(13,025.81 $) Der aktuelle Bitcoin-Kurs live: BTC in USD ...

why can't a '50% limit' be built into the protocol?

would it not be possible to change the mining protocol to prevent payouts to pools with > 50% hp?
submitted by buddhathrower to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Let us not forget the original reason we needed the NYA agreement in the first place. Centralization in mining manufacturing has allowed for pools to grow too powerful, granting them the power to veto protocol changes, giving them bargaining powers where there should be none.

SegWit2x through the NYA agreement was a compromise with a group of Chinese mining pools who all march to the beat of the same drum. Antpool, ViaBTC, BTC.TOP, btc.com, CANOE, bitcoin.com are all financially linked or linked through correlated behavior. Antpool, ConnectBTC and btc.com being directly controlled by bitmain, and ViaBTC and Bitmain have a "shared investor relationship". If bitmain is against position A, then all those other pools have historically followed its footsteps. As Jimmy Song explains here the NYA compromise was because only a small minority of individuals with a disproportionate amount of hashrate were against Segwit (Bitmain and subsidiaries listed above), where the rest of the majority of signatories of NYA were pro-segwit. The purpose of the compromise was to prevent a chain split, which would cause damage to the ecosystem and a loss of confidence in bitcoin generally.
At current time of calculation, according to blockchain.info hashrate charts, these pools account for 47.6% of the hashrate. What does it matter if these pools are running a shell game of different subsidiaries or CEO's if they all follow a single individual's orders? 47.6% is enough hashrate right now to preform a 51% attack on the network with mining luck factored in. This statistic alone should demonstrate the enormous threat that Bitmain has placed on the entire bitcoin ecosystem. It has compromised the decentralized model of mining through monopolizing ASIC manufacturing which has lead to a scenario in which bitcoins security model is threatened.
But let us explore the reasoning behind these individuals actions by taking a look at history. First, Bitmain has consistently supported consensus breaking alternative clients by supporting bitcoin classic, supporting Bitcoin Unlimited and its horrifically broken "emergent consensus" algorithm, responding to BIP148 with a UAHF declaration, and then once realizing that BIP148/BIP91 would be successful at activating Segwit without splitting the network Bitmain abandoned its attempt at a "UAHF", and admitted that bitcoin cash is based on the UAHF on their blog post. The very notion of attempting to compromise with an entity to prevent a split that is supporting a split is illogical by nature and a pointless exercise.
Let us not forget that Bitmain was so diametrically opposed to Segwit that it sabatoged Litecoins Segwit Activation period to prevent Segwit from activating on Litecoin. Do these actions sound like a rational actor who has the best interests of bitcoin at heart? Or does this sound like an authoritarian regime that wants to stifle information at any cost to prevent the public from seeing the benefits that SegWit provides?
But the real question must still be asked. Why? Why would Bitmain who is so focused on increasing the blocksize to reduce fee pressure delay a protocol upgrade that both increases blocksize and reduces fee pressure? If miners are financially incentivized to behave in a way in which is economically favorable to bitcoin, then why would they purposefully sabatoge protocol improvements that will increase the long term success survival of bitcoin?
There is plenty of evidence that suggests covert ASICBOOST, a mechanism in which a ASIC miner short cuts bitcoins proof of work process (grinding nonce, transaction ordering) and an innovation that Bitmain holds a patent for in China is the real reason Bitmain originally blocked SegWits activation. It was speculated by Bitcoin Core developer Gregory Maxwell that this covert asicboost technology could earn Bitmain 100 Million dollars a year.
It is notable that Hardfork proposals that Bitmain has supported, such as Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin ABC/Bcash and now SegWit2x all preserve Bitmains covert asicboost technology while Segwit the soft fork breaks asicboosts effectiveness.
But if that is not enough of a demonstration of rational economic incentives to behave in such a way, then what about irrational reasons such a idelogical positions or pride?
Its no secret that Chinese miners dislike for bitcoin core matured when the Hong Kong agreement was broken. Many miners have consistently rationlized "firing bitcoin core developers" and we even have a direct account from a bitpay employee that said Jihan directly told him that is his purpose is to "get rid of blockstream and core developers". And while the Hong Kong agreement being broken is quite the muddied waters, there is proof in the blockchain that chinese miners were the first to break the terms of the agreement by mining a block with a alternative client. Some bitcoin core developers continued to work on HardFork proposals despite this, offering up public proposals, BIPs and released code to attempt to satisfy the terms of the agreement. Yet only in hindsight did everyone realize that no individual or individuals can force the entire bitcoin network to upgrade. It is only through the slow methodical process of social consensus building that we can get such a large decentralized global network to agree to upgrade the protocol in a safe manner. Yet to this day we still have bitter idelogical wars over this HK agreement "being broken" despite how long ago, and how clear the situation is in hindsight.
When you take into account the historical record of these individuals and businesses actions it clearly demonstrates a pattern of behavior that undermines the long term health of bitcoin. When you analyze their behavior from a rational economic viewpoint, you can clearly see that they are sabatoging the long term health of bitcoin to preserve short term profits.
Considering this information, why would other bitcoin ecosystem businesses "compromise" with such a malicious actor? Let us not forget that these actors were the entire reason we needed to compromise in the first place went ahead and forked the bitcoin network already creating the first bitcoin-shared-history altcoin, Bitcoin ABC. So we compromised with people to prevent the spliting of bitcoin, so that they could go ahead and split bitcoin? What illogical insanity is this? Why would you "stick to your guns" on an agreement that was nullified the moment Bitmain and ViaBTC supported a hardfork outside of the S2X agreement? Doubly questionably is your support when the hardfork is highly contentious and guaranteed to cause a split, damage bitcoin, create chaos and damage global confidence.
A lot of the signatories of the NYA agreement are payment processors and gateway businesses. Their financial health depends upon short term growth of bitcoin to increase business activity and shore up investors capital with revenue from that transactional growth. Their priorities are to ensure short term growth and to appease their investors. But their actions demonstrate a type of cause and effect that often occurs in markets across the world. By redistributing network resource costs to node operators they are simply shuffling costs to the public so that they can benefit in the short term without needing to allocate extra capital.
But these actions do not benefit the health of bitcoin long term. Splitting the network, once again, does not increase confidence in the bitcoin network. It does not foster growth. Increasing the blocksize after segwit already increases the blocksize will not get us any closer to VISA transaction levels from a statistical viewpoint. Increasing the TPS from 3 to 7 when we need to get to 30,000 TPS is quite an illogical decision at face value. Increasing the blocksize on-chain to get to that level would destroy any pretense at decentralization long before we even came close, and without decentralization we have no cenosorship resistence, fungibility. These are fundamental to the value of bitcoin as a network and currency. Polymath and industry wide respected crypto expert Nick Szabo has written extensively on scaling bitcoin and why layer 2 networks are essential.
To all the Signatories of the SegWit2X I ask you - What are you trying to accomplish by splitting bitcoin once again? What consensus building have you done to ensure that bitcoin wont suffer a catastrophic contentious hard fork? As it stands right now I only see a portion of the economic actors in the bitcoin ecosystem supporting S2X. No where near enough to prevent miners from supporting the legacy chain when there will be a large portion of the economy still operating on the legacy chain preserving its value. Where there is money Its going to be extremely difficult to topple the status quo/legacy network and the cards are stacked against you. Without full consensus from the majority of developers, economic actors/nodes, exchanges, payment processors, gateways, wallets....you will only fork yourself from the legacy network and reap destruction and chaos as the legacy chain and S2X battle it out.
If you truly support bitcoin and are dedicated to the long term success of bitcoin and your business, then why would you engage/compromise with demonstratably malicious actors within the bitcoin ecosystem to accomplish a goal that was designed by them to further monopolize/centralize their control, at the destruction of bitcoins security model?
Bitcoin core developers are actually positive on hardforks and want to eventually increase the legacy blocksize, they just wish to do it in a responsible manner that does not put the network at risk like SegWit2x does.
Also, it seems a rational engineering choice to optimize and compress transactions/protocols before increasing the blocksize. Things like SegWit, Schnorr, MAST are all great examples of things Bitcoin Core has done and is doing to increase on-chain scaling technology to the long term benefit of bitcoin.
The fate of bitcoin will be determined by users who choose when how and where they transact. If businesses attempt to force them on the S2X chain they will abandon those businesses to use a servicor that does not attempt through coercion to force them upon a specific forked network.
Finally, without replay protection there can be no clean split and no free market mechanism to determine the winner. I understand that this is purposefully designed this way, to force a war between the legacy chain and S2X, but if you stand for everything bitcoin stands for, then you as central actors will not try to force people onto your chain. Instead, you should allow the market to decide which chain is more valuable.
If you will not abandon this poisonous hardfork pill then please advocate/lobby to add default replay protection to the btc1 codebase. You cannot claim Free Market principals and then on the other side of your mouth collude with central actors to force protocol changes upon users. Either you believe in bitcoin, or you are here to join the miners in their poorly disguised behaviors to monopolize, subvert and sabatoge bitcoin.
submitted by Cryptolution to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

An attempt at a fully comprehensive look at how to scale bitcoin. Lets bring Bitcoin out of Beta!

 
WARNING THIS IS GOING TO BE A REALLY REALLY LONG POST BUT PLEASE READ IT ALL. SCALING BITCOIN IS A COMPLEX ISSUE! HOPEFULLY HAVING ALL THE INFO IN ONE PLACE SHOULD BE USEFUL
 
Like many people in the community I've spent the past month or so looking deeply into the bitcoin scaling debate. I feel there has never been a fully comprehensive thread on how bitcoin could scale. The closest I have seen is gavinandresen's medium posts back in the summer describing the problem and a solution, and pre-emptively answering supposed problems with the solution. While these posts got to the core of the issue and spawned the debate we have been having, they were quite general and could have used more data in support. This is my research and proposal to scale bitcoin and bring the community back together.
 
 
The Problem
 
There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution;
  • 'node distribution',
  • 'mining decentralisation',
  • 'network utility',
  • 'time',
  • 'adoption'.
 
 
Node Distribution
Bandwidth has a relationship to node count and therefore 'node distribution'. This is because if bandwidth becomes too high then fewer people will be able to run a node. To a lesser extent bandwidth also effects 'mining decentralisation' as miners/pool owners also need to be able to run a node. I would argue that the centralisation pressures in relation to bandwidth are negligible though in comparison to the centralisation pressure caused by the usefulness of larger pools in reducing variance. The cost of a faster internet connection is negligible in comparison to the turnover of the pools. It is important to note the distinction between bandwidth required to propagate blocks quickly and the bandwidth required to propagate transactions. The bandwidth required to simply propagate transactions is still low today.
New node time (i.e. the time it takes to start up a new node) also has a relationship with node distribution. i.e. If it takes too long to start a new node then fewer people will be willing to take the time and resources to start a new node.
Storage Space also has a relationship with node distribution. If the blockchain takes up too much space on a computer then less people will be willing to store the whole blockchain.
Any suitable solution should look to not decrease node distribution significantly.
 
Mining Decentralisation
Broadcast time (the time it takes to upload a block to a peer) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing broadcast time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Validation time (the time it to validate a block) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing validation time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Any suitable solution should look to not increase mining centralisation significantly.
 
Network Utility
Network Utility is one that I find is often overlooked, is not well understood but is equally as important. The network utility force acts as a kind of disclaimer to the other two forces. It has a balancing effect. Increasing the network utility will likely increase user adoption (The more useful something is, the more people will want to use it) and therefore decreasing network utility will likely decrease user adoption. User adoption has a relationship with node count. i.e. the more people, companies and organisations know about and use bitcoin, the more people, companies and organisations that will run nodes. For example we could reduce block size down to 10KB, which would reduce broadcast time and validation time significantly. This would also therefore reduce mining centralisation pressures significantly. What is very important to realise though is that network utility would also be significantly be reduced (fewer people able to use bitcoin) and therefore so would node distribution. Conversely, if we increased the block size (not the limit) right now to 10GB, the network utility would be very high as bitcoin would be able to process a large number of transactions but node distribution would be low and mining centralisation pressures would be high due to the larger resource requirements.
Any suitable solution should look to increase network utility as time increases.
 
