Vinny Lingham believes bitcoin price only exceeded $1300 ...

Vinny Lingham: I believe the price of Bitcoin will continue to drop until the miners start to feel enough pain, forcing an outcome.

Vinny Lingham: I believe the price of Bitcoin will continue to drop until the miners start to feel enough pain, forcing an outcome. submitted by sdowlers to btc [link] [comments]

Vinny Lingham: I believe the price of Bitcoin will continue to drop until the miners start to feel enough pain, forcing an outcome.

Vinny Lingham: I believe the price of Bitcoin will continue to drop until the miners start to feel enough pain, forcing an outcome. submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Vinny Lingham: is this price plunge have anything to miner's short positions you talked about recently? /r/Bitcoin

Vinny Lingham: is this price plunge have anything to miner's short positions you talked about recently? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Confessions of a Core Supporter

I remember as a slightly younger Bitcoiner watching videos and eating up everything I could about the subject. There was Roger Ver and Charlie Shrem, a cast of long bearded geniuses who kept this magic money safe, and of course the mysterious creator Mr Nakamoto. Things were weird, and grand, just the way I like them.
I bought my first bitcoin after the gox collapse, then more and more. If Mt gox couldn't kill bitcoin I wanted in. I watched it go to 300, then to 500, and was thrilled. I found bitcoin. I subbed a bunch of tech nerds on twitter. I remained on the outside, but I was now part of the dream of decentralized currency. I placed a certain amount of blind faith in this new technology that I admittedly didn't fully understand, yet somehow believed in, hoping that one day it would change the world.
I soon became aware of forks, of factions, of discontent. I shrugged my shoulders. After all, I had long since learned that bitcoin was the honey badger and it would figure it out. It always does. I learned to laugh at "bitcoin is dead" headlines and learned that this was simply a cue to buy more. There was Hodl. There was, buy the dip. There was always that lame ass on reddit reminding nubes (in nasally tone I'm sure) to "never buy more than you can afford to lose". There was the cute roller coaster coin guy which seemed to be so often on a fun ride to the top. I was riding this thing to the top with that little guy. Life was good. I was invested far more than I could afford to lose and life was great that way!
But then the more I read, the more 'in the know' guys I followed on twitter, the more reddit posts I read, I learned I would be forced to pick sides in an ideological battle between two distinct sides. Let's call them the nerds, and the capitalists. Being an anarchist/libertarian and capitalist it might seem strange that I found myself quickly taking the sides of the nerds. But it was the nerds who were the ones who kept all this shit together. The code, the security, the teflon armor that kept governments and crony capitalists out of bitcoin and who ultimately kept that little roller coaster guy going up and up and up. Life was good in the hands of the nerds. I was officially a small blocker, and I stood behind my nerds. I resented those who called them neckbeards. I have a beard and that was mean. Sometimes I chimed in on reddit posts, mocked big blockers on twitter, and firmly planted my feet on the rock of 1mb blocks. I would not be moved.
Then the fork happened. I was happy to receive my dividend. I even rushed out to sell some of my coins and sold a few but my gut resisted selling all of them. Something stopped me. That something was the instinctual recognition of the echo chamber of the small block community. It was beginning to scare me. Was this really where the sharp money was? I was beginning to wonder. I was beginning to doubt.
There was also the fact that I simply couldn't get my head around bigger blocks meaning less fees for the miners yet somehow the biggest miner in the world was such a staunch advocate of bigger blocks, all while more and more people were pouring into mining. I heard about side chains and lighting network. Boy did that sound good! But where was it? Where is it? When will it be delivered? Why isn't this ready yet with all this congestion? Do we really have the best nerds working on this problem? It's been like 9 years. What's up with this?
The answers and future promises of core, I had to admit seemed a bit vague at best. Transactions were getting clogged. There would not be a day ever in the future that I would buy a coffee with my bitcoin (ok ok). But there would also never be a day that someone busting their hump washing our dishes in expensive restaurants would be able to send their bitcoin home to a family that could really use them. It was too expensive. And new leaders in the space like Ari Paul were touting $100 fees as a sign of huge success. Was this what I signed up for? Was this the face of decentralization and borderless money?
But you have to have faith in the nerds, right? After all, they're nerds! And they were the ones that got us here. Or were they? I started to notice a complete disrespect for the companies that helped bitcoin grow to what it had; there was Jeremy Allaire, Brian Armstrong, Eric Vorhees, Gavin Andreson and Vinny Lingham, all thrown UNDER the bus and mercilessly at that. Profits were suddenly bad. Growth bad. Low fees, yup-bad. Appreciation for the risk some of these early pioneers took was non existent. And this didn't sit well with me. Why were these nerds so angry? Where was the respect? Where was the appreciation? Where was the loyalty to the men that helped the little roller coaster guy go so high? Why did you so quickly renege on the NY agreement once you got what you wanted; segwit. Only dishonest pussies do that kind of thing. A bigger question started to emerge in my head: what had these small block nerds done to improve on Bitcoin that a slightly different alternative group of nerd couldn't have done? Why couldn't' we just go to 2mb blocks for the time being? What if the small block nerds were wrong? Is there a shortage of nerds in this world? Maybe. But maybe not.
I started to get back to my roots. To dig beneath the bullshit and take a shovel to dig through the propaganda, and it's deep in this war. There's a lot at stake here. If there's one thing I've learned in the years I've been an anarchist there's one rule I have which trumps them all: Never trust the popular narrative. Because it's usually dead wrong. And often, it's actually a well crafted lie. But here I was on the 'popular' side. Ut oh, not good. Had I been fooled?
Now I'm not saying I'm fully in the big block camp. If I have been brainwashed, then I'll admit it's going to take more time to deprogram myself and begin to see things more clearly. However, I am starting to see a bit more clearly. What I do know is this; Tone Vays the famous bitcoin tout said BCH was going to zero within a day. That never came close to happening. Stick to massage parlors Tone. Men I respect and look up to (in certain ways) like Roger Ver, John McAfee, Jeff Berwick - all men with a provable TRACK RECORD of defying the government in one way or another and the criminal records to prove it (good thing in my book), and many other freedom loving anarchist types are all behind Bitcoin Cash. The small block community foams at the mouth like a demon in first century Galillee when you mention the name Roger Ver. Hmmm. Maybe he really is Bitcoin Jesus! Miners who let's face it, love money, put up their capital to invest in many many millions want to see bitcoin cash succeed. Vinny Lingham was thrown to the dogs by a ruthless community, for urging people to have an open mind and getting one BTC call wrong. The whole thing has at minimum, put a bad taste in my mouth.
Then there's the fact that some of the main core developers work for a large insurance company's company called Blockstream. If you really believed in bitcoin, shouldn't you own enough to not have to work for someone? I don't work for anyone, and I'm not a neckbeard nerd. But even I figured that much out and got some bitcoins early enough that I don't have to punch any one else's time clock. And while I'm never one to shy away from conspiracies there is the fact that the CEO of the big insurance company; AXA (who owns Blockstream who employs heavy hitters from the nerd Core group) is none other than Henri de Castries, who just so happens to be the chairman of the Bilderberg Group. You might think I made that last one up. I didn't. This just smells bad to me. I think a lot of people on the nerd, Core, block stream, blah blah blah side might be, just might be getting DUPED.
So, in closing I would like to apologize to the community. You can see, I'm not that active here or in bitcoin, but I have taken some stabs and even trolled a few of you. Hey, please forgive me, I thought I was on the right side, but I'm not so certain any more. One thing I did do is load up on some bitcoin cash. I paid a premium for it, and maybe I'll live to regret it. But I'm throwing my hat in with the successful capitalists, the anarchists, and people who believed in bitcoin enough in the beginning to not only buy (and maybe mine some), but to invest their lives in the space, to put their money where their mouth and beliefs were, and not have to go get a job working for some Bilderberger clown. The clues and the truth are always there folks, but you do have to search them out for yourself and more importantly, T H I N K. Sure I'm a bit late to the party, and I'm still not sure BCH will become the 'real bitcoin', but I'm moving some of my most valuable chips to this side of the table. I sense a strong rising tide here. I also just sent 30k worth of BCH for 2 cents and it was on the exchange in like 3 minutes. That felt like the good ole days and that felt good! And then there's the fact that when it all comes down to it, and despite the attempted slander meme circulating on twitter, I rather enjoy a glass of wine one day with Roger Ver and Jeff Berwick, Calvin Ayre (and maybe even fake Satoshi) than have my picture taken outside a Chucky Cheese with a group of nerds with small blocks.
submitted by NachoKong to btc [link] [comments]

November BTC Fork - The Facts

Update 2: THE NOVEMBER SEGWIT2X HARDFORK HAS NOW BEEN CANCELLED! :D
Update: Thank you for your appreciation on this article. I decided to publish it on Medium.  
You can find the article on this link.
 
Existing Article:
With less than a dozen days left before the SegWit2X fork, I thought I'd start gathering some facts before I start forming personal opinions and speculative conclusions. I refer to the SegWit1X chain as 1X and the SegWit2X chain as 2X for simplicity, and I have looked for very simple facts and safe assumptions. Here are the dots that I gathered:  
 
• Fork at Block 494,784. Approximate time = 16th of November - see Reference 6 for exact time.  
 
The New York Agreement: The NYA involved parties representing about 83% of the then hashing power who all agreed to both hardforks - one for SegWit and another for an increased block size of 2MB (2X) within 6 months of the former. Further details in reference 1.  
 
• It is safe to assume that miners will only mine the most profitable chain (possibly several chains in differing proportions).  
• If whales pump a single chain it will gain more value. If this happens, miners will be more inclined to mine that particular chain only. This will result in the other chain(s)potentially losing overall mining attractiveness.  
 
