion wasn't compliant with laws around fundraising sources and FVNI (development society that manages BCH development and these donations) is run by known scammer David R Allen. David was founder of 2014 Israeli ICO Getgems (GEMZ) that scammed investors out of more than 2500 Bitcoins. The SV supported sky-lark who released this information has since deleted all their accounts but other users have claimed that sky-lark was sent personal details about themselves and pictures of their loved ones and subsequently deleted all their social media accounts afterwards. There are other shifty behaviours like hiring Japanese influencers to shill their coin, recruiting a Hayden Otto that up until 2018 was shilling Pascal Coin to become a major ambassador for BCH in the Australian city of Townsville. Townsville was claimed to be BCH city hosting a BCH conference there and claiming loads of adoption, but at the conference itself their idea of demonstrating adoption was handing a Point of Sale device to the bar to accept bitcoin payments but Otto actually just putting his credit card behind the bar to settle and he would keep the BCH that everyone paid. In the lead up to the conference the second top moderator of btc was added to the moderators of townsville to shill their coin but has ended up with the townsville subreddit wanting to ban all bitcoin talk from the subreddit. Many of the BCH developers are now infighting as funding dries up and they find themselves floundering with no vision of how to achieve scale or get actual real world adoption. Amaury has recently accused Peter Rizun of propagandising, told multiple users in the telegram to fuck off and from all accounts appears to be a malignant narcissist incapable of maintaining any kind of healthy relationship with people he is supposed to be working with. Peter Rizun has begun lurking in bitcoincashSV and recognising some of the ideas coming from BSV as having merit while Roger has started to distance himself from the creation of BCH. Interestingly at a point early in the BCH history Roger believed Dr Craig Wright was Satoshi, but once CSW wouldn't go along with their planned road map and revealed the fact he had patents on blockchain technology and wanted to go down a path that worked with Law, Roger retracted that statement and said he was tricked by Craig. He joined in on the faketoshi campaign and has been attempted to be sued by Dr Wright for libel in the UK to which Roger refused to engage citing grounds of jurisdiction. Ironically this avoidance of Roger to meet Dr Wright in court to defend his claims can be seen as the very argument against justice being served by private courts under an anarchocapitalist paradigm with essentially someone with resources simply being able to either flee a private court's jurisdiction or engage a team of lawyers that can bury any chances of an everyday person being able to get justice. There is much more going on with the BCH drama that can be explained in a single post but it is clear that some of the major personalities in the project are very much interested in having their ideals projected on to the technical implementation of the bitcoin protocol and have no qualms spouting rhetoric around the anti-censorship qualities of bitcoin/BCH while at the same time employing significant censorship on their social media forums to control what people are exposed to and getting rid of anyone who challenges their vision. I posit that were this coin to become a success, these "benevolent dictators" as they put it would love their new found positions of wealth/dominance yet if their behaviour to get there is anything to go by, would demonstrate the same power tripping practices of censorship, weasel acts, misleading people about adoption statistics and curating of the narrative. When the hashrate from Rogers bitcoin.com minging operation on BCH dropped dramatically and a lot of empty blocks were being mined, his employer and 2IC moderator u/BitcoinXio (who stepped in to replace roger as CEO) was in the sub informing everyone it was simply variance that was the reason when only a few days later it was revealed that they had reduced their hash power significantly. This is not appropriate behaviour for one of the primary enterprises engaged in stewarding BCH and encouraging adoption nor is the inability to be accountable for such dishonest practices as well. It seems bitcoin.com treats btc as their own personal spam page where Roger can ask for donations despite it being against the sub rules and spin/ban any challenge to the narrative they seek to create. Let's see how the censorship goes as I post this around a few of the same places as the last piece. Stay tuned for the next write up where I take a deep dive in to the coin that everyone doesn't want you to know about.
Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? A analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). [Part I]
Bitcoin was released to the world in 2009 by someone (or a group) who authored a technical whitepaper, released the source code to the protocol and commented on a few p2p forums and mailing lists under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto for a few months prior and a few years afterwards before leaving the project. The project was left in the hands of Gavin Andresson who was another cryptographer that satoshi communicated regularly with on the forums and had been one of the first people involved in the project. Some time after satoshi left, one of his accounts was allegedly hacked and bitcointalk (the primary forum) itself was hacked so a meme kind of emerged that satoshi wouldn't be able to post again from his accounts or that posting from them would be dubious. In 2016 an Australian by the name of Craig S Wright was exposed by Wired and Gizmodo as potentially being the inventor of bitcoin. Craig then signed privately for Gavin Andreson, Jon Matonis but then when he was supposed to cryptographically sign to a journalist the method performed did not hold up to public scrutiny because he could have copy pasted a fragment from an earlier known signed message from satoshi and not generated it himself with the private keys. This cast a lot of doubt from many on the man's claims and he published an article saying he wasn't brave enough to sign. Since then the term cryptocurrency has blown out massively to include anything with a distributed ledger technology, a token, a security, and has really just devolved into a cesspit of buzzwords and disinformation. Once satoshi disappeared in 2011 and left the repo in the hands of Gavin and the open source community, it left a power vacuum in the space for how to interpret the protocol, whitepaper and handle the development. Gavin Andresson brought some other developers on board from the forums and mailing lists, Shortly after Gavin gave some other developers commit access, bitcointalk was hacked and these new developers somehow deleted gavin from the github repo due to apparent concern that his account was compromised from the hack and afterwards once he validated his identity in certain accounts he was never given access again. Gavin stopped being involved with the project after that. In the time following satoshi's departure a meme had evolved that satoshi had left because Gavin had met with the CIA to discuss bitcoin. This meme combined with the interpretation of what satoshi meant when he included the quote "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" in the genesis block, the subsequent rise and fall of silk road and darknet markets, and the general lore of the space, his cypherpunk mailing list associations had led the scene to paint/project upon him as some kind of government hating tax dodging l33t h4xor demigod. Although in the title of the whitepaper it was described as p2p cash, bitcoin as most know it is now is marketed as a store of value. Although it was defined as the longest Proof of Work chain of digital signatures, bitcoin as most know it in actual fact has segregated witnesses (signatures) in the protocol. Although satoshi attests to how bitcoin is designed to scale to giant block sizes hosted and mined in data centers that never really hits a scaling ceiling, it is being sold as that even at 1MB size, the damage has already been done and the blocksize should be 300kB because every user needs to be able to run a full node for bitcoin to validate their own transactions with the lowest hardware and bandwidth requirements possible. A high vertice count with everyone running a (non-mining) full node is said to protect the network against malicious actions by the big bad government while graph theory states that it is the degree of inter connectivity of the vertcies (edge number) that confers security of the network against sybil attacks as it brings the number of hops down. This decoupling from the original vision has led to development and scaling of bitcoin stalling for many years which led to the proliferation of many alt coins rising up to claim they possess superior attributes to bitcoin or can work in conjunction with bitcoin in a gold and silver type relationship, or serve a different use case to bitcoin. The debate between the groups that represented the opposing roadmaps reached a climax with bitcoin itself forking into two now separate blockchains with the minority chain being declared the imposter by social media claiming hashpower and the market had chosen despite their chain changing on the protocol level to implement segregated witnesses and reject the block size increase. These two now separate chains both forked again to birth bitcoin gold and diamond on the segwit chain and bitcoin cash and bitcoin sv on the non segwit chain. At the non segwit chain fork, bitcoin cash implemented checkpointing at the protocol level whereas bitcoin sv maintained the original nakamoto consensus and sought to scale greater than the 32MB blocksize limit BCH maintained with 64MB blocks. Following these forking events both BTC (segwit) and BCH (checkpoints) also implemented Schnorr signatures which was marketed as economising the size of a typical bitcoin transaction though in actual fact it can be used to obfuscate signatures and allow for the mixing of coins to mask the chain of digital