Time
Time is an important force because of how technology improves over time. Technology improves over time in a semi-predicable fashion (often exponential). As we move through time, the cost of resources required to run the bitcoin network (if the resource requirements remained static) will decrease. This means that we are able to increase resource requirements proportional to technological improvements/cost reductions without any increase in costs to the network. Technological improvements are not perfectly predictable though so it could be advantageous to allow some buffer room for when technological improvements do not keep up with predictions. This buffer should not be applied at the expense of the balance between the other forces though (i.e. make the buffer too big and network utility will be significantly decreased).
 
 
Adoption
Increasing adoption means more people using the bitcoin/blockchain network. The more people use bitcoin the more utility it has, and the more utility Bitcoin has the more people will want to use it (network effect). The more people use bitcoin, the more people there that have an incentive to protect bitcoin.
Any suitable solution should look to increase adoption as time increases.
 
 
The Solution Proposed by some of the bitcoin developers - The Lightning Network
 
The Lightning Network (LN) is an attempt at scaling the number of transactions that can happen between parties by not publishing any transaction onto the blockchain unless it is absolutely necessary. This is achieved by having people pool bitcoin together in a "Channel" and then these people can transact instantly within that channel. If any shenanigans happen between any of the parties, the channel can be closed and the transactions will be settled on the blockchain. The second part of their plan is limit the block size to turn bitcoin into a settlement network. The original block size limit of 1MB was originally put in place by Satoshi as an anti-DOS measure. It was to make sure a bad actor could not propagate a very large block that would crash nodes and increase the size of the blockchain unnecessarily. Certain developers now want to use this 1MB limit in a different way to make sure that resource requirements will stay low, block space always remains full, fees increase significantly and people use the lightning network as their main way of transacting rather than the blockchain. They also say that keeping the resource requirements very low will make sure that bitcoin remains decentralised.
 
Problems with The Lightning Network
The LN works relatively well (in theory) when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions to the network are kept low. Unfortunately, when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions on the blockchain become high, the LN's utility is diminished. The trust you get from a transaction on the LN comes only from the trustless nature of having transactions published to the bitcoin network. What this means is that if a transaction cannot be published on the bitcoin network then the LN transaction is not secured at all. As transactions fees rise on the bitcoin blockchain the LN utility is diminished. Lets take an example:
  • Cost of publishing a transaction to the bitcoin network = $20
  • LN transaction between Bob and Alice = $20.
  • Transaction between Bob and Alice has problem therefore we want to publish it to the blockchain.
  • Amount of funds left after transaction is published to the blockchain = $20 - $20 = $0.
This is also not a binary situation. If for example in this scenario, the cost to publish the transaction to blockchain was $10 then still only 50% of the transaction would be secure. It is unlikely anyone really call this a secure transaction.
Will a user make a non-secured/poorly secured transaction on the LN when they could make the same transaction via an altcoin or non-cryptocurrency transaction and have it well secured? It's unlikely. What is much more likely to happen is that transaction that are not secured by bitcoin because of the cost to publish to the blockchain will simply overflow into altcoins or will simply not happen on any cryptocurrency network. The reality is though, that we don't know exactly what will happen because there is no precedent for it.
Another problem outside of security is convenience. With a highly oversaturated block space (very large backlog of transactions) it could take months to have a transaction published to the blockchain. During this time your funds will simply be stuck. If you want to buy a coffee with a shop you don't have a channel open with, instead of simply paying with bitcoin directly, you would have to wait months to open a channel by publishing a transaction to the bitcoin blockchain. I think your coffee might be a little cold by then (and mouldy).
I suggest reading this excellent post HERE for other rather significant problems with the LN when people are forced to use it.
The LN is currently not complete and due to its high complexity it will take some time to have industry wide implementation. If it is implemented on top of a bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network economy it will likely have very little utility.
 
Uses of The LN
The LN is actually an extremely useful layer-2 technology when it is used with it's strengths. When the bitcoin blockchain is fast and cheap to transact on, the LN is also extremely useful. One of the major uses for the LN is for trust-based transactions. If you are transacting often between a set of parties you can truly trust then using LN makes absolute sense since the trustless model of bitcoin is not necessary. Then once you require your funds to be unlocked again it will only take a short time and small cost to open them up to the full bitcoin network again. Another excellent use of LN would be for layer-3 apps. For example a casino app: Anyone can by into the casino channel and play using real bitcoins instantly in the knowledge that is anything nefarious happens you can instantly settle and unlock your funds. Another example would be a computer game where you can use real bitcoin in game, the only difference is that you connect to the game's LN channel and can transact instantly and cheaply. Then whenever you want to unlock your funds you can settle on the blockchain and use your bitcoins normally again.
LN is hugely more powerful, the more powerful bitcoin is. The people making the LN need to stick with its strengths rather than sell it as an all-in-one solution to bitcoin's scaling problem. It is just one piece of the puzzle.
 
 
Improving Network Efficiency
 
The more efficient the network, the more we can do with what we already have. There are a number of possible efficiency improvements to the network and each of them has a slightly different effect.
 
Pruning
Pruning allows the stored blockchain size to be reduced significantly by not storing old data. This has the effect of lowering the resource requirements of running a node. a 40GB unpruned blockchain would be reduced in size to 550MB. (It is important to note that a pruned node has lower utility to the network)
 
Thin Blocks
Thin blocks uses the fact that most of the nodes in the network already have a list of almost all the same transactions ready to be put into the blockchain before a block is found. If all nodes use the same/similar policy for which transactions to include in a block then you only need to broadcast a small amount of information across the network for all nodes to know which transactions have been included (as opposed to broadcasting a list of all transactions included in the block). Thin Blocks have the advantage of reducing propagation which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks.
 
libsecp256k1 libsecp256k1 allows a more efficient way of validating transactions. This means that propagation time is reduced which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. It also means reduced time to bootstrap the blockchain for a new node.
 
Serialised Broadcast
Currently block transmission to peers happens in parallel to all connected peers. Obviously for block propagation this is a poor choice in comparison to serial transmission to each peer one by one. Using parallel transmission means that the more peers you have, the slower the propagation, whereas serial transmission does not suffer this problem. The problem that serial transmission does suffer from though is variance. If the order that you send blocks to peers in is random, then it means sometimes you will send blocks to a peer who has a slow/fast connection and/or is able to validate slowly/quickly. This would mean the average propagation time would increase with serialised transmission but depending on your luck you would sometimes have faster propagation and sometimes have slower propagation. As this will lower propagation time it will also lower the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Serialised Broadcast Sorting
This is a fix for the variance that would occur due to serialised broadcast. This sorts the order that you broadcast a block to each peer into; fastest upload + validation speed first and slowest upload speed and validation speed last. This not only decreases the variance to zero but also allows blocks to propagation to happen much faster. This also has the effect of lowering the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Here is a table below that shows roughly what the effects these solutions should have.
Name Bandwidth Broadcast Time Validation Time New Node Time Storage Space
Pruning 1 1 1 1 0.014
Thin Blocks 0.42 0.1 0.1 1 1
libsecp256k1 1 1 0.2 0.6 1
Serialised Broadcast 1 0.5 1 1 1
KYN 1 0.75 1 1 1
Segregated Witness 1 1 1 0.4 1
TOTAL 0.42 0.0375 0.02 0.24 0.014
Multiplier 2.38 26.7 50 - 70
(The "multiplier" shows how many times higher the block size could be relative to the specific function.)
 
 
The Factors in Finding a Balanced Solution
 
At the beginning of this post I detailed a relatively simple framework for finding a solution by describing what the problem is. There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution; 'node distribution', 'mining decentralisation', 'network utility', 'time' and 'adoption'. The optimal solution needs to find a balance between all of these forces taking into account a buffer to offset our inability to predict the future with absolute accuracy.
To find a suitable buffer we need to assign a set of red line values which certain values should not pass if we want to make sure bitcoin continues to function as well as today (at a minimum). For example, percentage of orphans should stay below a certain value. These values can only be a best estimate due to the complexity of bitcoin economics, although I have tried to provide as sound reasoning as possible.
 
Propagation time
It seems a fair limit for this would be roughly what we have now. Bitcoin is still functioning now. Could mining be more decentralised? Yes, of course, but it seems bitcoin is working fine right now and therefore our currently propagation time for blocks is a fairly conservative limit to set. Currently 1MB blocks take around 15 seconds to propagate more than 50% of the network. 15 second propagation time is what I will be using as a limit in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Orphan Rate
This is obviously a value that is a function of propagation time so the same reasoning should be used. I will use a 3% limit on orphan rate in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $200 in the near-term and $600 in the long-term. I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for a business or enthusiast to pay to run a full node. As the number of transactions increases as more people use bitcoin the number of people willing to pay a higher price to run a node will also increase although the percentage of people will decrease. These are of course best guess values as there is no way of knowing exactly what percentage of users are willing to pay what.
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $3 in the near-term (next 5 years) and $9 in the long-term (Next 25 years). I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for normal bitcoin user to pay. In fact this cost will more likely be zero as almost all users have an amount of storage free on their computers.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 10% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Downstream is generally a much more valuable resource to a user than upstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 25% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Upstream is generally a much less valuable resource to a user than downstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
My limit for this value is at 5 days using 50% of downstream bandwidth in the near-term and 30 days in the long-term. This seems like a reasonable number to me for someone who wants to start running a full node. Currently opening a new bank account takes at least week until everything is set up and you have received your cards, so it seems to me people would be willing to wait this long to become connected. Again, this is a best guess on what people would be willing to do to access the blockchain in the future. Most users requiring less security will be able to use an SPV wallet.
It is important to note that we only need enough nodes to make sure the blockchain is distributed across many places with many backups of the full blockchain. It is likely that a few thousand is a minimum for this. Increasing this amount to hundreds of thousands or millions of full nodes is not necessarily that much of an advantage to node distribution but could be a significant disadvantage to mining centralisation. This is because the more nodes you have in the network, the longer it takes to propagate >50% of it.
 
Storage Cost Price Reduction Over Time
Storage cost follows a linear logarithmic trend. Costs of HDD reducing by 10 times every 5 years, although this has slowed over the past few years. This can be attributed to the flooding in South East Asia and the transition to SSD technology. SSD technology also follows the linear logarithmic trend of costs reducing 10 times every 5 years, or roughly decreasing 37% per year.
 
Average Upload and Download Bandwidth Increases Over Time
Average upload and download bandwidth increases in a linear logarithmic trend. Both upload and download bandwidth follow the same trend of doubling roughly every two years, or increasing 40% per year.
 
Price
I was hesitant to include this one here but I feel it is unavoidable. Contrary to what people say (often when the price is trending downwards) bitcoin price is an extremely important metric in the long-term. Depending on bitcoin's price, bitcoin's is useful to; enthusiasts->some users->small companies->large companies->nations->the world, in roughly that order. The higher bitcoin's price is the more liquid the market will be and the more difficult it will be to move the price, therefore increasing bitcoin's utility. Bitcoin's price in the long-term is linked to adoption, which seems to happen in waves, as can be seen in the price bubbles over the years. If we are planning/aiming for bitcoin to at least become a currency with equal value to one of the worlds major currencies then we need to plan for a market cap and price that reflect that. I personally think there are two useful targets we should use to reflect our aims. The first, lower target is for bitcoin to have a market cap the size of a major national currency. This would put the market cap at around 2.1 trillion dollars or $100,000 per bitcoin. The second higher target is for bitcoin to become the world's major reserve currency. This would give bitcoin a market cap of around 21 trillion dollars and a value of $1,000,000 per bitcoin. A final, and much more difficult target is likely to be bitcoin as the only currency across the world, but I am not sure exactly how this could work so for now I don't think this is worth considering.
 
As price increases, so does the subsidy reward given out to miners who find blocks. This reward is semi-dynamic in that it remains static (in btc terms) until 210,000 blocks are found and then the subsidy is then cut in half. This continues to happen until all 21,000,000 bitcoins have been mined. If the value of each bitcoin increases faster than the btc denominated subsidy decreases then the USD denominated reward will be averagely increasing. Historically the bitcoin price has increased significantly faster than subsidy decreases. The btc denominated subsidy halves roughly every 4 years but the price of bitcoin has historically increased roughly 50 fold in the same time.
 