1X will continue to have a 1MB block and SegWit;  
2X will have a 2MB block and SegWit;  
Bitcoin Cash (Just for info right now) currently has an 8 MB block with NO SegWit;  
 
Current Price Status (Futures) on BitFinex: 2X/BTC = 0.17; 1X/BTC = 0.83  
 
Current Mining Status: 2X = Around 85% of blocks are signalling for 2X.  
It seems only a few mining pools including Slush Pool, F2Pool and Kano CKPool are not signalling Segwit2X. All Antpool (Jihan Wu) owned pools are signalling for Segwit2X and will likely continue to do so up to the fork. It is not clear if any other pools from the Segwit2X signalling group will change their minds in the meantime.  
 
Lower mining power chain: Likely to be 1X. Fees likely to be extremely high as not many miners. Difficulty adjustment could take a few weeks, if not months. Until then it will be very difficult to transfer funds. [It may be better to keep BTC on an exchange before fork, to ease liquidity cost/time if you want to sell either of the coins immediately]  
 
Double-spending: Miners (from 2X) will have an ability and incentive to double-spend on the minority chain (lower mining power chain). If you have huge mining power, you can allocate some of it to just double-spend on the minority chain. Some people will possibly lose confidence in the minority chain as a result.  
 
Replay-Protection: Neither 1X nor 2X currently have replay protection.  
 
Exchanges:
  1. Bitfinex: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  2. BitMEX: Original chain is BTC  
  3. Bitstamp: Unknown  
  4. GDAX & Coinbase: hash power and market cap decides which chain is “BTC”  
  5. Kraken: Unknown  
  6. HitBTC: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  7. CoinsBank: Original chain is BTC  
  8. CEX.IO: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  9. Gemini: hash power decides which chain is “BTC”  
  10. Coinfloor: Unknown  
  11. BTCC (Updated on Twitter): BTCC will consider which of 1MB and 2MB to name as #bitcoin based on market feedback and adoption.  
Further details in reference 4.  
 
The OPINIONs section
Vinny Lingham's opinion: 2X will outcompete 1X.  
 
Enter Bitcoin Cash: A review by Ryan X. Charles who has incorporated some of Vinny Lingham's quotes, states the following:  
 
a. BCH is a fork of BTC with same PoW, but with improved Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA). BCH cannot die, but 1X and 2X could both die. If whales shift most of their holdings to BCH (or another coin), that would incentivise the miners to mine BCH (or another coin) instead of 1X and 2X. Both 1X and 2X would lose their mining power; however Core would release an emergency update to software adding DAA like BCH (or another coin). Thus, 1X would survive, and 2X (which might not get DAA) would die.  
 
b. If 2X continues to be the dominantly mined chain, 1X will be forced to launch an emergency update to their PoW with DAA. There could be fighting between the two chains, and as a result a struggle to become dominant potentially causing altcoins to flourish.  
 
My observations
BCH is upgrading their EDA (Emergency Difficulty Adjuster) on Nov 13. See website. This will lead to reduced volatility in BCH - likely making it more attractive to more long-term miners.  
 
Mining profitability: It is currently almost equally profitable to mine either BTC or BCH.  
 
• What to keep and eye on before the fork to judge yourself where the fate of BTC is heading.  
  1. Mining signalling distribution
  2. DAA: 1X or 2X software updates to implement Difficulty Adjustment Algorithms
  3. Futures price before fork
  4. Significant whale movement
 
References:  
  1. New York Agreement  
  2. Hashing Distribution  
  3. Ryan X. Charles's opinions  
  4. Exchange listings for both chains  
  5. Interview with Vinny Lingham  
  6. 2X Split Countdown
 
Update: Thank you for your appreciation on this article. I decided to publish it on Medium.  
You can find the article on this link.
submitted by tenmillionsterling to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

While everybody is closely watching South Korea, these are coins worth investing in. (imo)

  1. Vertcoin (VTC)
Vertcoin is a digital currency that can be sent between people over the internet. Vertcoin (VTC) stays true to the original vision of cryptocurrency: a financial system owned by its users, the people’s coin. Vertcoin is not controlled by large banks or mining hardware manufacturers and can be mined by anyone profitably. Fairly distributed without a premine, ICO or airdrop, Vertcoin is developed by community members working as volunteers and the project is wholly funded by donations. A finite resource similar to gold, you can rest assured that Vertcoin will keep your money safe from vested interests and ensure that transaction fees are proportionate and shared between a large number of miners. With Vertcoin, you can truly be your own bank. CHART
  1. Clams (CLAM)
CLAMs are a form of digital value, or currency, that is transferred, created, and verified by the collective effort of the computers running the CLAMs software. Similar to Bitcoin, the original technology on top of which CLAMs was created, this network follows a rigorous protocol to ensure that consensus and verification are maintained. CHART
  1. TIES Network (TIE)
Ties.Network is a business platform with for finding and establishing professional relationships based on irrefutable rating system and for transacting safe deals. Ties.Network provides all the benefits of well-known social business networks for the crypto-community complemented by strongest advantages of blockchain technology. This one is even not listed on tradingview and volumes just started raising. CHART
  1. Civic (CVC)
Civic (CVC) is a crypto token that is designed as an identity verification system. The idea is that anyone can use their Civic identity anywhere on the web to verify their details using blockchain technology. The project was led by Vinny Lingham, a well known figure within Bitcoin, and the Civic ICO was held in June 2017, raising $33 million in two days. Over 1 billion tokens were created. The token sale was intended to be as decentralized as possible, and resulted in 8,000 different individuals successfully purchasing Civic tokens. Civic’s uses include banks and utility companies who require some degree of identification of their users. The aim is to prevent identity fraud and to safeguard the data of users who are only required to enter their personal information once rather than at multiple sites on the web. CHART
  1. Spectrecoin (XSPEC)
Spectrecoin (XSPEC) is an innovative privacy focused cryptocurrency, featuring an energy-efficient proof-of-stake algorithm that provides rapid transaction confirmations, ring signatures for privacy and anonymity, and a fully integrated Tor+OBFS4 layer for IP obfuscation within the wallet. Spectrecoin is actively developed, with an ambitious roadmap that prioritises privacy, security, and true decentralisation with features such as default stealth addresses and stealth staking, and low-power mobile wallet staking. Although it nearly trippled during the last two months it's still rising. CHART
submitted by Fungon to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Jeff Garzik: “Today, bitcoin faces existential threats from forks, developer drama and so on. Knowing what we know and having a clean sheet of paper, we asked what would we build and the answer is this”.

...oh, so that explains it.
The old and effective Problem-Reaction-Solution strategy. Well, effective before the current social media era, in which hidden motives can be brought to the light of day to be exposed.
I will keep posting this until the very day of the fork, with the hope that more bitcoiners learn the true nature of S2X/B2X/NYA open attack on Bitcoin disguised as an "upgrade". This is a 2X Trojan Horse, and do you know who is inside that horse? Top level banker's special-forces like Blythe Masters, Larry Summers, Glenn Hutchins (sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York) and DCG (Digital Currency Group).
We need to keep our efforts to expose and inform people about what S2X/NYA/DCG really is. Don't trust and don't do business with these companies and individuals supporting the S2X attack on Bitcoin.
Companies:
https://coin.dance/poli
http://segwit.party/nya/
Individuals:
Those guys are pure greed, they don't care about the 7 billion of people on this planet. Expose them and don't give them your business. Starve the beast. They will regret sticking with the B2X altcoin that will go the BCH way (and all the other highjack attempts before them). Moneybadger don't care and only gets stronger and immunized after each snake-bite.
Actually >99% of the Bitcoin community supports the real Bitcoin. The centralized B2X-coin attack is only supported by a handful of rich crooks and the people they've managed to bribe with their deep pockets:
Brian Armstrong, Fred Ehrsam (ex-Goldman Sacks), Bobby Lee, Winklevoss brothers, Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins, Bill Barhydt and Jiang Zhuoer.
I posted this 18 days ago:
Exposed: How Bankers are trying to centralize and highjack Bitcoin by buying "supporters" and promoters (like OpenBazaar team) for the B2X (S2X/NYA) attack on Bitcoin.
TL;DR: B2X (S2X/NYA) is nothing more than an open attack on Bitcoin, not an "upgrade" as they want to sell it. This attack has no 'consensus', at all. It was "agreed" by a bunch of miners and corporations behind closed doors, with no community nor developers support. Only miners and a few millionaires that stand to profit from the B2X attack support it. The vast majority of the Bitcoin community is totally against this attack on Bitcoin. Most of those companies are under DCG group:
Every bitcoiner should know about what DCG (Digital Currency Group) is, and call out publicly the people that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin.
Edit: Brian Armstrong back on the list for this flip-flop. And added Winklevoss Brothers for this, and Bobby Lee for this.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

November Fork - The Facts

Update: Thank you for your appreciation on this article. I decided to publish it on Medium.  
You can find the article on this link.
 
Existing Article:
With less than a dozen days left before the SegWit2X fork, I thought I'd start gathering some facts before I start forming personal opinions and speculative conclusions. I refer to the SegWit1X chain as 1X and the SegWit2X chain as 2X for simplicity, and I have looked for very simple facts and safe assumptions. Here are the dots that I gathered:  
 
• Fork at Block 494,784. Approximate date = 16th of November.  
 
The New York Agreement: The NYA involved parties representing about 83% of the then hashing power who all agreed to both hardforks - one for SegWit and another for an increased block size of 2MB (2X) within 6 months of the former. Further details in reference 1.  
 
• It is safe to assume that miners will only mine the most profitable chain (possibly several chains in differing proportions).  
• If whales pump a single chain it will gain more value. If this happens, miners will be more inclined to mine that particular chain only. This will result in the other chain(s)potentially losing overall mining attractiveness.  
 