signatures and essentially "anonymously" launder money. The BSV chain (now Stewarded by Dr Craig Wright) was then declared the loser of that hash war by people heralding the power of the market and the miners to democratize money. The problem with such a claim though is just like current polical democracy, this apparent democratisation of money was just as susceptible to the influence of those who control the cryptocurrency media and just like in politics, there is a cabal like group that exerts a disproportionate influence over the narrative and appears to serve the interests of those in on the racket rather than those it is allegedly informing. The main forums for discussion of cryptocurrency originally were bitcoin.org, bitcointalk.org and /Bitcoin with all three of them for some time sharing the same moderator theymos. Coindesk and the bitcoinmagazine (started by ethereum devs) were some early sources, talking heads like andreas antonopolos (andreasma), peter todd (petertodd) and greg maxwell (nullc) being propped up as sources of knowledge on what is the best course of action for scaling and endorsing solutions like small blocks, second layer solutions and segwit as a necessarry bitcoin improvement protocol (BIP) while people like Roger Ver (memory dealers) and Dr Craig Wright (craig_s_wright) endorsing a block size increase. Because the core developers had chosen to scale with small blocks and lots of nodes on the network were signalling in support of Segwit any discussion of a big block alternative was considered discussion of an alt coin and deleted and eventually users banned from /bitcoin. Out of that incident /btc emerged as an apparently censorship free forum for the discussion of all scaling plans for bitcoin but was ultimately a partisan sub populated with dejected big blockers. After the BCH fork, discussion for bitcoin sv exists on a few subs /bsv (modded by BCHers), /bitcoinsv (moderated by the lead technician at nChain (Craig Wright's company) and /bitcoincashsv where many users have been banned from both /bitcoin and /btc. Now this so far is just kind of a synposis of the history of bitcoin covering all three of the main contenders for the legitimate claimant of the name but the part 2 will look more at what kind of drastically different societies would be built upon the different versions of the protocol and what may seem like their subtle differences and which one is likely to succeed.
Bitcoin Cash is not a scamcoin. Clearing up the FUD. (crosspost /r/cryptocurrency)
Definition of a scam : a dishonest scheme; a fraud. First of all, let me start with off with this. No one wanted Bitcoin Cash to exist, no one wanted another Bitcoin subreddit to exist (/BTC). This is how Bitcoin Cash was forked off & the reasons. In 2015, the plan was made by the Bitcoin Core developers and the community supported it. This plan was to increase the blocksize. He said in 2015, 2MB now, 4MB in 2 years, 8MB in 4 years then re-assess. The plan was very simple. Increase the blocksize, lower fees for everyone, more transactions possible. But this changed in 2015. The Moderators of /Bitcoin, particularly theymos who not only controls /Bitcoin but also Bitcoin.org and BitcoinTalk.org, decided to censor pro-bigblocks supporters (which was technically everyone because no one knew of any other solution that would work right now). The effects were there. Bitcoin users left in 2017 as the fees rose too high, while the others remained hoping that a solution would be found or they shifted to BCH or other coins. This led to BTC losing their market cap percentage and led to other altcoins to rise. Core developers have said that Segwit and Lightning is going to solve the problem. Lightning was said in 2015 December to be released in 2016 1, 2. Segwit is not a long term solution and will weaken Bitcoin's security. It allows more transactions but it is irreversible. You can't go back to non-Segwit after using SegWit. Lightning is very centralized and complicated. It requires you to be online 24/7, have your private keys connected to the Internet and requires you to first do an on-chain transaction to open a channel. To even get the community to believe that lightning and segwit is a solution, they had to censor the main channels (/Bitcoin, Bitcoin.org and BitcoinTalk.org) OpenBazaar dev explains why they aren't adding Lightning Bitcoin Cash is not BCash, B Cash, Bcash, Bitchcash, Bitcash, BTrash. It is Bitcoin Cash (BCH). This and this is Bcash, this is BTrash BCH is not controlled by the 'Chinese' or 'Jihan'. A substantial amount of mining is done outside of China. The same can go for BTC, where BTC has got about 70% of their mining done in China. BCH was not forked off by Roger Ver or Jihan Wu, they are only promoters, investors and people that create products for Bitcoin Cash. BCH was forked off by a group of miners including Amaury Sechet. BCH is entitled to using the name bitcoin because it has the genesis block in it and because it is loyal to the original Satoshi whitepaper where bitcoin was first mentioned/coined. BCH can definitely scale on-chain at least for sometime. Right now at 24 TPS. It can scale with bigger blocks. Centralization will not occur. Satoshi already mentioned that big servers with hashpower would be the ones mining while users will remain users. SPV is a solution for users, while miners will run a full node (copy of the blockchain and hashpower), while business, hobbyists, researchers