Bitcoin adoption should happen in a roughly s-curve dynamic like every other technology adoption. This means exponential adoption until the market saturation starts and adoption slows, then the finally is the market becomes fully saturated and adoption slowly stops (i.e. bitcoin is fully adopted). If we assume the top of this adoption s-curve has one of the market caps above (i.e. bitcoin is successful) then we can use this assumption to see how we can transition from a subsidy paid network to a transaction fee paid network.
 
Adoption
Adoption is the most difficult metric to determine. In fact it is impossible to determine accurately now, let alone in the future. It is also the one of the most important factors. There is no point in building software that no one is going to use after all. Equally, there is no point in achieving a large amount of adoption if bitcoin offers none of the original value propositions. Clearly there is a balance to be had. Some amount of bitcoin's original value proposition is worth losing in favour of adoption, and some amount of adoption is worth losing to keep bitcoin's original value proposition. A suitable solution should find a good balance between the two. It is clear though that any solution must have increased adoption as a basic requirement, otherwise it is not a solution at all.
 
One major factor related to adoption that I rarely see mentioned, is stability and predictability. This is relevant to both end users and businesses. End users rely on stability and predictability so that they do not have to constantly check if something has changed. When a person goes to get money from a cash machine or spend money in a shop, their experience is almost identical every single time. It is highly dependable. They don't need to keep up-to-date on how cash machines or shops work to make sure they are not defrauded. They know exactly what is going to happen without having to expend any effort. The more deviation from the standard experience a user experiences and the more often a user experiences a deviation, the less likely a user is going to want to continue to use that service. Users require predictability extending into the past. Businesses who's bottom line is often dependent on reliable services also require stability and predictability. Businesses require predictability that extends into the future so that they can plan. A business is less likely to use a service for which they do not know they can depend on in the future (or they know they cannot depend on).
For bitcoin to achieve mass adoption it needs a long-term predictable and stable plan for people to rely on.
 
 
The Proposal
 
This proposal is one based on determining a best fit balance of every factor and a large enough buffer to allows for our inability to perfectly predict the future. No one can predict the future with absolutely certainty but it does not mean we cannot make educated guesses and plan for it.
 
The first part of the proposal is to spend 2016 implementing all available efficiency improvements (i.e the ones detailed above) and making sure the move to a scaled bitcoin happens as smoothly as possible. It seems we should set a target of implementing all of the above improvements within the first 6 months of 2016. These improvements should be implemented in the first hardfork of its kind, with full community wide consensus. A hardfork with this much consensus is the perfect time to test and learn from the hardforking mechanism. Thanks to Seg Wit, this would give us an effective 2 fold capacity increase and set us on our path to scalability.
 
The second part of the proposal is to target the release of a second hardfork to happen at the end of 2016. Inline with all the above factors this would start with a real block size limit increase to 2MB (effectively increasing the throughput to 4x compared to today thanks to Seg Wit) and a doubling of the block size limit every two years thereafter (with linear scaling in between). The scaling would end with an 8GB block size limit in the year 2039.
 
 
How does the Proposal fit inside the Limits
 
 
Propagation time
If trends for average upload and bandwidth continue then propagation time for a block to reach >50% of the nodes in the network should never go above 1s. This is significantly quickly than propagation times we currently see.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction (i.e. bandwidth does not increase as quickly as predicted) by 15% absolute and 37.5% relative (i.e. bandwidth improves at a rate of 25% per year rather than the predicted 40%) and we would still only ever see propagation times similar to today and it would take 20 years before this would happen.
 
Orphan Rate
Using our best guess predictions the orphan rate would never go over 0.2%.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative, orphan rate would never go above 2.3% and it would take over 20 years to happen.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a non-pruned full node would never exceed $40 with blocks consistently 50% full and would in fact decrease significantly after reaching the peak cost. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the maximum cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $90.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $100 by 2022 and $300 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $230 by 2022 and $650 in 2039. It is important to note that for storage costs to be as high as this, bitcoin will have to be enormously successful, meaning many many more people will be incentivised to run a full node (businesses etc.)
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a pruned full node would never exceed $0.60 with blocks consistently 50% full. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the max cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $1.30.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $1.40 by 2022 and $5 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $3.20 by 2022 and $10 in 2039. It is important to note that at this amount of storage the cost would be effectively zero since users almost always have a large amount of free storage space on computers they already own.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 0.3% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would still only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 4% (average).
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 1.6% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 24% (average) and this would take over 20 years to occur.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
Using our best guess predictions bootstrapping a new node onto the network should never take more than just over a day using 50% bandwidth.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and it would take one and 1/4 days to bootstrap the blockchain using 50% of the download bandwidth. By 2039 it would take 16 days to bootstrap the entire blockchain when using 50% bandwidth. I think it is important to note that by this point it is very possible the bootstrapping the blockchain could very well be done by simply buying an SSD with blockchain already bootstrapped. 16 days would be a lot of time to download software but it does not necessarily mean a decrease in centralisation. As you will see in the next section, if bitcoin has reached this level of adoption, there may well be many parties will to spend 16 days downloading the blockchain.
 
What if Things Turn Out Worse than the Worse Case?
While it is likely that future trends in the technology required to scale bitcoin will continue relatively similar to the past, it is possible that the predictions are completely and utterly wrong. This plan takes this into account though by making sure the buffer is large enough to give us time to adjust our course. Even if no technological/cost improvements (near zero likelihood) are made to bandwidth and storage in the future this proposal still gives us years to adjust course.
 
 
What Does This Mean for Bitcoin?
 
Significantly Increased Adoption
For comparison, Paypal handles around 285 transactions per second (tps), VISA handles around 2000tps and the total global non-cash transactions are around 12,400tps.
Currently bitcoin is capable of handling a maximum of around 3.5 transactions every second which are published to the blockchain roughly every 10 minutes. With Seg Wit implemented via a hardfork, bitcoin will be capable or around 7tps. With this proposal bitcoin will be capable of handling more transactions than Paypal (assuming Paypal experiences growth of around 7% per year) in the year 2027. Bitcoin will overtake VISA's transaction capability by the year 2035 and at the end of the growth cycle in 2039 it will be able to handle close to 50% of the total global non-cash transactions.
When you add on top second layer protocols( like the LN), sidechains, altcoins and off-chain transactions, there should be more than enough capacity for the whole world and every possible conceivable use for digital value transfer.
 
Transitioning from a Subsidy to a Transaction Fee Model
Currently mining is mostly incentivised by the subsidy that is given by the network (currently 25btc per block). If bitcoin is to widely successful it is likely that price increases will continue to outweigh btc denominated subsidy decreases for some time. This means that currently it is likely to be impossible to try to force the network into matching a significant portion of the subsidy with fees. The amount of fees being paid to miners has averagely increased over time and look like they will continue to do so. It is likely that the optimal time for fees to start seriously replacing the subsidy is when bitcoin adoption starts to slow. Unless you take a pessimistic view of bitcoin (thinking bitcoin is as big as it ever will be), it is reasonable to assume this will not happen for some time.
With this proposal, using an average fee of just $0.05, total transaction fees per day would be:
  • Year 2020 = $90,720
  • Year 2025 = $483,840.00
  • Year 2030 = $2,903,040.00
  • Year 2035 = $15,482,880.00
  • Year 2041 = $123,863,040.00 (full 8GB Blocks)
Miners currently earn a total of around $2 million dollars per day in revenue, significantly less than the $124 million dollars in transaction fee revenue possible using this proposal. That also doesn't include the subsidy which would still play some role until the year 2140. This transaction fee revenue would be a yearly revenue of $45 billion for miners when transaction fees are only $0.05 on average.
 
 
Proposal Data
You can use these two spreadsheets (1 - 2 ) to see the various metrics at play over time. The first spreadsheet shows the data using the predicted trends and the second spreadsheet shows the data with the worst case trends.
 
 
Summary
 
It's very clear we are on the edge/midst of a community (and possibly a network) split. This is a very dangerous situation for bitcoin. A huge divide has appeared in the community and opinions are becoming more and more entrenched on both sides. If we cannot come together and find a way forward it will be bad for everyone except bitcoin's competition and enemies. While this proposal is born from an attempt at finding a balance based on as many relevant factors as possible, it also fortunately happens to fall in between the two sides of the debate. Hopefully the community can see this proposal as a way of making a compromise, releasing the entrenchment and finding a way forward to scale bitcoin. I have no doubt that if we can do this, bitcoin will have enormous success in the years to come.
 
Lets bring bitcoin out of beta together!!
submitted by ampromoco to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

/r/Plex Lifetime Plex Pass Raffle Contest!

/Plex Lifetime Plex Pass Raffle Contest!

The contest is over. The winners have been announced below. Congratulations to the winners!

Reminder: You still have the opportunity to buy a lifetime Plex Pass for $119 USD while it is on sale!
Hello /Plex users!
Thanks to everyone for making /Plex such a great subreddit. We, the mods, have seen a lot of people helping out with great responses, and a lot of good discussion going on. We grew quite a bit this past year. In order to give back to the community, in the holiday spirit, we will be doing a Lifetime Plex Pass contest. Good luck to everyone!
The contest will be run as a raffle. Each entry is $1, up to a maximum of $10 (10 entries) per person. The entry period will be closed on Sunday, December 18, 2016, at 11:59:59pm PST. See the conversion to your timezone here. The drawing for the winner will be done shortly afterwards.
If you want to buy your own lifetime Plex Pass, it is currently discounted to $119 USD.
Please read the full contest rules below.

Contest Rules

  1. This contest is a raffle.
  2. Each entry is $1 USD (rounded down to the nearest whole dollar amount), up to a maximum of $10 (10 entries) per person. If you enter more than $10, you will only receive 10 entries. Entries beyond $10 USD will be void and invalid.
  3. Entries must be submitted using SwiftPanda16's PlexPy donation links below. Any other methods will not be accepted and your entries will void and invalid. (Do not use SwiftPanda16's ChangeTip donation link.)
  4. You must provide your Reddit username in the donation message (see "How to Enter" below) for the entry to be valid, otherwise the entry will not be associated with your account. Failure to include your Reddit username will result in your entry being void and invalid.
  5. Your Reddit account must be registered on or before Sunday, December 11, 2016. Reddit accounts registered after this date are not eligible for the contest.
  6. The total number of Plex Passes given away awarded will be based on the price of the lifetime Plex Pass at the time of the drawing that each Plex Pass is "unlocked" based on the total dollar amount of the entries received (see "Total Entries" below). If the price goes back up to $150, then, unfortunately, there will be fewer Plex Passes given away.
  7. 100% of the valid entries will go towards purchasing of Plex Passes. The more entries that are received, the more Plex Passes that will be given away! We (/Plex mods) will personally be funding the difference up to the next whole number Plex Pass(es). At least one Plex Pass will be given away.
    • Example: If the contributions total $200, we will fund the last $40 so that there will be two Plex Passes given away.
  8. Each user can only win a maximum of one (1) Plex Pass. Once a user has been selected, that user will be removed from the pool of entries for the drawing of the next Plex Pass.
  9. The selected winner(s) will be selected using Random.org after the entry period has closed.
  10. The selected winner(s) will be announced in this thread after the drawing (see "Winners" below).
  11. The selected winner(s) will be contacted and have 24 hours to respond. If the selected winner(s) does not respond within 24 hours, a new winner(s) will be selected until all Plex Passes are given away.
  12. Chances of winning will be based on the total number of entries received (see "Total Entries" below).
  13. /Plex mods are not eligible for the contest.
  14. Raffle entries will not be refunded after they have been received.

How to Enter

IMPORTANT: You must enter your Reddit username in the donation message for the entry to be valid and associated with your Reddit account.
NOTE: If you are buying more than one entry, please do so with one single transaction, instead of multiple $1 transactions, otherwise it will add additional PayPal fees.

Enter the contest here: Enter using PayPal | Enter using Bitcoin*

* Your number of Bitcoin entries will be calculated based on the BTC to USD conversion rate (rounded down to the nearest whole dollar amount) at the time of the entry.