1X will continue to have a 1MB block and SegWit;  
2X will have a 2MB block and SegWit;  
Bitcoin Cash (Just for info right now) currently has an 8 MB block with NO SegWit;  
 
Current Price Status (Futures) on BitFinex: 2X/BTC = 0.17; 1X/BTC = 0.83  
 
Current Mining Status: 2X = Around 85% of blocks are signalling for 2X.  
It seems only a few mining pools including Slush Pool, F2Pool and Kano CKPool are not signalling Segwit2X. All Antpool (Jihan Wu) owned pools are signalling for Segwit2X and will likely continue to do so up to the fork. It is not clear if any other pools from the Segwit2X signalling group will change their minds in the meantime.  
 
Lower mining power chain: Likely to be 1X. Fees likely to be extremely high as not many miners. Difficulty adjustment could take a few weeks, if not months. Until then it will be very difficult to transfer funds. [It may be better to keep BTC on an exchange before fork, to ease liquidity cost/time if you want to sell either of the coins immediately]  
 
Double-spending: Miners (from 2X) will have an ability and incentive to double-spend on the minority chain (lower mining power chain). If you have huge mining power, you can allocate some of it to just double-spend on the minority chain. Some people will possibly lose confidence in the minority chain as a result.  
 
Replay-Protection: Neither 1X nor 2X currently have replay protection.  
 
Exchanges:
  1. Bitfinex: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  2. BitMEX: Original chain is BTC  
  3. Bitstamp: Unknown  
  4. GDAX & Coinbase: hash power and market cap decides which chain is “BTC”  
  5. Kraken: Unknown  
  6. HitBTC: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  7. CoinsBank: Original chain is BTC  
  8. CEX.IO: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  9. Gemini: hash power decides which chain is “BTC”  
  10. Coinfloor: Unknown  
  11. BTCC (Updated on Twitter): BTCC will consider which of 1MB and 2MB to name as #bitcoin based on market feedback and adoption.  
Further details in reference 4.  
 
The opinion section
Vinny Lingham's opinion: 2X will outcompete 1X.  
 
Enter Bitcoin Cash: A review by Ryan X. Charles who has incorporated some of Vinny Lingham's quotes, states the following:  
 
a. BCH is a fork of BTC with same PoW, but with improved Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA). BCH cannot die, but 1X and 2X could both die. If whales shift most of their holdings to BCH (or another coin), that would incentivise the miners to mine BCH (or another coin) instead of 1X and 2X. Both 1X and 2X would lose their mining power; however Core would release an emergency update to software adding DAA like BCH (or another coin). Thus, 1X would survive, and 2X (which might not get DAA) would die.  
 
b. If 2X continues to be the dominantly mined chain, 1X will be forced to launch an emergency update to their PoW with DAA. There could be fighting between the two chains, and as a result a struggle to become dominant potentially causing altcoins to flourish.  
 
My observations
BCH is upgrading their EDA (Emergency Difficulty Adjuster) on Nov 13. See website. This will lead to reduced volatility in BCH - likely making it more attractive to more long-term miners.  
 
Mining profitability: It is currently almost equally profitable to mine either BTC or BCH.  
 
• What to keep and eye on before the fork to judge yourself where the fate of BTC is heading.  
  1. Mining signalling distribution
  2. DAA: 1X or 2X software updates to implement Difficulty Adjustment Algorithms
  3. Futures price before fork
  4. Significant whale movement
 
References:  
  1. New York Agreement  
  2. Hashing Distribution  
  3. Ryan X. Charles's opinions  
  4. Exchange listings for both chains  
  5. Interview with Vinny Lingham  
 
Update:
I recommend this article by a friend of mine who has been exploring various outcomes and their likelihood.  
Stay tuned for more content in the coming days.
submitted by tenmillionsterling to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Exposed: How Bankers are trying to centralize and highjack Bitcoin by buying "supporters" and promoters (like OpenBazaar team) for the B2X (S2X/NYA) attack on Bitcoin.

*Open Bazaar was crossed-out after their S2X support retraction, see edit at bottom.
These guys have deep pockets, but as you will see below, they are funded by even deeper pockets.
We can't leave this to chance or "the markets to decide" when there is such a malicious intent to manipulate the markets by those powerful players. So that's why all the people saying: "Don't worry, S2X won't happen" or "S2X is DOA" need to stop, we are at a 'make-or-break' moment for Bitcoin. It's very dumb to underestimate them. If you don't know yet who those malicious players are, read below:
We need to keep exposing them everywhere. Using Garzik as a pawn now, after they failed when they bought Hearn and Andresen (Here are the corrupted former 'good guys'), they are using the old and effective 'Problem-Reaction-Solution' combined with the 'Divide & Conquer' strategies to try to hijack Bitcoin. Well, effective before the current social media era, in which hidden motives can be brought to the light of day to be exposed.
Public pressure works when your profits depend on your reputation. The social media criticism worked for companies like Open Bazaar, which after weeks of calling them out on their S2X support, they finally withdrew it.
Please contact the companies on these lists if you have any type of relationship with them, we have just a few days left until the fork:
Regarding OpenBazaar:
* openbazaar (OB1) developer appears to be spreading pro s2x fud. someone needs to fork their project
* PSA : Open Bazaars latest investment round was for 200K from Barry Silberts DCG (Digital Currency Group)
(See edit at the bottom)
B2X (S2X/NYA) is nothing more than an open attack on Bitcoin, not an "upgrade" as they want to sell it. This attack has no 'consensus', at all. It was "agreed" by a bunch of miners and corporations behind closed doors, with no community nor developers support. Only miners and a few millionaires that stand to profit from the B2X attack support it. The vast majority of the Bitcoin community is totally against this attack on Bitcoin. Most of those companies are under DCG group:
Every bitcoiner should know about what DCG (Digital Currency Group) is, and call out publicly these crooks and the people they bribed that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin:
Brian Armstrong, Winklevoss brothers, Bobby Lee, Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team)(see edit at the bottom), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins (Federal Reserve Board of Directors), Bill Barhydt and Jiang Zhuoer.
Once people are informed, they won't be fooled (like all the poor guys at btc) and will follow Bitcoin instead of the S2X or Bcash or any other centralized altcoin they come up with disguised as Bitcoin.
DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Blythe Masters:
Former executive at JPMorgan Chase.[1] She is currently the CEO of Digital Asset Holdings,[2] a financial technology firm developing distributed ledger technology for wholesale financial services.[3] Masters is widely credited as the creator of the credit default swap as a financial instrument. She is also Chairman of the Governing Board of the Linux Foundation’s open source Hyperledger Project, member of the International Advisory Board of Santander Group, and Advisory Board Member of the US Chamber of Digital Commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Masters
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
  1. MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
  2. Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistant in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
And before you dismiss all those hard and documented facts as just a 'conspiracy theory', think about this:
Of course, who thought that the ones holding the centralized financial power today (famous for back-door shady plots to consolidate even more power and control), would sit on their hands and let Bitcoin just stroll in and easily take that power away from them?
So, it is not a crazy conspiracy theory, but more like the logical and expected thing to happen. Don't let it happen.
Edit: Formatting.
Edit 2: Brian Armstrong taken out of the 'bad guys' list.
Edit 3: Welp, Brian Armstrong back on the blacklist for this flip-flop. And added Winklevoss Brothers for this, and Bobby Lee for this.
Edit 4: Due to Brian Hoffman just issuing this excellent and explicit S2X/NYA support retraction, I created this post to apologize for my previous posts (calling them out for the S2X support) and I will be editing my posts to reflect this positive change. I'm gladly back to being a supporter of the great and promising project that OpenBazaar has proven to be.
Edit 5: Added Blythe Masters (How could we leave her out?).
Edit 6: Added links to lists of companies supporting S2X/NYA.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Predicting the Outcome of the November Bitcoin Fork