and others can choose to run SPV or relay nodes (nodes that have the copy of the blockchain but do not have hashpower at all) Roger Ver raging publicly or being a felony isn't an argument to say that BCH is controlled by him. If you don't like BCH, it does not make it a scam. Just don't use it. If you find Roger Ver or Calvin Ayre a controversial figure, that also does not make BCH a scam. If you find Coinbase expressing their support towards BCH, that does not make it a scam. If you know that there's a better coin in your opinion, that does not make it a scam. Some resources/links : https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/31vi0t/theymos_friends_as_mods_here https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/41102k/if_theymos_truly_cares_about_bitcoins_success_he https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3l36ck/guess_this_will_be_censored_but_theymos_opens_up https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3h5f90/these_mods_need_to_be_changed_upvote_if_you_agree/ The story of /Bitcoin, /BTC, Bitcoin & Bitcoin Cash A collection of evidence Why some people call Bitcoin Cash Bcash Lukejr mentioning slavery is moral TL:DR : Bitcoin Cash is not a scam because no one is being robbed. It was forked off because Bitcoin's development was hijacked by Bitcoin Core. Fees were getting high and solutions that aren't out yet were being proposed, while a solution that's ready isn't proposed. If you don't like it, simply choose not to use it. edit : edited a paragraph to clarify it more in depth.
As someone who has been extremely involved in the cryptocurrency space the past 2 years, and 6 as an investor I want to point some things out.
The whole space is full of egomaniacs
When I first got involved as an investor in 2013 buying 2.5 BTC I thought very little of where it could go. It was a small tight group of believers back then. As the space evolved you found there were more and more Craig Wright's. What I mean by that is there were tons of people with massive egos who did not care what others said. It was okay before 2016-2017 as I wasn't so closely following what was going on. Once I got involved in the space more quit my job and went deep into the space I noticed something. I saw a tom of egomaniacs pretending they really knew what they were talking about, I saw people acting like they knew everything about everything and I saw CEOs who had little to not hope other then big talk and hopium. In my opinion we need more humble leaders in the space, people who truly care about it more than making as much money from people as they can. People who aren't showing off watches during a hash war that ended with zero winners, and led us into the longest crypto winter in the spaces history. The egos need to go in the space and all that big timer, know it all, bickering needs to take the back seat. Guys like Roger Ver, Jimmy Song, and Craig Wright need to stay focused and deliver. How can they do they always competing and putting each other down? It all seems very childish and like the space it is very immature.
Scams, Faulty Exchanges, Faulty Volume
The sickening amount of scams I have seen and that still somehow go on have put a serious dent on the goal for adoption. When one thinks deep enough about this they realize that for us to move forward cryptocurrencies can't be seen as a rabbit hole or a giant scam/Ponzi scheme. There are already options out there like www.trustedintrading.com that make everyone do KYC to be on the platform. They provide insights into projects, they do serious Due Diligence on all projects including (KYC on all members of the team/advisory, Company and business registration checks, location checks etc they verify the company is real. The only issue is many do not even want to do their KYC and that in itself is a bit silly. Scams are easy to pull off if you have ever been to a network marketing / MLM event you will see how they do them in crypto. My issue is the people are still being scammed into this. Just recently evencoin was saying they partnered with some of Thailands top hospitals, then the hospitals denied it, but for many it was too late. So this is a huge burden that seems to have a solution ready made that people will soon use. I just think this has really caused adoption to feel like it won't happen as there have been countless exits. We just saw Quadriga, we have seen Bitgrail, we have seen My.Gox and the list goes on. Why does this keep happening and will dex's be the answer in the short term the answer to that is not really, long term potentially. My huge issue is there are so many scam exchanges that currently exist in the space, using bots and market makers to create approximately 87% of the volume in crypto to be fake. We have seen centralized exchange after centralized exchange be hacked, lose funds most recently Quadriga is a prime example everyone feels it was an exit scam. My point here is who wants to put money on a crypto exchange? Most do not have insurance and most are giant scams with less than 100k of daily volume. Many don't feel secure and think if I can lose everything I better stick to fiat then take this risk. The volume issue is bad enough for a report that was recently completed by bitwise to show, really only 10 real crypto exchanges exist, a scary thought for someone thinking to adopt especially the institutions and several traditional investment firms/banks, VCs and Hedge funds.