Total Entries

The info below will be periodically updated to show the total number of entries.
  • Last updated: Monday, December 19, 2016 at 8:32 am PST
  • Current number of valid entries: $964.00 (964 entries)
  • Current number of invalid entries: $63.97 (63 entries)
  • Current number of Plex Passes: 8 Plex Passes
Some pretty charts and tables:
Plex Pass Date Unlocked Contribution from Entries Contribution from Mods
1 (Proof) 2016-12-12 $119.99 $0.00
2 (Proof) 2016-12-12 $119.99 $0.00
3 (Proof) 2016-12-13 $119.99 $0.00
4 (Proof) 2016-12-13 $119.99 $0.00
5 (Proof) 2016-12-14 $119.99 $0.00
6 (Proof) 2016-12-16 $119.99 $0.00
7 (Proof) 2016-12-16 $119.99 $0.00
8 (Proof) 2016-12-18 $124.07 $-4.08
Number of Entries Chances of Winning Rate of Return
1 0.83% 118.99x
2 1.65% 59.00x
3 2.47% 39.00x
4 3.28% 29.00x
5 4.09% 23.00x
6 4.89% 19.00x
7 5.68% 16.14x
8 6.47% 14.00x
9 7.25% 12.33x
10 8.03% 11.00x

Winners

Congratulations to the users listed below! You are now the owner of a shiny new lifetime Plex Pass!
Users have been contacted, and have 24 hours to respond in order to claim their prize.
Edits:
  • (2016-12-12 10:13 pm) Update to rule #6.
  • (2016-12-12 11:02 pm) Update to rule #8, 9, 10, 12, 14.
submitted by SwiftPanda16 to PleX [link] [comments]

Coin Rehabbing: The Art and Science. Chapter 1: Adopting a Coin

Welcome friend!
So you want to rehab a coin, eh? Decided that cryptocurrency is your game, and you're going to play it by finding something out there which already exists but is falling apart, and turn it around and make it Bitcoin 2.0, right?
Live the dream! But do it safely and carefully. I'll tell you how, for free (no guarantees of success; just my best guesses and personal experience so far; tanstaafl <=> you get what you pay for). No subscription, just read this. Why? I like to talk about what I like to do. And this is something I find very fun to do. After all, it's mostly been a hobby for me on the side.
"Coin rehabbing" is an idea I started to have around 2015, looking around at the explosion of coins and the low market caps of many of them as well as how many were dying off due to being abandoned. This made it so that it felt like you could just pick any idea you could think of: red, cat, dragon, whatever, and there's some clonecoin or something which is branded with it and many of them were cheap enough that buying 1% or something wasn't necessarily a big deal.
Now, I'll note that deciding to do a "coin rehabbing" approach is very different from a diversified, passive approach, which would take a little bit of a lot of these and 'forget' about them (but of course, not really forget or else would lose the value...). That latter, conservative and straightforward approach is one I would strongly recommend as a starting point to a newbie into cryptocurrency, after first starting with a basic starting coin or two (not that I'm giving investing advice, of course; heaven forfend!).
Coin rehabbing should be a decidedly advanced technique more for experts, or at least, more journeyman level than apprentice, although I'll admit I had no great knowledge when I started.
The switch from a passive to active investor can be fairly subtle or gradual in cryptocurrency. For me, it was rather intertwined almost from the very start with NYAN, although for many more coins I bought a tiny bit and did nothing with it. But with NYAN, I was doing the coin-a-day series at the time, and so published a piece on /cryptocurrency about it right from the start. I believe that post probably made some impact both then and at the time, even though it was not at all obvious to me at that time.
Of course, with cryptocurrency and Reddit, commenting about a cryptocurrency one owns is enough to at least make it grey if one is a passive or active investor (or gambler) at that point.
Regardless, for the rest of this and eventually these, I'll presume the reader has a basic familiarity but can always expand further upon request in comments or messages and may edit further later.
Okay, so, onto the heart of the matter: making your choice. I'd known there was Bitcoin for a while, and was gradually becoming aware there were a lot more coins out there. I figured there might actually be something of value somewhere, and a lot of them seemed pretty interesting, so I decided to just start looking around. I strongly recommend this approach. Start to read about as many different coins out there as you can. Produce write-ups. Publish those write-ups. Get feedback on them. Repeat. No buying or selling necessary or even particularly desirable until one has done this research (this despite my earlier claim that a person should be somewhat experienced; I'll say that it's the technical experience and not the size of the transaction (though perhaps its complexity sometimes, but just the basics are fine to start - I've never done a multisig yet myself) which is important). In fact, based on what I've found in the stock market, I feel like I was able to far more dispassionately observe it before I was betting it, just as one would expect.
The barrier to entry is very low to start to get involved with a coin, but it can be fairly high to maintain a presence with a coin, or it can be fairly low, depending on the approach one takes. Personally, I don't bother to follow almost anything at this point, just because I'm doing other things for the most part, but if I had more free time I'd definitely look at what is going on with a few different coins. But I think it makes sense to start to talk to a few different coins you're interested in just to get a feel for the variety and similarity of different communities and figure out what sort of opportunities interest you. The great thing about volunteer work is there's often plenty of it to go around. The less fortunate thing about it is there is still often a surprisingly large amount of politics going on.
Personally, I chose a "deadcoin" to adopt both because I wanted the ultimate challenge and also because I figured it would give me the best tabula rasa since no one would oppose anything I wanted to do with the coin, since there was no one else interested. Of course, this is a very slight exaggeration since there were some who still held coins at that point and of course there was Prohashing still running the pool and Cryptsy still listing the coin. I think it was about as close to a minimum viable coin as possible at that point. Technically, it would be possible to restart a coin from a stored blockchain even after the mining went down and the exchange was lost by restarting mining oneself and paying for a listing (or making an exchange, but that's a whole different type of challenge of even greater magnitude which I personally intend to never attempt myself). But I'm lazier than that, and since there were coins that had it anyhow, I didn't see any reason to bother with that. Besides, I didn't have any coins which I'd been running a node of and had some chain stored I wanted to revive.
I strongly recommend not doing what I did, in many ways, but that one included, because it is a much greater challenge. I think it's a better idea to be a "junior partner" type of position with a small coin that you like rather than trying to rekindle a fading ember. When you do well, you do better than you would've otherwise: the only money I've ever taken out of cryptocurrency has been from Nano (né Raiblocks), where I was a passive investor for over a year, not even realizing it was still alive after getting a bunch for free on the original faucet (I actually kind of needed the distraction at the time anyhow; rather enjoyed listening to X Minus One and playing ReCaptcha; international street and forest and such is actually kind of cool to see). That was in a lot of ways a complete strike of luck, but at the same time, it's one I wouldn't have been in the position to get lucky on if it hadn't been for the fact that I'd been writing and publishing my thoughts about cryptocurrency and what it should be, in that case, that transaction costs should be low or free if possible.
This is the key I think: as you look among these many options, what do you value? Not simply in the concept of trying to figure out the beauty contest of what other people will value, but what do you value? This is really the question, because since this is gambling and playing around with the very concept of value, it's pretty important by starting to define it for oneself.
To me, a long-term, forthright and frankly simple approach is the key. I'm lazy. I want things to be easy. Trying to trick people is not easy. Trying to trick people in cryptocurrency is especially not easy (despite how easy Buttcoin makes it look) as they're a group used to being tricked (as contradictory as that seems to the claim it's not easy to trick them, resolved: there is a stream of easy marks but I don't think the regulars are easy marks). And I'm not interested in having a lot of features to maintain and bugs to fix from those features and vanity changes or obfuscatory changes. That's all just a bunch of extra work.
Other than being honest and easy, I wanted to find a coin with a capped supply. I find the concept of a fixed supply of tokens of value very interesting since it takes away one of the core concepts of what we're used to with currency. I wanted to be able to have a million somethings myself, so it should have at least like 100+ of them so that I could always maintain at least that amount fairly reasonably.
And I was lucky enough to be in the right time and place to be looking at NYAN with its max supply of 337 million coins and thinking to myself that a million of them certainly looked pretty affordable. So I decided to adopt it. There wasn't one moment, at least that I can recall now, where I decided this, but as I bought more and learned more I decided I wanted to see where it could go. I haven't always been able to put as much time and effort into it as I would have liked but it's managed to survive, which I attribute mostly to having chosen well initially (and, most importantly and perhaps related: from the surprisingly large number of other people who have helped out before and after I got involved) rather than any particularly spectacular skill or decision making after, apart from perhaps patience and sustained interest.
In particular, I rather like having a clonecoin. It's well understood, which helps on absolutely everything from maintenance to listing to mining. It's true that it doesn't given any particular special advantages or different tech, but at the same time, it doesn't get any special disadvantages either. In cryptocurrency, I think that sort of "herd immunity" is more important than trying to be trailblazing, despite the fact that Nano/Raiblocks and many of the other currently most successful coins are not clones (and yet at least a couple are, which are generally now not thought of as clones since they exceed at least their direct ancestor now (Litecoin and Monero are the ones that come to mind, from Tenebrix and Bytecoin iirc as I'm too lazy to look up)).
That is one coin rehabbing selection I did that I would recommend to others who want an easy approach rather than a hard approach. And, conversely, it's an area where I gave myself a handicap instead of some "ultimate challenge". I knew that if I went for some huge challenge from the technical side it was extremely unlikely to survive. Instead, I wanted just an economic challenge rather than a technical one: how does a market cap, or more generally, the valuation of a coin rise over time? Sounds fairly simple, but is the key to a lot of cryptocurrency, and involves most of the rest of it.
It's led me to believing that the community is the basis of both the technical and financial results (on the latter, at least ultimately; more short-term wandering speculation without any particular interest certainly can have a major impact as well but for the most part my guess is that the market of a cryptocurrency will tend to reflect the financial interest and strength of the community behind it over the long-term), as I saw my own interest drive the price as I bid myself up trying to buy up as much NYAN as I could particularly in the first couple months I got involved at the start of 2015 (and bidding against some others from time to time), and then my lack of extra money to keep bidding at that rate and increasing the price eventually coincide with a sudden massive sale that ended that first initial bull market of the revival in early March 2015. For a long time, the chart of NYAN was basically a chart of my own financial health. In a lot of ways, it still is, but not as a result of me being the primary buyer at this point (I don't think; haven't logged into Cryptopia in quite a while; I suspect my last bids at this level whenever I placed them were filled and someone else is currently at this price as it's often been for a while now). Eventually, of course, for a coin to be meaningful, it probably should have more than one buyer, but NYAN survived with mostly me as the majority of its market for some time. Long enough there were certainly points I considered it a potential concern, but I was in no rush to do outreach marketing for a lot of reasons, particularly the many, many risks. Besides, I've always tried to stay fine with the idea that the coin can completely fail, because, of course, it can. So a lack of demand isn't particularly concerning when it happens or a massive sale, as I tend to expect them. Frankly, the rises should be more concerning, as they're the biggest opportunity for mistake and when it's most important to try to make sure people aren't making rash decisions or getting reckless. I regret not having shouted warnings in here more about a likely bubble during the last rise, which peaked at the start of this year but after such a long drought I'd been hopeful that it was less of a bubble than it appears obvious as in hindsight.
Okay, that's rather rambly and could really use an edit rather than a publish, but if I save for editing, I'll never do the rewrite and won't publish, and if I publish, I may someday revise and perhaps it'll be of some use or interest in current form so...here it is! I assert this is of no value whatsoever and thus is provided for no cost. I also assert it thus has no warranty, you shouldn't trade based on it, and you just generally should live a safe and cautious life, eat your vegetables, and live to a ripe old age comfortably and happily.
Chapter Motto (to be lovingly stolen from GoT House words): Growing Strong
submitted by coinaday to nyancoins [link] [comments]

Why some transactions aren't confirmed yet

This is not official statement from NiceHash, but my personal statement.
Our system is automatic. It processes payments automatically. We use BitGo for processing payments. BitGo makes estimation what kind of fee to set for transactions.
Today, some bad luck happened. Right after we dispatched transactions, Bitcoin TX flood started happening again, increased several times few hours later. You can see that on this chart: https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-size?timespan=24h
The fee estimation works according to past activity. Fee estimator cannot predict what kind of fees will be needed in the future (because at any time, flood can start happening) - it can only estimate needed fee according to the past activity.
If the TX flood did not happen, then all transactions would've be confirmed by now already.
We are really sorry for all the trouble this caused you. You are looking for someone to blame. And trust me, that is not NiceHash. You should blame spammers. They are the ones that are constantly disrupting Bitcoin network with spam TX. Second to blame are Chinese pools that could've supported segwit months ago already, but instead, they were even making jokes on 1st of April out of it. Third to blame are Bitcoin Core devs - they did not want to take some important measures such as increasing block size in the past due to their personal interests (greed).
Take it easy, transactions will be confirmed. And even if it would happen for some reason not to be confirmed (extremely unlikely), we will resend them. NiceHash has been operating for more than 3 years and we NEVER lost a single payment for any miner.
submitted by NHdjeZo to NiceHash [link] [comments]