On approximately November 18, Bitcoin will split into two chains: Segwit1x and Segwit2x. Because these chains share the same proof-of-work function (PoW) and neither change the difficulty adjustment algorithm (DAA), it is unlikely that both will survive simultaneously.
A complicating factor is the existence of Bitcoin Cash, a fork of Bitcoin which shares the same PoW but has in addition an improved DAA that ensures it can adjust downward in difficulty rapidly as needed in the event of miner evacuation, keeping its block interval at approximately 10 minutes on average. Bitcoin Cash cannot die, but Segwit1x and Segwit2x can both die.
These are the possible scenarios that may unfold starting November 18:
Scenario 1: The Flippening
Bitcoin Cash becomes the dominant chain measured by total PoW, Segwit1x survives with an "emergency hard fork" to a new PoW function or DAA, and Segwit2x dies.
This scenario is widely ignored or ridiculed in the Bitcoin community which is why the current price of Bitcoin is more than ten times the price of Bitcoin Cash. However, this scenario is actually the most likely due to the spectacular gains to be made by miners, speculators and businesses who game this scenario. Anyone who is in a position to cause the flippening can increase their money 10-fold in a month, followed by far higher long-term gains due to the ability of Bitcoin Cash to scale to a global audience.
If this scenario plays out, it will probably happen as follows:
Whales will buy Bitcoin Cash cheap and sell Bitcoin at its all-time highs in preparation for the flippening. Then by leveraging huge amounts of capital, whales will push the price of Bitcoin Cash up and the price of Bitcoin down at approximately the same time as the split between Segwit1x and Segwit2x.
Miners will now be incentivized to switch from Segwit1x/Segwit2x to Bitcoin Cash due to improved profitability, while Segwit1x and Segwit2x both struggle on suddenly far lower mining power. Miners themselves may also be whales and will deliberately cause the incentives to shift for their own double gain.
Segwit2x dies to due no ability to change the PoW or DAA (since that's not a part of the New York Agreement (NYA)). Segwit1x changes its PoW and survives as an altcoin branded as "Bitcoin". Many in the Segwit1x community are already comfortable with this possibility, and more certainly will be if all of their value is threatened with destruction otherwise. Over some period of time, Bitcoin Cash achieves status as the longest chain as measured by total PoW and some exchanges and businesses now regard it as being "Bitcoin".
Scenario 2: Segwit2x wins
Segwit2x becomes the dominant chain measured by total PoW, Segwit1x changes its PoW, and Bitcoin Cash survives. This is the second most likely scenario due to the fact that a vast majority of miners and a majority of businesses have committed to Segwit2x as part of the NYA. However, this scenario is strictly less likely than the above due to the lesser gains to be made. No one can multiply their value by 10-fold in a short period of time in this scenario. And the long-term future is likely to continue to have infighting, high fees, and loss of market share to altcoins - it's better for business if Bitcoin Cash wins.
Note that, even if Segwit1x has a higher price on exchanges at the time of the fork, that does not help Segwit1x much if miners stick to their agreement and continue to mine Segwit2x. See Vinny Lingham's theory about how the minority chain cannot have a higher value.
In this scenario, similar to the above, it is most likely Segwit1x will change its PoW and become an altcoin in order to ensure its chain survives.
Scenario 3: Segwit1x wins
Segwit1x becomes the dominant chain measured by total PoW, Segwit2x dies, and Bitcoin Cash survives. If the movement from the Segwit1x community is successful, Segwit2x will be prevented from occurring due to the community uprising. This scenario is less likely than the above two scenarios due to the lack of commitment from miners to mine the Segwit1x chain. Segwit1x will probably not survive on ~10% of mining power due to excessively long block times for several months. Trolling on social media is not a substitute for mining power.
In this scenario, Segwit2x completely dies as no parties in the NYA agreed to change the PoW function or DAA in order to allow it to survive.
This scenario can be encouraged by whales. If whales specifically desire to make Segwit1x the dominant chain, they can buy Segwit1x. If they are able to sustain a high price of Segwit1x due to a flood of capital that lasts beyond any insecurity, the miners are incentivized to switch back over from Segwit2x. However, this requires vastly more capital than the scenario in which Bitcoin Cash wins because the market cap of Bitcoin is more than 10 times that of Bitcoin Cash. Rational whales who actually want Bitcoin to succeed would prefer the Bitcoin Cash scenario. Other Near-Term Scenarios
There are other scenarios that are logically possible, such as the co-existence of Segwit1x and Segwit2x with no further hard forks, but they are unlikely. I believe one of the above three scenarios will almost certainly be the scenario that plays out in November.
Long-Term Scenarios
Note that if Bitcoin Cash does not achieve majority mining power and total accumulated PoW, the situation will continue to be unstable past the November 18 fork. Over the long-term, Bitcoin Cash can both achieve a larger user-base than Segwit1x/Segwit2x and, because it has a better DAA, it can't die, and will therefore continue to be a thorn in the side of Bitcoin until it ultimately acquires majority mining support and becomes labeled "Bitcoin".
However, things could easily change long-term to affect these probabilities. For instance, if Bitcoin changes its DAA to be similar to Bitcoin Cash, then Bitcoin Cash's advantage will go away and the mining dominance of Bitcoin will continue.
Thoughts?
submitted by Yanlii to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

I propose to start a 'class action' lawsuit against all the companies and individuals involved with S2X/NYA in any capacity. Hear me out:

Edit- For all the people saying that we shouldn't use the law against S2X. Thanks exab for this post Satoshi's verdict: Use laws to protect yourself and Bitcoin!
Satoshi's source code (comment) in every file he created:
// Copyright (c) 2009-2010 Satoshi Nakamoto
I trust it ends the narrative that we should not use laws to protect ourselves or Bitcoin.
We don't need to wait anymore, certainly not until they do a real damage to the Bitcoin structure or decentralization, we have now enough documented evidence of malicious intent and fraud. We will give an ultimatum and a one week grace period to give a chance to drop out before a company/individual is listed as a defendant in the lawsuit. It is time we organize properly, like they did, and defend against this ridiculous and malicious take-over attempt.
This is an actual Trojan Horse and we are welcoming in with our complacency by saying: "Bitcoin has survived all past attacks, honeybadger don't care", don't forget that 'honeybadger' is all of us, united. This attack is not like the others, this one has the backing of the most powerful companies in the space plus most of the miners.
They want to succeed were the banker's special forces led by Blythe Masters failed to infiltrate and highjack Bitcoin since she was well known by many people and could not run incognito.
Now they are doing it from the inside, including the purchase of weak-morals developers like Garzik, Hearn and Andersen, as well as entrepreneurs like Ver, Voorhees, Jihan and Pair (maybe even Armstrong).
Stop underestimating these people, they are very smart and have very deep pockets (hundreds of billions of printed to infinity fiat deep).
Here is a list of the people who should not be trusted at all and many of them will probably be listed as defendants: Gavin Andersen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham and Brian Armstrong.
By now, they should be considered as enemies of Bitcoin and decentralization. Their credibility, reputation, and businesses will be run into the ground by no other than their own greed, selfishness and seek for more power and control, unless they come out publicly against S2X/NYA.
We, the people/users/nodes, and the hardworking and honest Core developers are the honeybadger: WE ARE BITCOIN. This is not FUD, Bitcoin will survive, there is no way to put it back into Pandora's Box, but we need to be conscious that we can easily avoid any damage if we remain united. Let's swarm the S2X/NYA beast and show it the real power of Decentralization. Exciting times we are living... this will be fun!
Edit- Great post on btc against S2X... This attack is so blatant that even they are seeing through it now. OP is a well-known poster there (strongly anti-bitcoin and strong bcash supporter), the post is surprisingly being upvoted and even gilded:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/743qb8/is_segwit2x_the_real_banker_takeove
DCG (digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

It is time to unite, organize and squeeze-out any possible viability for S2X/NYA.

And the simplest, cheapest, fastest and more efficient way to do it is this one:
Expose to the sunlight what DCG is and who is behind it
First, let's just post the links to the sites listing all the companies supporting the attack for quick reference:
https://coin.dance/poli
http://segwit.party/nya/
Then, let's post a list of the individuals still supporting this attack despite the overwhelming evidence presented to them about how and why S2X is not only totally pointless from the technical as well as economical (benefit for the whole ecosystem and not just a few) points of view and also about how and why S2X is an open attack on Bitcoin.
Those guys are pure greed, they don't care about the 7 billion of people on this planet. Expose them and don't give them your business. Starve the beast. They will regret sticking with the B2X altcoin that will go the BCH way (and all the other highjack attempts before them). Moneybadger don't care and only gets stronger and immunized after each snake-bite, that is as a system, but we, as individuals, do care and must be proactively working against this attack.
Actually >99% of the Bitcoin community supports the real Bitcoin. The centralized B2X-coin attack is only supported by a handful of rich crooks and the people they've managed to bribe with their deep pockets, so here they are:
Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Brian Armstrong, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins and Jiang Zhuoer.
DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
  1. MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
  2. Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistant in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
Edit: Formatting.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The November BTC Fork and Bitcoin Cash - The Facts

Update: Thank you for your appreciation on this article. I decided to publish it on Medium.  
You can find the article on this link.
 
Existing Article:
With less than a dozen days left before the SegWit2X fork, I have started gathering facts before I start forming personal opinions and speculative conclusions. I refer to the SegWit1X chain as 1X and the SegWit2X chain as 2X for simplicity, and I have looked for very simple facts and safe assumptions. Here are the dots that I gathered:  
 
• Fork at Block 494,784. Approximate date = 16th of November.  
 
The New York Agreement: The NYA involved parties representing about 83% of the then hashing power who all agreed to both hardforks - one for SegWit and another for an increased block size of 2MB (2X) within 6 months of the former. Further details in reference 1.  
 
• It is safe to assume that miners will only mine the most profitable chain (possibly several chains in differing proportions).  
• If whales pump a single chain it will gain more value. If this happens, miners will be more inclined to mine that particular chain only. This will result in the other chain(s)potentially losing overall mining attractiveness.  
 
1X will continue to have a 1MB block and SegWit;  
2X will have a 2MB block and SegWit;  
Bitcoin Cash (Just for info right now) currently has an 8 MB block with NO SegWit;  
 
Current Price Status (Futures) on BitFinex: 2X/BTC = 0.17; 1X/BTC = 0.83  
 
Current Mining Status: 2X = Around 85% of blocks are signalling for 2X.  
It seems only a few mining pools including Slush Pool, F2Pool and Kano CKPool are not signalling Segwit2X. All Antpool (Jihan Wu) owned pools are signalling for Segwit2X and will likely continue to do so up to the fork. It is not clear if any other pools from the Segwit2X signalling group will change their minds in the meantime.  
 
Lower mining power chain: Likely to be 1X. Fees likely to be extremely high as not many miners. Difficulty adjustment could take a few weeks, if not months. Until then it will be very difficult to transfer funds. [It may be better to keep BTC on an exchange before fork, to ease liquidity cost/time if you want to sell either of the coins immediately]  
 
Double-spending: Miners (from 2X) will have an ability and incentive to double-spend on the minority chain (lower mining power chain). If you have huge mining power, you can allocate some of it to just double-spend on the minority chain. Some people will possibly lose confidence in the minority chain as a result.  
 
Replay-Protection: Neither 1X nor 2X currently have replay protection.  
 
Exchanges:
  1. Bitfinex: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  2. BitMEX: Original chain is BTC  
  3. Bitstamp: Unknown  
  4. GDAX & Coinbase: hash power and market cap decides which chain is “BTC”  
  5. Kraken: Unknown  
  6. HitBTC: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  7. CoinsBank: Original chain is BTC  
  8. CEX.IO: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  9. Gemini: hash power decides which chain is “BTC”  
  10. Coinfloor: Unknown  
  11. BTCC (Updated on Twitter): BTCC will consider which of 1MB and 2MB to name as #bitcoin based on market feedback and adoption.  
Further details in reference 4.  
 
The opinion section
Vinny Lingham's opinion: 2X will outcompete 1X.  
 