JP Morgan and Other haters
We have seen over time big institutions call Bitcoin a scam over and over. We have need Nouriel Roubini bashing on it and several other institutional investors and also the likes of Warren Buffet. Some of them believe that crypto truly is a scam, and that it has very little value for example. We see guys like Jamie Dimon says things like crypto is a scam, I regret saying that to going on saying that hey guys look at JPM coin within the last 3 years. That alone should tell you something, along with the likes that when Jamie said it was a scam the price dropped almost 25%. What's even more ridiculous is the fact that JP Morgans Asian branch bought 100m worth of BTC after that happens what a nice 25% discount right? This hurts and helps adoption actually, in one way many think it still is a scam in another people will think hmm if they have bought maybe it isn't so bad. Also Marc Faber just bought some BTC so this side of things may be improving, but still several people like Roubini and Buffet maintain their stance. We all also know of Jack Dorsey Twitter's CEO buying tons of BTC weekly so sediment might be changing. I recently spoke at the DS Summit in Bangkok, and I saw something eye opening. Several people at their first conference ever as we were focused on STOs at this conference. I spoke at this conference and after when I was outside chatting I met several investment banks, credit Swiss VP of Asia and even banks looking to learn about the space. This was about 3 weeks ago and what it showed me was there is a shift among us where digitized assets are being taken seriously. For this one it's not all bad, but still tons of growth and education is needed for these players to even entertain the market place, or understand why they should even do it in the first place.
People in the space including influencers
This is the big one I'd like to address as I believe this is the biggest issue in the whole blockchain and crypto space. The constant social media keyboard warriors, they know everything, nobody knows better than they do, they won't listen to anyone and when you present good hard facts you are either a fudster or a scammer. The whole space needs to mature I have seen project argue with users via telegram, I have seen projects argue with people face to face in an environment that was totally unacceptable. I have seen influencers screaming on live feeds at conferences at projects they don't like. Constantly I have seen one after another event happen which totally makes everyone in the space look bad. There is a reason so many call scams in this space and it's mostly to do with the fact that we as investors, influencers, educators etc need to stop attacking everyone. When I say this I mean it in the way that I see people make a typo and get crap for it, I see people with good points attacked because someone disagrees I see so much crap everyday like this. I have at several times told people how bad this is for outsiders looking in. We all have a responsibility to evolve and mature the space, but right now it feels like a middle school with kids arguing for the sake of it to be right or be cool. I am so sick of the daily attacks on influencers trying to help for free, this makes it even worse because if you can't even learn without being attacked why would you want to be involved in crypto. I know there are fakers but we all can weed them out together. Why don't we all work together more or at least practice what our moms taught us that if you don't have anything nice to say, say nothing at all? Imagine if people treated each other not with big egos and were truly friendly and wanted adoption to happen how different the landscape would be! To end I would love to see some real adoption of cryptocurrencies worldwide. I know if we started to really help that and focus less money and more on usecase and creating tools to make it easier to get started that would be truly what would be beautiful. I have a friend who says let's get the children out of the way and let the adults do the work. I don't agree if we talk about age but I do agree with her, because she's talking about just mature adults not adults acting like children. Let's start truly helping each other, teams, and supporting real exchanges and real projects with use cases for adoption. Let's see the bad projects die off and lets get the space ready for true adoption. It's time to stop arguing and start building the foundation this space truly needs. Without that nobody I have met from the traditional finance world is truly going to consider this other then for monetary reasons. If you want to connect with me or have any questions please comment below. Joel - Coach K
My name is Meni Rosenfeld and I support Bitcoin Core.