Raspberry Pi Home Dashboard

I had a few requests of my home dashboard, and wanted to share with everyone how I put it together.
What you'll need:
Step 1: Instructions to Set Up the Raspberry Pi Itself:
Step 2: Set up the HTML File to Display
/home/pi/html
  1. Background.png
  2. Dashboard.html
  3. News.html
  4. Map.html
  5. Stocks.html
  6. ToDo.html
  7. Weather.html
  8. Calendar.html
FINAL Comments. This project probably took me 1h to set up the pi. And 4ish hours stumbling around to get the dashboard set up. My only real outlay was a monitor mount and a new monitor. Best of luck!
EDIT Here is the link for the current version of the dashboard. I removed the traffic for the weekend, but this is the dashboard. I have some formatting I really want to do (headings et al), but this should be a decent start. I have also included the color scheme I used.
submitted by fuzzyaces to raspberry_pi [link] [comments]

Part 1: Sequence Three: Nome, Fucking Nome

And that’s when Magda showed up at my bar.
She wasn’t a cop anymore. She’d gone full time ministry with Opus Dei years ago. I don’t know if she’s a nun or a sister or whatever. I never cared enough about that part of her life to ask. And she didn’t ever volunteer info about “The Work”. I knew her darkening my door was a bad sign.
“I’m retired,” First words out of my mouth.
Magda laughed and ordered a drink, “Can I buy you a shot?”
“Sure.” I tossed one back and didn’t charge her, “What are you doing here, Magda?”
“You don’t know, Clive?” (I decided to call myself Clive. It’s masculine and heroic but not overly so).
*************************************************************
(Rayne felt the need to interject at this point in the story.
“Are you kidding me? How much of this fake chitchat do we have to read?”
“I’m establishing her character.”
“No one cares, Clive (she uses my pseudonym with heavy sarcasm)”
“It’s literary,” I said defensively.
“If you’re not going to tell them how the conversation really went, just drop it. We already know you take the job, otherwise there’s no story. Skip to that part,” Rayne picked up the printout and flipped through it.
“Just right to part where she’s explaining it?”
“You can start where you’re dropped off by the limo. We don’t need to hear about how they flew you coach. How you hate Alaska, Nome in particular and we will get back to that by the way. We don’t need to hear about how you hated your hotel room. We get it. You’re a whiney baby.
And we sure don’t need a page and half of this bullshit where you write her kissing your ass. You don’t think it’s a little pompous to write her talking about how great you are?”
“I’m sure it’s what she really thinks. Even if she never says it.”
“Oh my god, what planet do you live on? Start here.”)
************************************************************************************************
I was hung over and believe me I looked it, but there was no bar in this car (it was not a limo). The short bus with everyone else had already left, not realizing I wasn’t on board (how’s that to give you confidence in a bunch of psychics?). I thought they called a car for me because of that (that’s how hung over I was. I delusionally thought there was a car service in Nome) This guy pulls up and waves at me. I got in the back seat and laid down. He started talking to me and I waved him off. Said something like, “Just get me there.”
Nome in fucking January. Of course I was drinking. It’s dark all day. Believe it or not, this was not my first visit to this place. It was my third. No offense to the people, but I hate it. And the people. They are… well they’re people who live in NOME. All the time. They are not normal.
So the guy tries to talk to me a few more times. I’m thinking, great, I got a chatty driver. I keep blowing him off. He pulls us into a church parking lot. The local Catholic Church. So I pulled myself together and got out. I handed the driver a five and mumbled thanks when he came over and stuck out his hand.
He looked at it, shrugged and pocketed it, then introduced himself. He was Agent Carter. From the FBI, consulting on an unofficial basis. He was the dude giving the presentation. He came and got me so he could finish this thing and get the fuck out of Nome.
Thankfully he wasn’t sticking around, because I could tell he didn’t like me.
Magda was waiting for us in the narthex. The way she looked at me. I can read everyone. But not her. I’m not psychic in the way, like I read your thoughts. I can’t do that. But I see or sense things other people don’t. One of my FBI teachers told me that I had (in her very scientific opinion) an acute sensitivity to micro-expressions, body language and perhaps pheromones (I don’t know how this would be possible since I have constant low-level allergy problems). The new-agey psychic trainers called it Clairsentience. All I know is I can’t separate it from my brain to tell you whether it’s supernatural or some kind of amplified natural human ability. Or both.
It’s like, the least impressive “Clair” you can get except for maybe Clairaudience (which I do not have. I do not hear a voice or voices. I promise. Like I would admit that if I did) which is just a new age term for crazy (then there’s Clairnasence. I have that. I also can’t control it. It turns on randomly. It sounds dumb, having a supernatural sense of smell. But it can be way more useful than you might think. Some people smell nice. But it can also be awkward when you meet someone and they smell like ozone or brimstone or just fucking deathrot).
This affliction never turns off. I can turn it down, like when I’m in a crowd, or working at a bar. I don’t need to read the inner feelings and thoughts of everyone around (it would amplify when necessary, again this was actually useful, really useful bartending) at any given time.
But it’s always on and the slightest…deviation, I don’t know what to call it, sets it into high gear. The intake of information can be overwhelming. Then it has to be processed. I have to come to a conclusion but the sheer amount of data makes the conclusions pretty simple. At worst I get it to a couple options. It’s pretty hard to fool me and it’s the rare person who can lie to me. I can read any one, if I focus on them. Almost anyone.
I mean, unless I’m really drunk or hung over. Illicit substances, alcohol especially, mess with this. So drinking perpetually was a solution for a while. Still is on occasion. I’m sure some of you are thinking how cool this would be. But all I want to do is turn it off. It’s useful, but imagine knowing everyone who dislikes you. When I was young this was hard on my ego, but what’s worse is when you can tell the people who love you, think you’re a shitbag.
Or watching the woman you love, fall out of love with you. And not being able to do anything about it.
I’m not describing this right. That happens to everyone. I just know it differently and instantly. It’s the first time I’ve tried to write about this. When it kicks into high gear, I can tell you almost exactly what you’re thinking, what you’re gonna do. And I’m rarely wrong. But whatever.
Magda. I was getting ‘vague disappointment’ from her. But then, maybe not. It was gone (and I was brutally hung over). She was a cypher again.
She ushered me and Carter into the sanctuary. Eleven other people were waiting, standing or sitting in the pews. Some were chatting softly, but quieted when Magda, Carter and I joined them (they don’t all matter right now, but we will meet everyone eventually, I suspect).
My insight immediately went off. Magda was the director, the coordinator. That made twelve of us on this operation. A significant number in numerology. A number of completeness. A novice in dealing with the occult would probably think this was a good omen. But I knew better.
There was a spiritual significance to this…whatever this was. I sat down and Magda introduced Agent Carter. Here in an extremely unofficial capacity, as a courtesy to...(he nodded to Magda at that point). This was a big deal for Agent Carter. Clandestine, unofficial shit (he didn’t look like he was enjoying it).
So we were sitting in this old Catholic church, which by my definition, was still freezing. Watching a power point on an old portable projector screen. I’m thinking what the fuck are we doing in Nome, to see this shit? We couldn’t have seen this at least in Fairbanks?
Then I saw it and understood. They didn’t want anyone to see this and bug out. And most of these people were seriously freaked out already. Now we were stuck in fucking Nome.
Here’s what the deal was. Carter was on perv patrol in some FBI tech unit, surfing the dark web like the cyberbadass he is, when he finds this locked room with a lot of traffic. He’s thinking child porn, sex trafficking, so he hacks it. Apparently this took a long time.
And he went on a long time about it and I’m sure I haven’t explained it right so far, so I’m not even gonna bother with that stuff. He was very proud of it. Let’s just say that.
What he found was a gaming site. There was a Spectator Entrance and a Player Entrance. There was a minimum fee for the spectator entrance. Paid in Bitcoin, it was something like twenty grand. No fee for the player entrance. Only one button on that screen, to upload a photo.
Well the FBI paid the spectator fee (before you ask, they did try to upload photos to join the player list. They got Hollywood guys to fake up some gruesome photos, even used fresh cadavers. It never worked). Carter explained how they covered their tracks. He was very proud of this. I think he said this to make us feel safe or safer or some shit. I didn’t care.
The minimum fee brought you to a scoreboard. There were three categories listed. The first one was a raw score. On a point system. The top one hundred were listed. And if anyone thinks a hundred serial killers is a lot, A, this is world wide (though mostly in North America with Russia a very close second and Europe in third, no I don’t know how they figured that out. It was on a pie chart on the power point) and B, the current estimate is that there are around two thousand serial killers currently operating in the U.S. While this number is not officially accepted, every one on the ground in Federal Law Enforcement takes it seriously. I suspect that number is low.
So the first category was a point system based on type of activity. Points for how you killed them, strangulation got more points than shooting, for example. Cannibalism got big points. Desecrating the body (in a religious, specifically Christian sense in the photos I saw, but there was some Jewish and Muslim body desecration here and there) also scored very high. Purposeful public display of the victims (called mannequins) scored the highest. Twenty-thousand dollars got you access to that list and four or five highlight photos for the top twelve players and their stats. Stats and one photo each for the remaining eighty-eight in the top one hundred.
More money got you more access. And the prices grew steeply, a hundred grand, two hundred, a half million, a million. Access to live feeds (some players had private kill rooms that were live-streamed. This didn’t give them any extra points on the Raw score, apparently it didn’t fit their definition of public, but affected the other rankings), fan pages where you could text with your favorite. The FBI only paid the first twenty grand.
You could also bet on them.
What’s the challenge to betting on players when you can see their score ranking? Well the two other categories kept the player scores hidden (and they had all kinds of betting options, like next to post a kill and..., well..., it’s not important). The second category was literally judged like Ice Skating. It was a Total Execution Score, broken down into Technical Execution Score and the Component Exegesis Score. Basically how skillfully did you do the job and how much artistry did you put into it. The top twelve identifiers were listed, with no photos. But they were different from the top 12 in the Raw score (there were no rankings, the identifiers were a random mix of letters and numbers, so I didn’t bother to check where they were in the top 100 on the Raw).
What mattered was the top scorers were totally different. The category was judged by The Nine. Another significant number and definitely, no doubt in my mind, an indication that Occult powers and fools who think they’re wielding them are behind this. There is no way you have a serial killer contest on the dark web, with a category judged by a group called The Nine and not figure out, right off the bat, it’s fucking satanic. Right? It’s like no one in the FBI watches TV.
That’s actually not true. They did acknowledge a likely occult link. They just don’t think that shit is real. And it fucking is. That is a distinction that makes a difference in how you have a conversation about this.
And the implications of this? Fucking mindblowing. Did I not mention? The prize was a hundred million dollars. Deposited by bitcoin into a pre-arranged offshore account in some shady country. There were tens of thousands of subcribers. But still. Some one rich was behind this. Or a lot of someones.
The FBI guy was saying they thought it was a Russian mob thing. Or the Chinese. Yeah, fuckin’ right. I mean, theoretically it’s possible and I know from personal experience that Russians are fucking crazy. But no. And the Chinese? This is not their Black Mirro1984 style. Though there were no players in China or most of Asia for that matter. So who fucking knows? It just feels like something else. A non-state player, and a heavy hitter.
The final category was based on the player’s number of subscribers and the odds the betting was generating for each player. No player IDs or photos were available, no rankings visible. It was another 20 grand to get the basic package for each category and the FBI wasn’t paying since they couldn’t get any actionable information from the numerous photos they did have (at least that was their fucking excuse). They were still trying to hack the entire system (some were convinced it was an elaborate hoax. Seriously?). No luck so far. And apparently that was FBI’s whole plan. Agent Carter wasn’t so proud of that.
It was at this point that Magda looked at me and said, “Have you ever seen anything like this, Clive?”
I know why she’s asking me, but still. What does she think I’m gonna say? Oh sure, in 08, yeah we had this problem. We called John McAfee and he fixed it right up.
What I said was, “Uh, no.”
Then this incredibly hot woman, 28, but looks 16, wait, no that’s gross. Looks 22. She speaks and the sound of her voice is like violins on the wind floating over the peaks of snow-capped mountains. Her eyes are glistening blue pools of sword-edge sharp intelligence. Her body…
**************************************************************************************
(Ok, Rayne has a lot to say about this part. An extensive amount. But it’s not important. However I do have to stop here).
*****************************************************************************************
This wildly attractive, vibrant young woman spoke. I was instantly drawn to her.
“Why are you asking him? Why not ask the rest of us?”
Everyone there shifted uncomfortably in their seats. They didn’t even want to be there and I knew several badly wanted to run away. There was just no where to run. They didn’t want to be asked anything.
But what I said was something like, “Sweetheart, if I haven’t seen anything like this, you sure haven’t.”
Apparently Rayne felt this was condescending.
I disagreed but something in her manner told me she thought she had something significant.
“I saw it out of body. I was drawn to a home, to a man and he was looking at this screen. He was uploading photos.”
Everyone stared at her, including me. She didn't care, "What? Like we don't all know why we're here? We're all weird and can do shit we shouldn't be able to do, am I wrong? So what's up with all the jaws dropping?"
“So you’re an Astral? What’s your accuracy percentage on staying close to the real world?” I said.
(We tested Astrals on this in the OOGE. The farther they got from their bodies, the less accurate most became in interacting with or observing the real world. There were some exceptions, but most bounced into other dimensions or dreamlike worlds, and sometimes this was what we wanted. A lot of times it wasn’t. This was one area where training was effective.)
“What?”
“How often do you float off into lala land or other dimensions or just let your own mind warp your perceptions?”
(As I said, this is a real issue with Astral Projection, especially for intelligence work. Many times the information we need is tangible. If you’re an Astral and you can’t reliably bring home the real world bacon, you’re useless. Or you bounce into another dimension and piss off something. Or numerous other unspeakable problems which are possible.)
At this point a lot more was said, in fact a ridiculous argument that everyone at the table had ridiculous perspectives on. It would have made me seriously consider that these people were outright phonies, if I hadn’t already assumed that.
Also I didn’t know any of them. Never heard of any of them. But then again, there’s no Facebook page for really, really real “psychics”. You want to join? Guess the password. Of course I probably couldn’t get into that group.
There were some nasty words when it was revealed that I do not astral project. Not one of my afflictions. But I am an expert on it, in theory. I have worked with a lot of them. Trained them (though I have never seen anyone get trained for Astral Projection successfully who had not spontaneously had an OBE already. In my experience you can either do it or you can’t. If you can, you can be trained to control it… to some degree or another). So I wasn’t just being an arrogant ass.
When we got back to the topic at hand, I asked Rayne, ”So do you have anything that’s useful? Like his location? Or what-“
She pulled out a picture. She had drawn a remarkably skillful portrait of a dignified man in his fifties. She had drawn another one of him, hunched over the computer, jerking off viciously to pictures of dismembered corpses. The look on his face in that one was…disturbing. Like, drooling hateful lust. A kind of imbecilic evil.
Suddenly I felt certain of her, of her skills. That was a real magic moment. Really. I felt like I met a kindred soul for the first time since I left the OOGE. And it was a hot girl. Awesome.
So Carter said some more stuff that didn’t matter and that started another pointless argument, though this time, about half the group want to get the fuck out of there, no matter how good the money was for this job. Like no fucking way. I could understand. What was the plan here? Psychics Vs. Serial Killers?
And I was more worried there actually was a plan here. I just couldn’t see it yet.
Magda got everyone calmed down and over dinner everyone agreed to stay to the next phase, which was perfectly safe. We were assured that it was. That we could all bail out immediately after that phase, just get on the plane and leave Nome and say good-bye to this…whatever this was. More than half were voting for that option already. Too bad voting never makes a difference in fate. It just didn’t matter by that point.
Agent Carter got the fuck out of there, though. Like I wished I could. I heard he died about three months after that. Car accident. Don’t know the circumstances and didn’t ask.
submitted by TheRealClive to u/TheRealClive [link] [comments]