Enter Bitcoin Cash: A review by Ryan X. Charles who has incorporated some of Vinny Lingham's quotes, states the following:  
 
a. BCH is a fork of BTC with same PoW, but with improved Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA). BCH cannot die, but 1X and 2X could both die. If whales shift most of their holdings to BCH (or another coin), that would incentivise the miners to mine BCH (or another coin) instead of 1X and 2X. Both 1X and 2X would lose their mining power; however Core would release an emergency update to software adding DAA like BCH (or another coin). Thus, 1X would survive, and 2X (which might not get DAA) would die.  
 
b. If 2X continues to be the dominantly mined chain, 1X will be forced to launch an emergency update to their PoW with DAA. There could be fighting between the two chains, and as a result a struggle to become dominant potentially causing altcoins to flourish.  
 
My observations
BCH is upgrading their EDA (Emergency Difficulty Adjuster) on Nov 13. See website. This will lead to reduced volatility in BCH - likely making it more attractive to more long-term miners.  
 
Mining profitability: It is currently almost equally profitable to mine either BTC or BCH.  
 
• What to keep and eye on before the fork to judge yourself where the fate of BTC is heading.  
  1. Mining signalling distribution
  2. DAA: 1X or 2X software updates to implement Difficulty Adjustment Algorithms
  3. Futures price before fork
  4. Significant whale movement
 
References:  
  1. New York Agreement  
  2. Hashing Distribution  
  3. Ryan X. Charles's opinions  
  4. Exchange listings for both chains  
  5. Interview with Vinny Lingham  
 
submitted by tenmillionsterling to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

Barry and his millionaire friends pumping the B2X (BT2) price on Bitfinex.

They can do that now easily due to the low liquidity, as time passes it will be more difficult to do. Even with the pumping, they can't get the S2X coin, appropriately named 'B2X' on Bitfinex (with symbol 'BT2'), over 1/2 the price of one real Bitcoin 'BTC' (with symbol 'BT1').
Even with Bitfinex appropriately naming each coin, it is still confusing, since the S2X'ers labeled their nodes as btc1, which they've been unable to grow in numbers, stagnating around just a little over 200.
The S2X/NYA attack is failing and losing steam as their few (albeit very rich) supporters are exposed to the light in every possible social media regarding their hidden motives and names behind the attack, so everybody is well informed and there is no confusion between the real Bitcoin and the altcoins with 'bitcoin' in their name.
Also, every bitcoiner should know about what DCG (digital Currency Group) is, and call out publicly these people that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin:
Sam Patterson (and OB team), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham and Brian Armstrong.
Once people are informed, they won't be fooled (like all the poor guys at btc) and will follow Bitcoin instead of Bizcoin or Bcash or any other centralized altcoin they come up with disguised as Bitcoin.
Focus your education/pressure efforts on just two people, if even one of them withdraws, S2X/NYA is effectively dead. And those two are:
Anyway, if they decide to stick to S2X altcoin, they MAY end up bankrupt or at least losing a lot of money from the loss of real bitcoins and from the subsequent lawsuits and the hit on their reputation and credibility leading to the loss of users/clients/customers.
Bitcoin would be set back a little bit (like what happened with the recent China+Bankers attack), but Moneybadger don't care, it will emerge stronger than ever, blasting through $10,000 and beyond.
Just Hodl (buy more if there's a dip), start a Core node if you haven't yet, and let your voice be heard if you have an account with Coinbase:
This is the direct link to contact them:
https://support.coinbase.com/customeportal/emails/new
On the bottom, click on "Submit a request".
This was my answer to them after my first email:
Thank you for your response, but to say "We will have more information about the fork in the coming months" it is not acceptable, since we need to know by the end of October, and we need to move all the funds from the Vault. We won't be dealing with any company supporting the S2X/NYA fork. If Coinbase does not care what their customers want, that is very disappointing, you need to be clear and officially declare why are you supporting such attack on Bitcoin, or definitely withdraw from such an irrational agreement which, by the way, it does not even have a replay protection yet, so Coinbase it is opening itself to many legal problems for all the lost coins that will result from that fork. Please side with the vast majority of the Bitcoin community and your customers, instead of a few corporations and miners with shady intentions and crapy developers. The majority will be following the Core developers. Please listen to your own Charlie Lee and withdraw from S2X now. Please let us know clearly your plan, so we can take all the appropriate measures in advance. Don't keep all of your customers in this unnecessary suspense and uncertainty. Thanks.
Sources:
https://www.bitfinex.com/order_book/bt1usd
https://www.bitfinex.com/order_book/bt2usd
https://coin.dance/nodes#allNodes
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Predicting the Outcome of the November Bitcoin Fork

On approximately November 18, Bitcoin will split into two chains: Segwit1x and Segwit2x. Because these chains share the same proof-of-work function (PoW) and neither change the difficulty adjustment algorithm (DAA), it is unlikely that both will survive simultaneously.
A complicating factor is the existence of Bitcoin Cash, a fork of Bitcoin which shares the same PoW but has in addition an improved DAA that ensures it can adjust downward in difficulty rapidly as needed in the event of miner evacuation, keeping its block interval at approximately 10 minutes on average. Bitcoin Cash cannot die, but Segwit1x and Segwit2x can both die.
These are the possible scenarios that may unfold starting November 18:
Scenario 1: The Flippening
Bitcoin Cash becomes the dominant chain measured by total PoW, Segwit1x survives with an "emergency hard fork" to a new PoW function or DAA, and Segwit2x dies.
This scenario is widely ignored or ridiculed in the Bitcoin community which is why the current price of Bitcoin is more than ten times the price of Bitcoin Cash. However, this scenario is actually the most likely due to the spectacular gains to be made by miners, speculators and businesses who game this scenario. Anyone who is in a position to cause the flippening can increase their money 10-fold in a month, followed by far higher long-term gains due to the ability of Bitcoin Cash to scale to a global audience.
If this scenario plays out, it will probably happen as follows:
Whales will buy Bitcoin Cash cheap and sell Bitcoin at its all-time highs in preparation for the flippening. Then by leveraging huge amounts of capital, whales will push the price of Bitcoin Cash up and the price of Bitcoin down at approximately the same time as the split between Segwit1x and Segwit2x.
Miners will now be incentivized to switch from Segwit1x/Segwit2x to Bitcoin Cash due to improved profitability, while Segwit1x and Segwit2x both struggle on suddenly far lower mining power. Miners themselves may also be whales and will deliberately cause the incentives to shift for their own double gain.
Segwit2x dies to due no ability to change the PoW or DAA (since that's not a part of the New York Agreement (NYA)). Segwit1x changes its PoW and survives as an altcoin branded as "Bitcoin". Many in the Segwit1x community are already comfortable with this possibility, and more certainly will be if all of their value is threatened with destruction otherwise. Over some period of time, Bitcoin Cash achieves status as the longest chain as measured by total PoW and some exchanges and businesses now regard it as being "Bitcoin".
Scenario 2: Segwit2x wins
Segwit2x becomes the dominant chain measured by total PoW, Segwit1x changes its PoW, and Bitcoin Cash survives. This is the second most likely scenario due to the fact that a vast majority of miners and a majority of businesses have committed to Segwit2x as part of the NYA. However, this scenario is strictly less likely than the above due to the lesser gains to be made. No one can multiply their value by 10-fold in a short period of time in this scenario. And the long-term future is likely to continue to have infighting, high fees, and loss of market share to altcoins - it's better for business if Bitcoin Cash wins.
Note that, even if Segwit1x has a higher price on exchanges at the time of the fork, that does not help Segwit1x much if miners stick to their agreement and continue to mine Segwit2x. See Vinny Lingham's theory about how the minority chain cannot have a higher value.
In this scenario, similar to the above, it is most likely Segwit1x will change its PoW and become an altcoin in order to ensure its chain survives.
Scenario 3: Segwit1x wins
Segwit1x becomes the dominant chain measured by total PoW, Segwit2x dies, and Bitcoin Cash survives. If the movement from the Segwit1x community is successful, Segwit2x will be prevented from occurring due to the community uprising. This scenario is less likely than the above two scenarios due to the lack of commitment from miners to mine the Segwit1x chain. Segwit1x will probably not survive on ~10% of mining power due to excessively long block times for several months. Trolling on social media is not a substitute for mining power.
In this scenario, Segwit2x completely dies as no parties in the NYA agreed to change the PoW function or DAA in order to allow it to survive.
This scenario can be encouraged by whales. If whales specifically desire to make Segwit1x the dominant chain, they can buy Segwit1x. If they are able to sustain a high price of Segwit1x due to a flood of capital that lasts beyond any insecurity, the miners are incentivized to switch back over from Segwit2x. However, this requires vastly more capital than the scenario in which Bitcoin Cash wins because the market cap of Bitcoin is more than 10 times that of Bitcoin Cash. Rational whales who actually want Bitcoin to succeed would prefer the Bitcoin Cash scenario. Other Near-Term Scenarios
There are other scenarios that are logically possible, such as the co-existence of Segwit1x and Segwit2x with no further hard forks, but they are unlikely. I believe one of the above three scenarios will almost certainly be the scenario that plays out in November.
Long-Term Scenarios
Note that if Bitcoin Cash does not achieve majority mining power and total accumulated PoW, the situation will continue to be unstable past the November 18 fork. Over the long-term, Bitcoin Cash can both achieve a larger user-base than Segwit1x/Segwit2x and, because it has a better DAA, it can't die, and will therefore continue to be a thorn in the side of Bitcoin until it ultimately acquires majority mining support and becomes labeled "Bitcoin".
However, things could easily change long-term to affect these probabilities. For instance, if Bitcoin changes its DAA to be similar to Bitcoin Cash, then Bitcoin Cash's advantage will go away and the mining dominance of Bitcoin will continue.
Thoughts?
submitted by Yanlii to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Will Segwit2x Bitcoin Fork will become the main Bitcoin?