Just wanted to say it. Seems important. I am not a Bitcoin Core developer or any kind of developer. I am also not affiliated with Blockstream or received any sort of payment or incentive from them. I did meet several of the people from Blockstream (before it existed) in various conferences, such as Pieter Wuille, Gregory Maxwell and Adam Back, and I think they're all very nice people (earliest was Pieter, whom I've met in Prague in November 2011). For reference, I've met Roger Ver in New York in August 2011, and he also seemed nice. Lest I be suspected of being a random troll paid to feign support for Core... Look me up. I've been involved with Bitcoin since March 2011, most of that time in full capacity. I'm best known for my work on mining pool reward methods, and for my work on promoting Bitcoin in Israel. During this time I've also occasionally posted about how I believe Bitcoin should face its challenges going forward, and notably, my views haven't changed considerably over the years. For example, I support Core's position that scalability should be derived primarily from micropayment-channel-based solutions, and have since 2012 (see https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=91732.0). So I cannot be accused of promoting that view out of some vested interest. I do not condone the moderation policy of /bitcoin which rejects discussions about alternative protocols. I do not believe the conspiracy theory which suggests that Bitcoin Core is interchangeable with Blockstream. I do believe there's room for a modest block size increase, perhaps more so than most of my fellow Core supporters. But I also believe it is important to respect the analysis of technical people who have been with Bitcoin since the beginning - in particular, with respect to the potential danger of hard forks. Despite the drama regarding blocks being full, I have not yet been personally severely affected by the phenomenon. I believe that with the immediate effective block size increase that SegWit offers, coupled with the eventual advent of micropayment-channel-based solutions, I may never have to be. I also believe that if for some reason these solutions fail, we can always reopen the issue and find solutions as the problems become relevant. As such, I cannot understand why anyone in their right minds would oppose Segwit. I believe that Bitcoin Unlimited is dangerous. I believe that even if it works as planned, it gives way too much power to miners, at the expense of other participants in the Bitcoin network. I also believe that it will not work as planned, that it is buggy and exploitable, and that it has not been thoroughly researched and tested, as should fit a change of this magnitude. I believe that the power to change the Bitcoin protocol should, and does, rest in the hands of the economic majority of people who use Bitcoin and give it value. I believe that miners should not and do not have the power to dictate protocol changes unilaterally. I believe that in case of disagreement about changes, the default should be sticking with the current protocol until agreement is reached, rather than rushing into making changes. I believe that if all else fails and the disagreement cannot be reconciled, there should be a responsible split of the network into two, with both sides working to ensure a clean, uneventful split, and both sides respecting each other's right to coexist. I have written a series of blog posts about that last point: How I learned to stop worrying and love the fork I disapprove of Bitcoin splitting, but I’ll defend to the death its right to do it And God said, “Let there be a split!” and there was a split. EDIT: Ok, there have been a lot of comments. Thanks for the lively discussion. But its 3:10 AM here now, I need to sleep and tomorrow I'll probably need to work. I'll try address as much as possible. EDIT 2: Please see my followup comment.
Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today. During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it) In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited. For more threads like this see UASF
How Bitcoin BTC Was Hijacked, and Why Bitcoin Cash Was Created.
From 2009-2015, Bitcoin BTC was run by programmers like Satoshi Nakamoto, Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, and promoted by people like Roger Ver. Most in this community tended to lean libertarian, and liked Bitcoin BTC's potential to take power away from governments & central banks. Satoshi left the project. In the spirit of openness & freedom, Gavin & Mike naively made the mistake of letting too many bad actors (like Blockstream) gain access to the Bitcoin BTC project. The Blockstream side had more money, and they had Theymos (who controls the #1 & #2 Bitcoin communities - rBitcoin & BitcoinTalk.org). As a result, they were able to push enough of the community into believing that small blocks were the way to go. As Gavin & Mike were being pushed out, they tried to create the first "big block" fork of Bitcoin, called Bitcoin XT. The Blockstream / Bitcoin Core side hired a botnet operator to DDoS Bitcoin XT to death in its infancy.