An attempt at a fully comprehensive look at how to scale bitcoin. Lets bring Bitcoin out of Beta!

 
WARNING THIS IS GOING TO BE A REALLY REALLY LONG POST BUT PLEASE READ IT ALL. SCALING BITCOIN IS A COMPLEX ISSUE! HOPEFULLY HAVING ALL THE INFO IN ONE PLACE SHOULD BE USEFUL
 
Like many people in the community I've spent the past month or so looking deeply into the bitcoin scaling debate. I feel there has never been a fully comprehensive thread on how bitcoin could scale. The closest I have seen is gavinandresen's medium posts back in the summer describing the problem and a solution, and pre-emptively answering supposed problems with the solution. While these posts got to the core of the issue and spawned the debate we have been having, they were quite general and could have used more data in support. This is my research and proposal to scale bitcoin and bring the community back together.
 
 
The Problem
 
There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution;
  • 'node distribution',
  • 'mining decentralisation',
  • 'network utility',
  • 'time',
  • 'adoption'.
 
 
Node Distribution
Bandwidth has a relationship to node count and therefore 'node distribution'. This is because if bandwidth becomes too high then fewer people will be able to run a node. To a lesser extent bandwidth also effects 'mining decentralisation' as miners/pool owners also need to be able to run a node. I would argue that the centralisation pressures in relation to bandwidth are negligible though in comparison to the centralisation pressure caused by the usefulness of larger pools in reducing variance. The cost of a faster internet connection is negligible in comparison to the turnover of the pools. It is important to note the distinction between bandwidth required to propagate blocks quickly and the bandwidth required to propagate transactions. The bandwidth required to simply propagate transactions is still low today.
New node time (i.e. the time it takes to start up a new node) also has a relationship with node distribution. i.e. If it takes too long to start a new node then fewer people will be willing to take the time and resources to start a new node.
Storage Space also has a relationship with node distribution. If the blockchain takes up too much space on a computer then less people will be willing to store the whole blockchain.
Any suitable solution should look to not decrease node distribution significantly.
 
Mining Decentralisation
Broadcast time (the time it takes to upload a block to a peer) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing broadcast time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Validation time (the time it to validate a block) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing validation time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Any suitable solution should look to not increase mining centralisation significantly.
 
Network Utility
Network Utility is one that I find is often overlooked, is not well understood but is equally as important. The network utility force acts as a kind of disclaimer to the other two forces. It has a balancing effect. Increasing the network utility will likely increase user adoption (The more useful something is, the more people will want to use it) and therefore decreasing network utility will likely decrease user adoption. User adoption has a relationship with node count. i.e. the more people, companies and organisations know about and use bitcoin, the more people, companies and organisations that will run nodes. For example we could reduce block size down to 10KB, which would reduce broadcast time and validation time significantly. This would also therefore reduce mining centralisation pressures significantly. What is very important to realise though is that network utility would also be significantly be reduced (fewer people able to use bitcoin) and therefore so would node distribution. Conversely, if we increased the block size (not the limit) right now to 10GB, the network utility would be very high as bitcoin would be able to process a large number of transactions but node distribution would be low and mining centralisation pressures would be high due to the larger resource requirements.
Any suitable solution should look to increase network utility as time increases.
 
Time
Time is an important force because of how technology improves over time. Technology improves over time in a semi-predicable fashion (often exponential). As we move through time, the cost of resources required to run the bitcoin network (if the resource requirements remained static) will decrease. This means that we are able to increase resource requirements proportional to technological improvements/cost reductions without any increase in costs to the network. Technological improvements are not perfectly predictable though so it could be advantageous to allow some buffer room for when technological improvements do not keep up with predictions. This buffer should not be applied at the expense of the balance between the other forces though (i.e. make the buffer too big and network utility will be significantly decreased).
 
 
Adoption
Increasing adoption means more people using the bitcoin/blockchain network. The more people use bitcoin the more utility it has, and the more utility Bitcoin has the more people will want to use it (network effect). The more people use bitcoin, the more people there that have an incentive to protect bitcoin.
Any suitable solution should look to increase adoption as time increases.
 
 
The Solution Proposed by some of the bitcoin developers - The Lightning Network
 
The Lightning Network (LN) is an attempt at scaling the number of transactions that can happen between parties by not publishing any transaction onto the blockchain unless it is absolutely necessary. This is achieved by having people pool bitcoin together in a "Channel" and then these people can transact instantly within that channel. If any shenanigans happen between any of the parties, the channel can be closed and the transactions will be settled on the blockchain. The second part of their plan is limit the block size to turn bitcoin into a settlement network. The original block size limit of 1MB was originally put in place by Satoshi as an anti-DOS measure. It was to make sure a bad actor could not propagate a very large block that would crash nodes and increase the size of the blockchain unnecessarily. Certain developers now want to use this 1MB limit in a different way to make sure that resource requirements will stay low, block space always remains full, fees increase significantly and people use the lightning network as their main way of transacting rather than the blockchain. They also say that keeping the resource requirements very low will make sure that bitcoin remains decentralised.
 
Problems with The Lightning Network
The LN works relatively well (in theory) when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions to the network are kept low. Unfortunately, when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions on the blockchain become high, the LN's utility is diminished. The trust you get from a transaction on the LN comes only from the trustless nature of having transactions published to the bitcoin network. What this means is that if a transaction cannot be published on the bitcoin network then the LN transaction is not secured at all. As transactions fees rise on the bitcoin blockchain the LN utility is diminished. Lets take an example:
  • Cost of publishing a transaction to the bitcoin network = $20
  • LN transaction between Bob and Alice = $20.
  • Transaction between Bob and Alice has problem therefore we want to publish it to the blockchain.
  • Amount of funds left after transaction is published to the blockchain = $20 - $20 = $0.
This is also not a binary situation. If for example in this scenario, the cost to publish the transaction to blockchain was $10 then still only 50% of the transaction would be secure. It is unlikely anyone really call this a secure transaction.
Will a user make a non-secured/poorly secured transaction on the LN when they could make the same transaction via an altcoin or non-cryptocurrency transaction and have it well secured? It's unlikely. What is much more likely to happen is that transaction that are not secured by bitcoin because of the cost to publish to the blockchain will simply overflow into altcoins or will simply not happen on any cryptocurrency network. The reality is though, that we don't know exactly what will happen because there is no precedent for it.
Another problem outside of security is convenience. With a highly oversaturated block space (very large backlog of transactions) it could take months to have a transaction published to the blockchain. During this time your funds will simply be stuck. If you want to buy a coffee with a shop you don't have a channel open with, instead of simply paying with bitcoin directly, you would have to wait months to open a channel by publishing a transaction to the bitcoin blockchain. I think your coffee might be a little cold by then (and mouldy).
I suggest reading this excellent post HERE for other rather significant problems with the LN when people are forced to use it.
The LN is currently not complete and due to its high complexity it will take some time to have industry wide implementation. If it is implemented on top of a bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network economy it will likely have very little utility.
 
Uses of The LN
The LN is actually an extremely useful layer-2 technology when it is used with it's strengths. When the bitcoin blockchain is fast and cheap to transact on, the LN is also extremely useful. One of the major uses for the LN is for trust-based transactions. If you are transacting often between a set of parties you can truly trust then using LN makes absolute sense since the trustless model of bitcoin is not necessary. Then once you require your funds to be unlocked again it will only take a short time and small cost to open them up to the full bitcoin network again. Another excellent use of LN would be for layer-3 apps. For example a casino app: Anyone can by into the casino channel and play using real bitcoins instantly in the knowledge that is anything nefarious happens you can instantly settle and unlock your funds. Another example would be a computer game where you can use real bitcoin in game, the only difference is that you connect to the game's LN channel and can transact instantly and cheaply. Then whenever you want to unlock your funds you can settle on the blockchain and use your bitcoins normally again.
LN is hugely more powerful, the more powerful bitcoin is. The people making the LN need to stick with its strengths rather than sell it as an all-in-one solution to bitcoin's scaling problem. It is just one piece of the puzzle.
 
 
Improving Network Efficiency
 
The more efficient the network, the more we can do with what we already have. There are a number of possible efficiency improvements to the network and each of them has a slightly different effect.
 