As per Newyork Agreement, 80% of the miners and exchanges supported Segwit2x.
Later, Few miners and exchanges withdrew their support but still the support is comfortably above 50%.
If BTC2x gets 60%+ support, It will only make Legacy Bitcoin payments super expensive and super slow. (Might take days to send coins)
As of now, BTC top personalities like Roger ver and Vinny Lingham openly supports Segwit2x and spending millions to make it successful.
Coinbase already had said they will show BTC2x forked coin as the main Bitcoin on their exchange and the legacy Bitcoin as BTC1. However, they later changed their tone to say we will go with the one market will support.
My Personal Opinion: Bitcoin forks only weaken the Cryptocurrency image and confuse noobs. Many think of forks easy riches for those who fork as Billions are created from Thin air. I believe that forks shouldn't happen and all upgrades should be made to the legacy coin.
What does market show: with the current market situation, It looks like Bitcoin2x could be worth as much as the Bitcoin now if they get 60%+ Miner and exchanges support. Legacy Bitcoin might loose value.
What everyone should do: People should hold their Bitcoin in the wallet where they own their private key. Because an exchange might not give them BTC2x and just in case BTC2x becomes the main coin, the legacy Bitcoin will tank badly; Therefore, Everyone who own a lot of Bitcoin in hot wallets will be very poor.
Please share your opinions in the comments section!
submitted by Shazahmed11 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Chris Derose: "Its time to stop 'pretending'. You don't own Bitcoin. Now can we stick together?"

I am reprinting this with Chris's permission - originally posted on his Patreon board.
------Start Article------
You don't own Bitcoin. There, someone had to say it. Might as well be me. Owning Bitcoin was a great meme. Had an awesome run. But you don't own it, and never did. Sound delusional? Nope. By the end of this article, you will probably agree. What was once once a simple equation has become far more complex. And with that complexity comes a new understanding of what it is you bought: a UTXO.
If you know what a UTXO is - skip this paragraph, and continue on to the next one. If you don't, read on. Bitcoin uses a 'triple ledger accounting system'. What you know as 'your balance' (say, "3 bitcoins") is actually a collection of 'checks' made out to your public address. When you spend 'a bitcoin', you broadcast a check of your own. Your check allocates Satoshis from the unspent checks you hold, as the source of the funds for the next guy. That check you wrote out to the next guy? That check is now an unspent transaction output (UTXO). He can use this unspent check to repeat the procedure. This process of new checks written by sourcing unspent checks continues on indefinitely. Still confused? Here's an ancient presentation where I explain this process in greater detail. If you're a Bitcoin investor, you should understand what risk you own.
Now it's time to have a sober discussion about the ramifications.
Unlike 'pennies' or 'gold bars', every UTXO is different. Every single one is unique. Like checks, no two are identical. As such, each UTXO represents a different articulation of risk. Some UTXOs might be 'tainted' with a black market origination. These UTXO's will be hard to redeem at an exchange, and may be better suited for sale on localbitcoins.com. Selling the UTXO there, has the benefit of maintaining secrecy. This benefit will make that UTXO more valuable. Or, maybe, you want to try your luck at tumbling these UTXOs. For a fee, someone will jumble your check up and obfuscate its origin. You can redeem this newly obfuscated check on an exchange at a small total net loss. This form of UTXO risk is generally labeled 'fungibility' risk. We've had this risk for years, and by and large, it's a well understood problem. But there's a more relevant kind of UTXO risk in 2017.
I don't know what to call this newer risk, if not 'consensus' risk. See, your UTXOs were formed at a certain block height. And as a general rule, the older your UTXO, the less consensus risk that UTXO has. For example, if your UTXO was formed prior to the Bitcoin Cash fork, it can be redeemed on both Bitcoin blockchains. Depending on how old your UTXO is, it may even be redeemable on one or more of the following Bitcoin blockchains: XT, Classic, Unlimited, and even Clam. (Assuming buyers for these Bitcoins are still around.)
If you're skeptical that some UTXOs are riskier than others, ask yourself what you'd want: A older UTXO that can be spent on all bitcoins? Or a newer one, that's only available on your favorite bitocoin? The correct answer, is the UTXO that can be redeemed across all bitcoins. It's more valuable, for the simple reason that it can be spent on all networks. And many people are proud to claim the 'Bitcoin Cash' value of their UTXOs for value on the... well, Bitcoin-that-is-not-Cash.
So what you thought was 'a Bitcoin' is actually a UTXO, formed under a Bitcoin ruleset. And your UTXO is redeemable under one or more other Bitcoin rulesets. These rulesets have version numbers. And you know what? They even have names.
In fact, its kind of annoying to keep talking about the Bitcoin-that-is-not-Cash. Hell, I'd like to talk about the Bitcoin-that-is-not-Cash-and-not-xt-and-not-classic-or-unlimited-or-clams-either quite frankly. And you know what? I think investors would too. So I polled them. And that seems to be what they said.
So, I went to bitcoin.org, and I wanted to see what they would call this bitcoin, that so many people seem to want unnamed. And they call it this:
Bitcoin Core
There. That wasn't so hard. Download Bitcoin Core.
The benefits of articulating what risk we want to bear when holding UTXOs are manyfold. Take the bitcoinj, btcd, and bcoin rulesets. I know what you're thinking: they're all the same! Nope. You're completely wrong. Here's another ancient video I did. This time with Peter Todd. Peter Todd wrote a lot about the difficulties that can cause ruleset implementations to come out of sync with Bitcoin Core. There are so many, that exchanges don't bother running those implementations at all. Or when they do, they only do so to ensure that all versions of all rulesets are in sync. If you're skeptical, run a little experiment with yourself. If a weird bitcoin transaction came into a block, that caused implementations to go out of sync, which implementation would you proceed on? Do you have an answer? I bet it's Bitcoin Core. Or hey, maybe its Bitcoin Cash. But the point is the same: Consensus implementations are named and numbered. And both of those labels impact the risk of the UTXOs they produce.
Still in disbelief about the difficulty of consensus? Here's another great article on the subject. There are many others. This is an old topic, settled long ago.
And you know what? I think that's great. I love Bitcoin Core. So do most bitcoiners. Articulating our consensus risk lets us solve problems like this without government intervention. Similarly, exchanges won't want to bear the legal liabilities associated with making guesses over what consensus risk their depositors want exposure to. You may still be reluctant to stand in solidarity with your most trusted Blockchain team. I get that. I too resent that the community has fractured to the degree that it has. Blockchain ain't what it used to be.
If you thought this article was complicated, well, no one wants to have this discussion with the courts. And over time, you can expect more organizations to begin declaring this too. So, I think we should just embrace the elephant in the room. Rather than wear hats. Change our twitter handles. And do whatever crazy thing it is we do to express solidarity with a team, why not just start calling our favorite Bitcoin by its name? That seems like a reasonable way to tell the people who hold our UTXOs what to do when there's an emergency.
Belonging to a team isn't shameful. It's worked well enough for most blockchains. And really, we don't have a choice. Be proud to declare the Bitcoin you want to hold, and maybe you'll drown out those that wish to take it from you. If we stick together, maybe that will address the problems that caused us to be afraid of labeling our bitcoin to begin with. Who knows? Maybe that can even get a non-contentious hardfork out the door one of these days.
All this discussion does raise a greater question though: What is the true Bitcoin? Some people like Vinny Lingham, think it's ruleset with the largest amount of work. That's been my view. But it's a tough view these days as relations between Bitcoin Core and its miners have deteriorated. I still lean toward energy-expended as the best metric. But I don't think anyone really knows what to do. Maybe the 'true Bitcoin' is the Bitcoin with the highest market cap. Or highest volume. Or highest node count. Or... maybe we don't have a true Bitcoin. And the best that we can do is have the market asses the risk of competing rulesets.
I love core. They're great. But there's nothing more political than rulesets. We seem to be in a partisan era in the story of Bitcoin. Some people are engaging in denial. Others look forward to the ability to express solidarity with a group of specialists they trust.
What do you think?
submitted by caulds989 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

November BTC Fork - The Facts Point to BCH

Update: Thank you for your appreciation on this article. I decided to publish it on Medium.  
You can find the article on this link.
 
Existing Article: With less than a dozen days left before the SegWit2X fork, I have started gathering facts before I start forming personal opinions and speculative conclusions. I refer to the SegWit1X chain as 1X and the SegWit2X chain as 2X for simplicity, and I have looked for very simple facts and safe assumptions. Here are the dots that I gathered:  
 
• Fork at Block 494,784. Approximate date = 16th of November.  
 
The New York Agreement: The NYA involved parties representing about 83% of the then hashing power who all agreed to both hardforks - one for SegWit and another for an increased block size of 2MB (2X) within 6 months of the former. Further details in reference 1.  
 
• It is safe to assume that miners will only mine the most profitable chain (possibly several chains in differing proportions).  
• If whales pump a single chain it will gain more value. If this happens, miners will be more inclined to mine that particular chain only. This will result in the other chain(s)potentially losing overall mining attractiveness.  
 
1X will continue to have a 1MB block and SegWit;  
2X will have a 2MB block and SegWit;  
Bitcoin Cash (Just for info right now) currently has an 8 MB block with NO SegWit;  
 
Current Price Status (Futures) on BitFinex: 2X/BTC = 0.17; 1X/BTC = 0.83  
 
Current Mining Status: 2X = Around 85% of blocks are signalling for 2X.  
It seems only a few mining pools including Slush Pool, F2Pool and Kano CKPool are not signalling Segwit2X. All Antpool (Jihan Wu) owned pools are signalling for Segwit2X and will likely continue to do so up to the fork. It is not clear if any other pools from the Segwit2X signalling group will change their minds in the meantime.  
 
Lower mining power chain: Likely to be 1X. Fees likely to be extremely high as not many miners. Difficulty adjustment could take a few weeks, if not months. Until then it will be very difficult to transfer funds. [It may be better to keep BTC on an exchange before fork, to ease liquidity cost/time if you want to sell either of the coins immediately]  
 
Double-spending: Miners (from 2X) will have an ability and incentive to double-spend on the minority chain (lower mining power chain). If you have huge mining power, you can allocate some of it to just double-spend on the minority chain. Some people will possibly lose confidence in the minority chain as a result.  
 