From Mike Hearn: "..After Blockstream successfully took over Bitcoin Core and expelled anyone who opposed them, Gavin and I forked Bitcoin Core to create Bitcoin XT, the first alternative node implementation to gain any serious usage. The creation of XT led to the imposition of censorship across all Bitcoin discussion forums and news outlets, resulted in the creation of this sub, and Core supporters paid a botnet operator to force XT nodes offline with DDoS attacks.."
In August 2017, another attempt to create a "big block" fork happened, thus creating Bitcoin Cash (BCH). And learning from the defeat of Bitcoin XT, this time around, Bitcoin Cash made sure they had the support of big miners, so the Blockstream / Bitcoin Core side couldn't use a botnet to DDoS it to death in the cradle. So that is where we are today.
Bitcoin BTC has been taken over by the Bilderberg Group / Blockstream, deliberately crippled by small blocks & high fees, so people will have to use the Lightning Network & sidechains (which is where Bilderberg Group / Blockstream will profit). This was pushed through via brutal censorship on the #1 & #2 Bitcoin communities (rBitcoin & BitcoinTalk.org, which are both controlled by Theymos)
Bitcoin Cash BCH continues with bigger block size limits, low fees, and the "P2P electronic cash system" vision as laid out by Satoshi Nakamoto's Bitcoin whitepaper.
Roger Ver is facing a different type of welcome in his new hometown of Antigua and Barbuda. CoinGeek has learned that representatives of Dr. Craig Wright have filed a defamation claim with the High Court of Antigua and Barbuda against the Bitcoin.com chairman, who has acquired Antiguan citizenship courtesy of the sovereign state’s Citizenship by Investment Program (CIP). Roger Ver, known as "Bitcoin Jesus," was one of the earliest and most vocal proponents of cryptocurrencies. (PRWEB) April 04, 2016 Bitcoin entrepreneur Roger Ver has challenged 2016 presidential hopeful Bernie Sanders to a debate with libertarian celebrity Adam Kokesh.This challenge comes after a video from Occupy Democrats gained several million views while criticizing Ver for being “unpatriotic.” Hoping to encourage an intellectual discussion on the differences between socialism and ... For anyone who is familiar with Bitcoin, the names Roger Ver and Erik Voorhees should be very familiar. They are two early and vocal Bitcoin pioneers who have been instrumental in its success. Don’t worry if you don’t know Erik and Roger; you will soon. They have incredible insights on the importance of Bitcoin as well as how it will continue to revolutionize both Money and the Financial ... Roger Ver has been a long time proponent of voluntaryism, the idea that all human interactions should be by mutual consent, or not at all. He is most well know for his work promoting Bitcoin. In ...
Star Xu and Roger Ver Showdown At Scaling Bitcoin in Hong Kong
Streamed live on Oct 2, 2016. Join us with Roger Ver of Bitcoin Unlimited on the future of Bitcoin, blocks, scaling, and liberty! Category Science & Technology; Show more Show less. Loading ... Published on Feb 18, 2016. Why does 'Bitcoin Jesus' Roger Ver have such a sunny outlook on the future of money? Ver expounds on bounties for black hats ($45,000 was paid out just last week), de ... Published on Aug 25, 2016 Roger Ver is the CEO of Bitcoin.com and was the world’s first investor in Bitcoin startup companies. He renounced his US citizenship in 2014 and now lives in Tokyo, Japan.... Roger Ver is this week's Blockchain Beach guest. Join us Wynwood's "The Lab" to discuss Bitcoin, Distrubuted Ledgers, and Blockchains without the Blocks. And Futurology. And Bitcoin.com :) We have a chance to catch up with Roger Ver and talk about the bitcoin community, the plans of R3 and their banking buddies, the blocksize debate and in general what's next for Bitcoin.