Pruning
Pruning allows the stored blockchain size to be reduced significantly by not storing old data. This has the effect of lowering the resource requirements of running a node. a 40GB unpruned blockchain would be reduced in size to 550MB. (It is important to note that a pruned node has lower utility to the network)
 
Thin Blocks
Thin blocks uses the fact that most of the nodes in the network already have a list of almost all the same transactions ready to be put into the blockchain before a block is found. If all nodes use the same/similar policy for which transactions to include in a block then you only need to broadcast a small amount of information across the network for all nodes to know which transactions have been included (as opposed to broadcasting a list of all transactions included in the block). Thin Blocks have the advantage of reducing propagation which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks.
 
libsecp256k1 libsecp256k1 allows a more efficient way of validating transactions. This means that propagation time is reduced which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. It also means reduced time to bootstrap the blockchain for a new node.
 
Serialised Broadcast
Currently block transmission to peers happens in parallel to all connected peers. Obviously for block propagation this is a poor choice in comparison to serial transmission to each peer one by one. Using parallel transmission means that the more peers you have, the slower the propagation, whereas serial transmission does not suffer this problem. The problem that serial transmission does suffer from though is variance. If the order that you send blocks to peers in is random, then it means sometimes you will send blocks to a peer who has a slow/fast connection and/or is able to validate slowly/quickly. This would mean the average propagation time would increase with serialised transmission but depending on your luck you would sometimes have faster propagation and sometimes have slower propagation. As this will lower propagation time it will also lower the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Serialised Broadcast Sorting
This is a fix for the variance that would occur due to serialised broadcast. This sorts the order that you broadcast a block to each peer into; fastest upload + validation speed first and slowest upload speed and validation speed last. This not only decreases the variance to zero but also allows blocks to propagation to happen much faster. This also has the effect of lowering the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Here is a table below that shows roughly what the effects these solutions should have.
Name Bandwidth Broadcast Time Validation Time New Node Time Storage Space
Pruning 1 1 1 1 0.014
Thin Blocks 0.42 0.1 0.1 1 1
libsecp256k1 1 1 0.2 0.6 1
Serialised Broadcast 1 0.5 1 1 1
KYN 1 0.75 1 1 1
Segregated Witness 1 1 1 0.4 1
TOTAL 0.42 0.0375 0.02 0.24 0.014
Multiplier 2.38 26.7 50 - 70
(The "multiplier" shows how many times higher the block size could be relative to the specific function.)
 
 
The Factors in Finding a Balanced Solution
 
At the beginning of this post I detailed a relatively simple framework for finding a solution by describing what the problem is. There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution; 'node distribution', 'mining decentralisation', 'network utility', 'time' and 'adoption'. The optimal solution needs to find a balance between all of these forces taking into account a buffer to offset our inability to predict the future with absolute accuracy.
To find a suitable buffer we need to assign a set of red line values which certain values should not pass if we want to make sure bitcoin continues to function as well as today (at a minimum). For example, percentage of orphans should stay below a certain value. These values can only be a best estimate due to the complexity of bitcoin economics, although I have tried to provide as sound reasoning as possible.
 
Propagation time
It seems a fair limit for this would be roughly what we have now. Bitcoin is still functioning now. Could mining be more decentralised? Yes, of course, but it seems bitcoin is working fine right now and therefore our currently propagation time for blocks is a fairly conservative limit to set. Currently 1MB blocks take around 15 seconds to propagate more than 50% of the network. 15 second propagation time is what I will be using as a limit in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Orphan Rate
This is obviously a value that is a function of propagation time so the same reasoning should be used. I will use a 3% limit on orphan rate in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $200 in the near-term and $600 in the long-term. I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for a business or enthusiast to pay to run a full node. As the number of transactions increases as more people use bitcoin the number of people willing to pay a higher price to run a node will also increase although the percentage of people will decrease. These are of course best guess values as there is no way of knowing exactly what percentage of users are willing to pay what.
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $3 in the near-term (next 5 years) and $9 in the long-term (Next 25 years). I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for normal bitcoin user to pay. In fact this cost will more likely be zero as almost all users have an amount of storage free on their computers.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 10% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Downstream is generally a much more valuable resource to a user than upstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 25% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Upstream is generally a much less valuable resource to a user than downstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
My limit for this value is at 5 days using 50% of downstream bandwidth in the near-term and 30 days in the long-term. This seems like a reasonable number to me for someone who wants to start running a full node. Currently opening a new bank account takes at least week until everything is set up and you have received your cards, so it seems to me people would be willing to wait this long to become connected. Again, this is a best guess on what people would be willing to do to access the blockchain in the future. Most users requiring less security will be able to use an SPV wallet.
It is important to note that we only need enough nodes to make sure the blockchain is distributed across many places with many backups of the full blockchain. It is likely that a few thousand is a minimum for this. Increasing this amount to hundreds of thousands or millions of full nodes is not necessarily that much of an advantage to node distribution but could be a significant disadvantage to mining centralisation. This is because the more nodes you have in the network, the longer it takes to propagate >50% of it.
 
Storage Cost Price Reduction Over Time
Storage cost follows a linear logarithmic trend. Costs of HDD reducing by 10 times every 5 years, although this has slowed over the past few years. This can be attributed to the flooding in South East Asia and the transition to SSD technology. SSD technology also follows the linear logarithmic trend of costs reducing 10 times every 5 years, or roughly decreasing 37% per year.
 
Average Upload and Download Bandwidth Increases Over Time
Average upload and download bandwidth increases in a linear logarithmic trend. Both upload and download bandwidth follow the same trend of doubling roughly every two years, or increasing 40% per year.
 
Price
I was hesitant to include this one here but I feel it is unavoidable. Contrary to what people say (often when the price is trending downwards) bitcoin price is an extremely important metric in the long-term. Depending on bitcoin's price, bitcoin's is useful to; enthusiasts->some users->small companies->large companies->nations->the world, in roughly that order. The higher bitcoin's price is the more liquid the market will be and the more difficult it will be to move the price, therefore increasing bitcoin's utility. Bitcoin's price in the long-term is linked to adoption, which seems to happen in waves, as can be seen in the price bubbles over the years. If we are planning/aiming for bitcoin to at least become a currency with equal value to one of the worlds major currencies then we need to plan for a market cap and price that reflect that. I personally think there are two useful targets we should use to reflect our aims. The first, lower target is for bitcoin to have a market cap the size of a major national currency. This would put the market cap at around 2.1 trillion dollars or $100,000 per bitcoin. The second higher target is for bitcoin to become the world's major reserve currency. This would give bitcoin a market cap of around 21 trillion dollars and a value of $1,000,000 per bitcoin. A final, and much more difficult target is likely to be bitcoin as the only currency across the world, but I am not sure exactly how this could work so for now I don't think this is worth considering.
 
As price increases, so does the subsidy reward given out to miners who find blocks. This reward is semi-dynamic in that it remains static (in btc terms) until 210,000 blocks are found and then the subsidy is then cut in half. This continues to happen until all 21,000,000 bitcoins have been mined. If the value of each bitcoin increases faster than the btc denominated subsidy decreases then the USD denominated reward will be averagely increasing. Historically the bitcoin price has increased significantly faster than subsidy decreases. The btc denominated subsidy halves roughly every 4 years but the price of bitcoin has historically increased roughly 50 fold in the same time.
 
Bitcoin adoption should happen in a roughly s-curve dynamic like every other technology adoption. This means exponential adoption until the market saturation starts and adoption slows, then the finally is the market becomes fully saturated and adoption slowly stops (i.e. bitcoin is fully adopted). If we assume the top of this adoption s-curve has one of the market caps above (i.e. bitcoin is successful) then we can use this assumption to see how we can transition from a subsidy paid network to a transaction fee paid network.
 
Adoption
Adoption is the most difficult metric to determine. In fact it is impossible to determine accurately now, let alone in the future. It is also the one of the most important factors. There is no point in building software that no one is going to use after all. Equally, there is no point in achieving a large amount of adoption if bitcoin offers none of the original value propositions. Clearly there is a balance to be had. Some amount of bitcoin's original value proposition is worth losing in favour of adoption, and some amount of adoption is worth losing to keep bitcoin's original value proposition. A suitable solution should find a good balance between the two. It is clear though that any solution must have increased adoption as a basic requirement, otherwise it is not a solution at all.
 
One major factor related to adoption that I rarely see mentioned, is stability and predictability. This is relevant to both end users and businesses. End users rely on stability and predictability so that they do not have to constantly check if something has changed. When a person goes to get money from a cash machine or spend money in a shop, their experience is almost identical every single time. It is highly dependable. They don't need to keep up-to-date on how cash machines or shops work to make sure they are not defrauded. They know exactly what is going to happen without having to expend any effort. The more deviation from the standard experience a user experiences and the more often a user experiences a deviation, the less likely a user is going to want to continue to use that service. Users require predictability extending into the past. Businesses who's bottom line is often dependent on reliable services also require stability and predictability. Businesses require predictability that extends into the future so that they can plan. A business is less likely to use a service for which they do not know they can depend on in the future (or they know they cannot depend on).
For bitcoin to achieve mass adoption it needs a long-term predictable and stable plan for people to rely on.
 
 
The Proposal
 
This proposal is one based on determining a best fit balance of every factor and a large enough buffer to allows for our inability to perfectly predict the future. No one can predict the future with absolutely certainty but it does not mean we cannot make educated guesses and plan for it.
 
The first part of the proposal is to spend 2016 implementing all available efficiency improvements (i.e the ones detailed above) and making sure the move to a scaled bitcoin happens as smoothly as possible. It seems we should set a target of implementing all of the above improvements within the first 6 months of 2016. These improvements should be implemented in the first hardfork of its kind, with full community wide consensus. A hardfork with this much consensus is the perfect time to test and learn from the hardforking mechanism. Thanks to Seg Wit, this would give us an effective 2 fold capacity increase and set us on our path to scalability.
 
The second part of the proposal is to target the release of a second hardfork to happen at the end of 2016. Inline with all the above factors this would start with a real block size limit increase to 2MB (effectively increasing the throughput to 4x compared to today thanks to Seg Wit) and a doubling of the block size limit every two years thereafter (with linear scaling in between). The scaling would end with an 8GB block size limit in the year 2039.
 
 
How does the Proposal fit inside the Limits
 
 
Propagation time
If trends for average upload and bandwidth continue then propagation time for a block to reach >50% of the nodes in the network should never go above 1s. This is significantly quickly than propagation times we currently see.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction (i.e. bandwidth does not increase as quickly as predicted) by 15% absolute and 37.5% relative (i.e. bandwidth improves at a rate of 25% per year rather than the predicted 40%) and we would still only ever see propagation times similar to today and it would take 20 years before this would happen.
 
Orphan Rate
Using our best guess predictions the orphan rate would never go over 0.2%.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative, orphan rate would never go above 2.3% and it would take over 20 years to happen.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a non-pruned full node would never exceed $40 with blocks consistently 50% full and would in fact decrease significantly after reaching the peak cost. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the maximum cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $90.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $100 by 2022 and $300 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $230 by 2022 and $650 in 2039. It is important to note that for storage costs to be as high as this, bitcoin will have to be enormously successful, meaning many many more people will be incentivised to run a full node (businesses etc.)
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a pruned full node would never exceed $0.60 with blocks consistently 50% full. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the max cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $1.30.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $1.40 by 2022 and $5 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $3.20 by 2022 and $10 in 2039. It is important to note that at this amount of storage the cost would be effectively zero since users almost always have a large amount of free storage space on computers they already own.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 0.3% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would still only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 4% (average).
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 1.6% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 24% (average) and this would take over 20 years to occur.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
Using our best guess predictions bootstrapping a new node onto the network should never take more than just over a day using 50% bandwidth.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and it would take one and 1/4 days to bootstrap the blockchain using 50% of the download bandwidth. By 2039 it would take 16 days to bootstrap the entire blockchain when using 50% bandwidth. I think it is important to note that by this point it is very possible the bootstrapping the blockchain could very well be done by simply buying an SSD with blockchain already bootstrapped. 16 days would be a lot of time to download software but it does not necessarily mean a decrease in centralisation. As you will see in the next section, if bitcoin has reached this level of adoption, there may well be many parties will to spend 16 days downloading the blockchain.
 
What if Things Turn Out Worse than the Worse Case?
While it is likely that future trends in the technology required to scale bitcoin will continue relatively similar to the past, it is possible that the predictions are completely and utterly wrong. This plan takes this into account though by making sure the buffer is large enough to give us time to adjust our course. Even if no technological/cost improvements (near zero likelihood) are made to bandwidth and storage in the future this proposal still gives us years to adjust course.
 