Replay-Protection: Neither 1X nor 2X currently have replay protection.  
 
Exchanges:
  1. Bitfinex: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  2. BitMEX: Original chain is BTC  
  3. Bitstamp: Unknown  
  4. GDAX & Coinbase: hash power and market cap decides which chain is “BTC”  
  5. Kraken: Unknown  
  6. HitBTC: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  7. CoinsBank: Original chain is BTC  
  8. CEX.IO: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  9. Gemini: hash power decides which chain is “BTC”  
  10. Coinfloor: Unknown  
  11. BTCC (Updated on Twitter): BTCC will consider which of 1MB and 2MB to name as #bitcoin based on market feedback and adoption.  
Further details in reference 4.  
 
The opinion section
Vinny Lingham's opinion: 2X will outcompete 1X.  
 
Enter Bitcoin Cash: A review by Ryan X. Charles who has incorporated some of Vinny Lingham's quotes, states the following:  
 
a. BCH is a fork of BTC with same PoW, but with improved Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA). BCH cannot die, but 1X and 2X could both die. If whales shift most of their holdings to BCH (or another coin), that would incentivise the miners to mine BCH (or another coin) instead of 1X and 2X. Both 1X and 2X would lose their mining power; however Core would release an emergency update to software adding DAA like BCH (or another coin). Thus, 1X would survive, and 2X (which might not get DAA) would die.  
 
b. If 2X continues to be the dominantly mined chain, 1X will be forced to launch an emergency update to their PoW with DAA. There could be fighting between the two chains, and as a result a struggle to become dominant potentially causing altcoins to flourish.  
 
My observations
BCH is upgrading their EDA (Emergency Difficulty Adjuster) on Nov 13. See website. This will lead to reduced volatility in BCH - likely making it more attractive to more long-term miners.  
 
Mining profitability: It is currently almost equally profitable to mine either BTC or BCH.  
 
• What to keep and eye on before the fork to judge yourself where the fate of BTC is heading.  
  1. Mining signalling distribution
  2. DAA: 1X or 2X software updates to implement Difficulty Adjustment Algorithms
  3. Futures price before fork
  4. Significant whale movement
 
References:  
  1. New York Agreement  
  2. Hashing Distribution  
  3. Ryan X. Charles's opinions  
  4. Exchange listings for both chains  
  5. Interview with Vinny Lingham
 
Update: Thank you for your appreciation and support on this article. I decided to publish it on Medium.  
You can find the article on this link.
submitted by tenmillionsterling to btc [link] [comments]

What Will Be Bitcoin's Next Big Price Event?

For the price of bitcoin, the summer was anything but smooth.
Markets boomed on news of 'the Brexit', tapered off through the long-awaited halving and tumbled on the news yet another exchange had been hacked. Since then, the price has fluctuated between $550 and $600, returning to the "relative" calm observed earlier in the year.
But given bitcoin's historical volatility, analysts are already beginning to question what may trigger bitcoin's next big price swing.
As we head into the fall and winter months, a diverse set of theories are beginning to emerge about conditions that could either boost the price, or see it return to its 2015 lows.
Institutional approval
Among the potential triggers cited by analysts, the emergence of a bitcoin exchange-traded fund (ETF), an investment vehicle that generally tracks a basket of stocks or commodities, was perhaps the most often discussed.
Many market observers have been watching the status of two proposed ETFs with great interest, but for a while, there wasn't any reason to hope for developments. However, excitement for a potential market first has grown in recent weeks following the July announcement of the SolidX Bitcoin Trust and amid new filings by the Winklevoss Bitcoin Trust.
The approval of either could represent a milestone for the bitcoin community, analysts say, as the ETFs would enable authorized participants to issues shares tied to real bitcoin holdings, which could be a catalyst for new liquidity.
Daniel Masters, director of Global Advisors Bitcoin Investment Fund (GABI), noted recently that many commodities have enjoyed sharp increases in price and more robust trading activity once ETFs based on the underlying assets hit the market.
He wrote in an August blog post:
"From the early 2000s onward, there was a proliferation of ETFs covering all manner of commodity interests. In each and every case – for gold, silver, oil, natural gas, platinum, copper and even indices – the advent of the ETFs led to higher prices, more trading volume of futures and cash exchanges and higher levels of commodity futures open interest."
Should either ETF receive approval, bitcoin could enjoy a notable increase in liquidity. It was this variable that Du Jun, co-founder of Chinese exchange Huobi, singled out as potentially driving the digital currency's price higher.
"Bitcoin's liquidity depends on the future of bitcoin's value and investors' expectation to a large extent," Du said.
Technical improvements
Yet another potential boost for the bitcoin price could come in the form of a long-awaited resolution to the "scaling" debate.
Currently, blocks of transactions on the bitcoin blockchain have a storage size of just 1MB. As this puts a limitation on the number of transactions the network can process (and therefore, some argue, adoption), there has been a sometimes messy and contentious drive in the community to change it.
But due to the tricky specifics of how a change to this hard-coded limit would need to be enacted, no consensus has yet been reached. Still, that doesn't mean solutions aren't on the way, the most notable of which is Segregated Witness (SegWit), an upgrade that recently saw a preliminary code release.
While promising for the network, though, analysts seemed less enthusiastic about SegWit’s potential impact on bitcoin prices.
Cryptocurrency investment fund manager Jacob Eliosoff, for example, said investors have likely already priced in the coming change as it was announced in December and originally expected to be deployed in April.
"SegWit's release seems too gradual and widely expected (not to say overdue) to really bump the price," Eliosoff said.
Tim Enneking, chairman of investment manager EAM, struck a similar tone, adding:
"I don’t think SegWit will have anything more than an incremental and marginal impact on BTC prices, at least in the short term."
Post-Halving pressures
In one of the more unique claims, investor and entrepreneur Vinny Lingham singled out the halving of rewards on the bitcoin network as a potential influence.
The prediction may be surprising given that a planned technical change the reduced the mining reward from 25 BTC to 12.5 BTC took place earlier this summer, largely without fanfare.
But while bitcoin prices experienced little change this July, Lingham asserts its true impact has not yet been felt. In the next two-to-four weeks, forces resulting from the shift could cause the digital currency to surge, he said.
As detailed in a recent post, miners who aren't turning enough profit, he contends, may soon be forced to buy bitcoin from exchanges, an event he said was likely to trigger a "short squeeze", or a sharp increase in the price based on the lack of available supply.
He wrote in May:
"It’s the same as selling crops in the futures market and then being hit by a storm that wipes out half of your fields. The only way, technically, that this doesn’t happen, is if the price doubles on halving day (it won’t)."
Financial (in)stability
Finally, some predicted bitcoin's next major price event would be dependent on the stability of the global financial system.
Traders have repeatedly flocked to the digital currency in times of crisis, leading many market observers to label it a risk-off asset or even a "digital gold" that appeals during times of economic stress.
In the past, bitcoin has benefitted from situations such as the 'Brexit', as well as during periods of economic volatility in Greece and Cyprus.
It remains debatable how much of these increases is based on real capital flight, but there is still widespread belief that such events could come to be a powerful influencer going forward.
Huobi's Du spoke to this matter, telling CoinDesk that when the global financial system experiences volatility, investors will "look for more safe-haven investments" like bitcoin.
Another variable remains government responses to the digital currency. If major countries accept bitcoin, analysts said, it will affect both the currency's trading activity and value.
Source: coindesk.com
If you are interested on bitcoin trading visit our website Houbi.com. We are one of the largest BTC-USD, BTC-CNY trading platform in the world. HUOBI OFFERS FREE BTC-CNY/LTC-CNY TRADING, 24*7 CUSTOMER SERVICES AND SECURE PROTECTION FOR USER ASSETS. Welcome to trade on HUOBI.COM!
What do you think about the article. Please leave the comments below.
submitted by Huobi-USD to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

November Fork - The Facts

With less than a dozen days left before the SegWit2X fork, I have started gathering facts before I start forming personal opinions and speculative conclusions. I refer to the SegWit1X chain as 1X and the SegWit2X chain as 2X for simplicity, and I have looked for very simple facts and safe assumptions. Here are the dots that I gathered:  
 
• Fork at Block 494,784. Approximate date = 16th of November.  
 
The New York Agreement: The NYA involved parties representing about 83% of the then hashing power who all agreed to both hardforks - one for SegWit and another for an increased block size of 2MB (2X) within 6 months of the former. Further details in reference 1.  
 
• It is safe to assume that miners will only mine the most profitable chain (possibly several chains in differing proportions).  
• If whales pump a single chain it will gain more value. If this happens, miners will be more inclined to mine that particular chain only. This will result in the other chain(s)potentially losing overall mining attractiveness.  
 
1X will continue to have a 1MB block and SegWit;  
2X will have a 2MB block and SegWit;  
Bitcoin Cash (Just for info right now) currently has an 8 MB block with NO SegWit;  
 
Current Price Status (Futures) on BitFinex: 2X/BTC = 0.17; 1X/BTC = 0.83  
 
Current Mining Status: 2X = Around 85% of blocks are signalling for 2X.  
It seems only a few mining pools including Slush Pool, F2Pool and Kano CKPool are not signalling Segwit2X. All Antpool (Jihan Wu) owned pools are signalling for Segwit2X and will likely continue to do so up to the fork. It is not clear if any other pools from the Segwit2X signalling group will change their minds in the meantime.  
 
Lower mining power chain: Likely to be 1X. Fees likely to be extremely high as not many miners. Difficulty adjustment could take a few weeks, if not months. Until then it will be very difficult to transfer funds. [It may be better to keep BTC on an exchange before fork, to ease liquidity cost/time if you want to sell either of the coins immediately]  
 
Double-spending: Miners (from 2X) will have an ability and incentive to double-spend on the minority chain (lower mining power chain). If you have huge mining power, you can allocate some of it to just double-spend on the minority chain. Some people will possibly lose confidence in the minority chain as a result.  
 
Replay-Protection: Neither 1X nor 2X currently have replay protection.  
 
Exchanges:
  1. Bitfinex: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  2. BitMEX: Original chain is BTC  
  3. Bitstamp: Unknown  
  4. GDAX & Coinbase: hash power and market cap decides which chain is “BTC”  
  5. Kraken: Unknown  
  6. HitBTC: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  7. CoinsBank: Original chain is BTC  
  8. CEX.IO: original chain is “BTC”, SegWit2x chain is “B2X”  
  9. Gemini: hash power decides which chain is “BTC”  
  10. Coinfloor: Unknown  
  11. BTCC (Updated on Twitter): BTCC will consider which of 1MB and 2MB to name as #bitcoin based on market feedback and adoption.  
Further details in reference 4.  
 
The opinion section
Vinny Lingham's opinion: 2X will outcompete 1X.  
 
Enter Bitcoin Cash: A review by Ryan X. Charles who has incorporated some of Vinny Lingham's quotes, states the following:  
 
a. BCH is a fork of BTC with same PoW, but with improved Difficulty Adjustment Algorithm (DAA). BCH cannot die, but 1X and 2X could both die. If whales shift most of their holdings to BCH (or another coin), that would incentivise the miners to mine BCH (or another coin) instead of 1X and 2X. Both 1X and 2X would lose their mining power; however Core would release an emergency update to software adding DAA like BCH (or another coin). Thus, 1X would survive, and 2X (which might not get DAA) would die.  
 
b. If 2X continues to be the dominantly mined chain, 1X will be forced to launch an emergency update to their PoW with DAA. There could be fighting between the two chains, and as a result a struggle to become dominant potentially causing altcoins to flourish.  
 
My observations
BCH is upgrading their EDA (Emergency Difficulty Adjuster) on Nov 13. See website. This will lead to reduced volatility in BCH - likely making it more attractive to more long-term miners.  
 
Mining profitability: It is currently almost equally profitable to mine either BTC or BCH.  
 
• What to keep and eye on before the fork to judge yourself where the fate of BTC is heading.  
  1. Mining signalling distribution
  2. DAA: 1X or 2X software updates to implement Difficulty Adjustment Algorithms
  3. Futures price before fork
  4. Significant whale movement
 
References:  
  1. New York Agreement  
  2. Hashing Distribution  
  3. Ryan X. Charles's opinions  
  4. Exchange listings for both chains  
  5. Interview with Vinny Lingham  
submitted by tenmillionsterling to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Top comment on recent r/bitcoin 2X FUD thread

Original thread: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7801lg/these_are_the_companies_who_still_support_the_ny/
PS:these are not my views, but a shill from bitcoin
" I will keep posting this in relevant threads until the day of the fork, with the hope that more bitcoiners learn the true nature of S2X/B2X/NYA open attack on Bitcoin disguised as an "upgrade". This is a 2X Trojan Horse, and do you know who is inside that horse? Top level banker's special-forces like Blythe Masters, Larry Summers, Glenn Hutchins (sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York) and DCG (Digital Currency Group).
We need to keep our efforts to expose and inform people about what S2X/NYA/DCG really is. Don't trust and don't do business with these companies and individuals supporting the S2X attack on Bitcoin.
> Companies: > > https://coin.dance/poli > > http://segwit.party/nya/ > > Individuals:
> Those guys are pure greed, they don't care about the 7 billion of people on this planet. Expose them and don't give them your business. Starve the beast. They will regret sticking with the B2X altcoin that will go the BCH way (and all the other highjack attempts before them). Moneybadger don't care and only gets stronger and immunized after each snake-bite. > > Actually >99% of the Bitcoin community supports the real Bitcoin. The centralized B2X-coin attack is only supported by a handful of rich crooks and the people they've managed to bribe with their deep pockets:
> Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Brian Armstrong, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins, Bill Barhydt and Jiang Zhuoer. >
I posted this 13 days ago:
Exposed: How Bankers are trying to centralize and highjack Bitcoin by buying "supporters" and promoters (like OpenBazaar team) for the B2X (S2X/NYA) attack on Bitcoin.
TL;DR: B2X (S2X/NYA) is nothing more than an open attack on Bitcoin, not an "upgrade" as they want to sell it. This attack has no 'consensus', at all. It was "agreed" by a bunch of miners and corporations behind closed doors, with no community nor developers support. Only miners and a few millionaires that stand to profit from the B2X attack support it. The vast majority of the Bitcoin community is totally against this attack on Bitcoin. Most of those companies are under DCG group:
> Every bitcoiner should know about what DCG (Digital Currency Group) is, and call out publicly the people that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin. "
Edit: clairity, I did not write this comment
submitted by SpliffZombie to btc [link] [comments]

Scaling "debate" (*attacks) ELI5 for newbies:

Miners want the transactions ON chain and as many, slow and inefficient as possible, because they get paid (fees) for each one of them. That's why they want bigger blocks to hold/carry/process more transactions and why they have been always blocking every possible progress/solution that would benefit the whole world (with the sole exception of themselves): Segwit, LN, second layer scaling apps, etc.
That's why they created their fake bitcoin without Segwit. Read also about Asicboost and Antbleed (those are also whole dirty rabbit holes by themselves):
That's how the Mafia operates, and joining the Mining Cartel and their leader Jihan Wu, there are some corrupt very rich individuals that want more power and control for themselves (some of them well-known scammers and felons) colluding with them like: Roger Ver, Craig Wright, Barry Seibert, John McAfee, Bobby Lee, Stephen Pair, Calvin Ayre, Vitalik Buterin, Ryan Charles, Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzic, Mike Hearn, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, etc.
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitpay-partners-bitmain-multi-million-dollar-agreement/
Must read post from u/cutepoops:
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cgzbv/so_i_did_5minutes_of_digging_and_oh_my_god/
Bitcoin Cash Operation: Collusion and Manipulation
On one of the numerous attacks against Bitcoin, one the most powerful and recent ones (SX2/NYA) they were also joined by some Banker's special forces embedded in DCG with Barry Seibert: Blythe Masters, Larry Summers, Glen Hutchins, etc. That's another deep rabbit hole and here's some interesting information and evidence.
Among their explicit objectives that they themselves stated multiple times, were to "fire" all Core developers (those meddling good guys opposing their take-over attempts) and they've been using some of these powerful tools to spread FUD, misinformation, Blockstream-Core conspiracies, etc:
So, remain sceptical and do your own research to decide on what side are you on, where to invest your money and what companies and individuals deserve your trust and support.
On the long term, none of those dramas matter anyway, Moneybadger don't care: Decentralized, Immutable, Trustless, Freedom-Giver, Worldwide-Distributed, Censorless, Permissionless, Antifragile technology's time has come and nothing can stop it.
"Even China Can't Kill Bitcoin"
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-24/even-china-can-t-kill-bitcoin
BILL GATES: “NOBODY CAN STOP BITCOIN”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0HmrSfJwhU
Andreas Antonopoulos: "No Governments can ban Bitcoin"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIQkuF_I5Xo
Edit: Added Antbleed.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Must watch people of Bitcoin: Vinny Lingham Intro to Bitcoin  Vinny Lingham  TEDxCapeTown - YouTube Vinny Lingham $1000 Bitcoin! 2017 enthusiasm, China thoughts, Vinny Lingham and Tone Vays were right! Vinny Lingham's Bitcoin hard fork warning, RogerCoin boycott, #SupportSegwit, $100 Dash, Steemit

Vinny Lingham believes bitcoin price only exceeded $1300 to as investment assets. Bitcoin entrepreneur VinnyLingham views on some things has always been outspoken. He said that he has only bitcoin as a speculative tool, rather than investment assets. The bitcoin community is in a bifurcation dispute deadlock, which is disadvantageous for all ... A blog by Vinny Lingham. Responses . A Tale of Two Bitcoins. Vinny Lingham. Follow. Jan 5, 2018 · 9 min read. It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair ... Bitcoin Miner Maker Ebang Narrows First Half Loss To $7 Million, as Covid-19 Hit Demand . Ebang International Holdings Inc., the Chinese maker of bitcoin mining hardware, reported a net loss of $6 ... Sobald Bitcoin-Unlimited eine Mehrheit von 50% erreicht, können die Miner Blöcke schürfen, die größer sind als 1 MB und damit den Transaktionsfluss erhöhen. Die Folge: Eine Hard Fork und damit eine Spaltung des Netzwerks. Warum ist Vinny Lingham gegen eine Hard Fork? Vinny Lingham glaubt, dass Bitcoin ohne eine Hard Fork das Potenzial hat die 3.000 US-Dollar zu erreichen. “Es ist ... Vinny Lingham is much more measured, seeing the merits in both strands of bitcoin, whilst remaining broadly supportive of the approach taken by Bitcoin Cash. The South African entrepreneur isn’t a fan of the elements that are “too extreme” and encourages both camps, Cash and Core, to “exercise some restraint”, particularly when it comes to asserting which brand of bitcoin is the true ...

[index] [18699] [9910] [13332] [27379] [13519] [45464] [5069] [3217] [26538] [18734]

Must watch people of Bitcoin: Vinny Lingham

Vinny Lingham on Blockchain. Learn all about the world of fintech and get certified in it with Rise, created by Barclays at https://www.42courses.com/courses... Vinny joins the show to talk about Civic.com a new secure identity platform as well as the failure of the Bitcoin ETF and bubles in Altcoins. Bitcoin is a cryptocurrency and worldwide payment system. It is the first decentralized digital currency, as the system works without a central bank or single administrator.The network is peer-to ... Vinny Lingham on Bitcoin. Learn all about the world of fintech and get certified with Rise, created by Barclays at https://www.42courses.com/courses/barclays... Here Vinny takes us through the creation and design of Bitcoin and explains how its technology and concept can be expanded to influence so much more that jus...

#