 
What Does This Mean for Bitcoin?
 
Significantly Increased Adoption
For comparison, Paypal handles around 285 transactions per second (tps), VISA handles around 2000tps and the total global non-cash transactions are around 12,400tps.
Currently bitcoin is capable of handling a maximum of around 3.5 transactions every second which are published to the blockchain roughly every 10 minutes. With Seg Wit implemented via a hardfork, bitcoin will be capable or around 7tps. With this proposal bitcoin will be capable of handling more transactions than Paypal (assuming Paypal experiences growth of around 7% per year) in the year 2027. Bitcoin will overtake VISA's transaction capability by the year 2035 and at the end of the growth cycle in 2039 it will be able to handle close to 50% of the total global non-cash transactions.
When you add on top second layer protocols( like the LN), sidechains, altcoins and off-chain transactions, there should be more than enough capacity for the whole world and every possible conceivable use for digital value transfer.
 
Transitioning from a Subsidy to a Transaction Fee Model
Currently mining is mostly incentivised by the subsidy that is given by the network (currently 25btc per block). If bitcoin is to widely successful it is likely that price increases will continue to outweigh btc denominated subsidy decreases for some time. This means that currently it is likely to be impossible to try to force the network into matching a significant portion of the subsidy with fees. The amount of fees being paid to miners has averagely increased over time and look like they will continue to do so. It is likely that the optimal time for fees to start seriously replacing the subsidy is when bitcoin adoption starts to slow. Unless you take a pessimistic view of bitcoin (thinking bitcoin is as big as it ever will be), it is reasonable to assume this will not happen for some time.
With this proposal, using an average fee of just $0.05, total transaction fees per day would be:
  • Year 2020 = $90,720
  • Year 2025 = $483,840.00
  • Year 2030 = $2,903,040.00
  • Year 2035 = $15,482,880.00
  • Year 2041 = $123,863,040.00 (full 8GB Blocks)
Miners currently earn a total of around $2 million dollars per day in revenue, significantly less than the $124 million dollars in transaction fee revenue possible using this proposal. That also doesn't include the subsidy which would still play some role until the year 2140. This transaction fee revenue would be a yearly revenue of $45 billion for miners when transaction fees are only $0.05 on average.
 
 
Proposal Data
You can use these two spreadsheets (1 - 2 ) to see the various metrics at play over time. The first spreadsheet shows the data using the predicted trends and the second spreadsheet shows the data with the worst case trends.
 
 
Summary
 
It's very clear we are on the edge/midst of a community (and possibly a network) split. This is a very dangerous situation for bitcoin. A huge divide has appeared in the community and opinions are becoming more and more entrenched on both sides. If we cannot come together and find a way forward it will be bad for everyone except bitcoin's competition and enemies. While this proposal is born from an attempt at finding a balance based on as many relevant factors as possible, it also fortunately happens to fall in between the two sides of the debate. Hopefully the community can see this proposal as a way of making a compromise, releasing the entrenchment and finding a way forward to scale bitcoin. I have no doubt that if we can do this, bitcoin will have enormous success in the years to come.
 
Lets bring bitcoin out of beta together!!
submitted by ampromoco to btc [link] [comments]

To Long-Term Believers

Hi, I'm .b.
I'm a lot like you. I'm greedy in the short term, but have confidence in Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in the long term. I want nice things. A new car, new house, a couple of summer palaces on the French riviera...
However, most of all, I want Bitcoin and crytpocurrencies to succeed long term. That means that, although it is painful to see some of my long-term investments diminish, I'm still holding on.
I have two strategies that I actively use every day. One is my trading strategy, which got me out of most liquid coin above $1000. I've done some minor trades since then, but I live and die by the 5 minute charts. I hold very few coins of any type now. I believe we are going down still, and I'm writing this as BTC-E is dipping below $460 for the first time in a 'long' time. It is dangerous waters right now. Whales and sharks eat anything that moves and a lot of things that don't move.
The other strategy is one based around the idea that in 10 years, Bitcoin will either be zero or a lot. I think it will be the latter, and by 'a lot' I mean that I think $1000 per coin will seem ridiculously low.
One reason I'm that confident is how cryptocurrencies, not just Bitcoin, is a completely new way of thinking about value. I wrote about this in an article a while back (and was downvoted on /Bitcoin, of course); about how Bitcoin is awesome, but still just one part of the crypto revolution that I believe will come at some point.
Back to you. You hold coins. You bought them at $900+. You're awesome. You have the faith, like I have. When your friends and family mock you during the holidays, know that within reasonable time, chances are much greater that you'll be laughing back at them, possibly from a swimming pool filled with Russian caviar aboard your new yacht, surrounded by female or male supermodels, depending on your preference.
As a trader, you deal with the daily movement of prices. As an investor, you deal with long-term beliefs. It is OK to be a bit of both. Know what you are, though. Pick a strategy, or pick two or three. Stick with them. Cooler heads prevail, even if it is tempting to pull those cold wallet coins out and start throwing them into the water to hope they float.
Good luck :-)
.b
EDIT: Please don't take this as a "hold spartans!" post. Sell if you must or wish. I'm not trying to circlejerk; just offer some kind and reassuring words to a lot of people that may be losing a lot of money right now. My short-term greed wants you to sell; my long-term greed knows that it doesn't really matter.
submitted by furuknap to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

A few thoughts - Sunday, June 22, 2014

Good morning! I put 10-11 hours into the mining pool yesterday, so I wasn't able to post any thoughts then. I'm working to get the system as debugged as possible before a demo on Thursday to some miners.

Altcoins changing algorithms

Did you know that altcoins can randomly change algorithms? Neither did I. Apparently, some coins have code in them to automatically switch algorithms at a certain block number. You can be mining a coin, and then suddenly the next block isn't compatible with your equipment. I actually had to add a new error message to the system of "algorithm changed" to deal with this issue.
It seems that many of these changes are to move from scrypt to other algorithms. To me, that seems like a huge mistake that will cause most of those coins to die. With scrypt, you have many GPUs and ASICs available to mine the coin, and will achieve a much higher hashrate. Changing to an "ASIC-resistant" algorithm lowers the barrier to entry to bad people.
Some of these coins have current hashrates as low as 20Mh. That means that anyone can 51% attack the network from scratch with just 20Mh, or about $6000 at today's prices of graphics cards. They can just move onto the next coin after that. Meanwhile, coins that stick with algorithms where ASICs exist don't have this problem because ASICs are hard to obtain and are useless if the coin is killed.

Price uptick to begin momentarily

I suggested earlier this week that the price uptick in anticipation of the upcoming auction should begin today. Sure enough, the price rose $10 overnight, although 2% is hardly proof of any trend. I would expect price rises to continue later today. The price will reach a high either on Thursday or Friday, with perhaps the second-highest volatility in bitcoin's history on Friday. It's unlikely that volatility will ever surpass that Mt Gox crash in April 2013 where technically the price fell to $50, although nobody was actually able to buy at that price since the system was inaccessible.
Friday is one of those days like November 18 where the price could be rising $100/hr at times. Expect a correction next weekend.
As to what the ending price of the auction will be, that's a little harder to say. My first thought last week was around $1k for the highest bid, and some people in /bitcoinmarkets had suggested that, too. However, since there are so many blocks for sale, it's possible that the average price could be $800, while the highest price is an outlier.
Why would I suggest that people would bid so high? Because this is the upward side of the bubble cycle. These investors can read lowstrife's and moral_agent's charts and recognize that $1k is below the all-time-high of the previous cycle, which means that it would be unprecedented for bitcoins to ever fall below that figure again as this cycle ramps up. I do not believe that the price will close above the all-time-high because there is no reason to buy so many bitcoins now when the money can be invested in stocks and then the bitcoins purchased later at the same price.

More evidence of a tech bubble

The latest evidence of a tech bubble, which I mentioned last time, is in the form of a company called Uber. Uber develops software that allows people to hire unlicensed private cars for transportation. Taxi drivers staged a demonstration in protest of the company.
If people thought that bitcoins were a risky business to be in, I can't think of many business models that have more legal hurdles than that one. Despite that the company will likely be sued out of existence after the first accident, they are valued at $18m.
It seems that anyone can just throw together an app today and get VC money with no realistic business model. "Yo," at least, does have a "viable" model - sell the company to facebook for a few million bucks, then create a new app and do it again.

Cryptocoinsnews rejoices in its luck

The analyst at Cryptocoinsnews apparently reads moral_agent's bubble charts and is highly critical of them, as evidenced in his latest article about bitcoin prices. In it, he gloats that his prediction of a correction to $520 was correct. Of course, if you predict that the price is going to fall every single article, then you will be right at least once (just not when you say that bitcoins will be worth $120 in mid-May).
If you do a Google News search for bitcoins, Cryptocoinsnews is getting themselves up in the results with the likes of the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal. How they do that is a miracle of SEO. I wanted to post a link here to the article that was posted on Friday, but it isn't on their front page anymore. If someone can figure out where that "price report" is, please link to it.

Other

submitted by quintin3265 to BitcoinThoughts [link] [comments]

Best Mining Pools on Hashflare What's The Best Bitcoin Trading Site  Trading Bitcoin Exchange Rates On Charts 2014 TOP 5 BULLISH BITCOIN CHARTS!! Binance Launches Crypto Mining Pool Amid Centralization Concerns Bitcoin for the cloud top Bitcoin mining companies by khoa hoc

⭐️ bitcoin pool luck charts ⭐️ ::How to make a bitcoin profit.[ BITCOIN POOL LUCK CHARTS ] Become a rich man from bitcoin. (Biggest Profit) Bitcoincharts is the world’s leading provider for financial and technical data related to the Bitcoin network. It provides news, markets, price charts and more. Are You Searching For bitcoin mining pool chart People protest to call for a new ... Miner Charts - Pool Luck, Pool Hash Growth, and Trade Data. BitcionTalk forum member topheroly provides an excellent set of charts. The “pool luck” chart (above) shows how lucky certain mining pools have been over the past 5 days. Additional pool luck charts are available for longer periods. Further charts are provided relating to Pool Hash Growth and also Trade Data from the exchanges ... These charts show our luck with the blocks we have created. Sometimes it takes a little work to produce a block (lucky), sometimes it takes a lot of work (unlucky). To measure this we use the Cumulative Distribution Function (CDF). We display the CDF as a percentage. The lower the CDF value the better, with 50% being the expected average over time. The charts have 0% at the top and 100% at the ... Blockchain Charts - blockchain.info Currency Statistics. Bitcoins in circulation(流通中的总比特币数): The total number of bitcoins that have already been mined; in other words, the current supply of bitcoins on the network. Market Price (USD)(市场价格): Average USD market price across major bitcoin exchanges. The bitcoin market price chart shows the current price of bitcoin (in ... The Bitcoin.com mining pool has the lowest share reject rate (0.15%) we've ever seen. Other pools have over 0.30% rejected shares. Furthermore, the Bitcoin.com pool has a super responsive and reliable support team. Alexander Levin CEO of Asicseer.com. Mining.bitcoin.com has the highest payouts across the industry. Reliable and honest service. Libo Zhao CEO of YouDu. Cloud mining. Mine ...

[index] [27478] [36002] [10043] [37345] [558] [37693] [48409] [42780] [19177] [38128]

Best Mining Pools on Hashflare

Good luck! ヽ(•‿•)ノ Support my channel! ヽ(•‿•)ノ Exchanges: 》Gemini (Invest $100 or more, get $10 worth of BTC for free): https://gemini.com/share ... Another entry in the Crypto Mining Pool Server Vlog. Featuring re-purposed Dell Poweredge R720xd Google Search Appliances. Starwind: https://www.starwindsoftware.com My Rig Parts: Asrock H110 Pro ... Bitcoin has some awesome price targets on the charts based on BTC bullish patterns we have been tracking. But is there a strong case that Bitcoin might retrace to $7,500 first? Cycles of Bitcoin ... Today's episode I am going to take a look at the top 5 bullish bitcoin charts. After seeing these charts, you will be convinced that now is the time to get into bitcoin! You will no longer ... Thanks to Away for sponsoring this video! Go to https://www.awaytravel.com/techquickie and use promo code techquickie to get $20 off your next order! Bitcoin...

#