BUSN5001 L2(1).pdf - Understanding the Bitcoin Blockchain ...

Metcalfe's Law: Bitcoin price related to number of wallets/TXs

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=346086103074018125103114072123116096014062039067032088087075098109126030088005123029100103062122015051018102071113126125113099030078070086003126009074014095009105029032022019006004064093110110113127092066019120117115119015119076064081014076030105002117&EXT=pdf
I haven't seen any discussion of Metcalfe's law and the surrounding analysis since the publication of the paper linked above.
Following the methodology puts BTC's actual price at ~$8,000.
Given this is also an approximate support level (and that we appear to be approaching it) is this an indication of the strength of this predictive tool?
submitted by DaddyLittlePrincess8 to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/BitcoinMarkets] Metcalfe's Law: Bitcoin price related to number of wallets/TXs

The following post by DaddyLittlePrincess8 is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ BitcoinMarkets/comments/7r28f1
The original post's content was as follows:
https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=346086103074018125103114072123116096014062039067032088087075098109126030088005123029100103062122015051018102071113126125113099030078070086003126009074014095009105029032022019006004064093110110113127092066019120117115119015119076064081014076030105002117&EXT=pdf
I haven't seen any discussion of Metcalfe's law and the surrounding analysis since the publication of the paper linked above.
Following the methodology puts BTC's actual price at ~$8,000.
Given this is also an approximate support level (and that we appear to be approaching it) is this an indication of the strength of this predictive tool?
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

Metcalfe's Law: Bitcoin price related to number of wallets/TXs /r/BitcoinMarkets

Metcalfe's Law: Bitcoin price related to number of wallets/TXs /BitcoinMarkets submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

For all the newbies here: Relax, you are an early adopter, never 'panic-sell', corrections like this one are a good entry point of for 'Dollar Cost Averaging'. And no, Korea didn't just "ban" Bitcoin.

It is always a good time to buy (the real Bitcoin, not Bcash), we are NOT in a "bubble" (fiat is the real bubble), the answer is: Buy now, always Hodl in FUD times (Bitcoin has "died" many times, but Moneybadger don't care, buy the dips and never panic-sell, stuff like: "China/Korea ban Bitcoin...again!" will keep happening again and again.
Stick to the real Bitcoin through all the 'forks' and 'splits' that accomplish nothing but new mediocre, unsafe and centralized altcoins, strengthen/immunize Bitcoin and give you free altcoins to buy more Bitcoin.
All Central Powers look silly trying to control or ban it. Learn from history and listen to this absolute Boss. There will never be enough Bitcoin for every existing millionaire to own just ONE SINGLE BITCOIN, Total number of millionaires (in USD value) worldwide is around 33 million. BTC is the best money.
Also relax, you are actually an early adopter, BTC is still relatively small, mentally prepare yourself for healthy and expected market volatility/dips/corrections/"crashes" (check out this amazing 'Corrections Trends Perspective') and remember all this:
Follow this basic rules of Bitcoin:
It is always a good time to buy Bitcoin if you are hodling long term and not just for day trading, so this is a great strategy. Remember that Bitcoin has practically been up most of the time, and the road to the moon is paved with minor corrections (Bitcoin is never really "down" when you zoom-out).
Everybody parroting: "The bitcoin bubble is about to pop, not linear.
When they bring up the "2000 Dotcom Bubble collapse", tell them: I hope so! Look at these past decentralized/disruptive tech adoption "bubbles". Hyperbitcoinization is coming.
So is not farfetched to say that it will be at 100,000 by 2020, since it came from less than $1 to $5,000 in less than 10 years, and it hasn't even hit the bottom part of the exponential 'S-Curve' of adoption. Check out this great 2017 MIT study: "The Cryptocurrency Market Is Growing Exponentially". Patience pays, don't listen to most "Expert Analysts" or MSM".
Bitcoin is a Moneybadger that get's stronger and immunized with every new attack and this broad picture of its price since infancy (1 year candles on a logarithmic scale) shows Bitcoin growth is not a "bubble" but it's exponential (bigger "bubbles" every time), this old logarithmic scale has been accurate so far, as well as analysts like Wall Street strategist Tom Lee by using Metcalfe's Law: "The value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n2)" wiki-link. He explains it clearer here.
Learn the difference between Inflation (dollar) and Deflation (Bitcoin) and just take a look at the fiat >20 trillion (and growing fast) debt clock to get a visual shock of unlimited fiat supply (vs limited Bitcoin/Gold supply). BTC is secured by the laws of the Universe.
Bitcoin has outperformed every other currency, commodity, stock and asset since its inception in 2009. Bitcoin, the Moneybadger, is the first unseizable store of value in human history, unlike gold, equities, or fiat, it can't be confiscated if stored correctly. How banks think blockchain will disrupt their industry. Check out these Bitcoin Economy and Bitcoin Transaction infographics.
Also, remember its fixed, limited supply of 21 million coins ever, there are just ~4.5 million (~20%) bitcoins left to be mined till 2140 and the production will keep decreasing ("halving") every 4 years till then. So, remember this and don't wait for the Bitcoin "bubble" to burst or for the price to drop significantly again, because you could be waiting forever:
“The best time to buy bitcoin was in 2009...”.
Don't be -- this guy
Edit: Stay away from fake "Bitcoin" stuff like "btc", "Bitcoin".com (Bitcoin.org is the legit site), Bcash ("Bitcoin" Cash/BCH), "Bitcoin" Gold, etc.
submitted by domelane to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

The Case for an Extreme ETH Mispricing

The format of this post has been modified to be more reddit friendly. Apologies for any momentum lost.
This piece was written in collaboration with u/beerchicken8. He deserves a massive amount of credit and our thought experiment could not have been generated without him.
We wrote this piece to remind the community and new investors that we are incredibly early to this investment, and also to demonstrate that ETH is massively undervalued even if viewed as a network utility token. We meant for this to be as simple, yet impactful as possible. We are not in the practice of writing academic papers, but the narrative is clearly demonstrated.
all data is accurate to May 22, 2017
A Crude Valuation of ETH
Pundits and the media will look at the recent price graph and will likely tell you that cryptocurrencies are in a bubble. Sure the recent price action looks aggressive and may appear unsustainable, but it is hardly a bubble. In fact, it is likely that ETH is significantly undervalued.
ETH Price Graph
Crypto skeptics attempt to value bitcoin or ETH using conventional stock market metrics like P/E ratio or by comparing market capitalizations of crypto versus blue chip companies. These metrics do not fairly translate to cryptocurrencies. We can improve on that.
Metcalfe's Law Image Description
A close friend of mine stumbled across Metcalfe’s Law in an effort to properly value the market price of ETH, the cryptocurrency of ethereum. We can think of ETH as a demand-driven digital asset, since it is converted to gas to execute the smart contracts on the blockchain. It provides a vital network function: incentivizing miners to secure the blockchain. Therefore we should attempt to value ETH by attempting to value the ethereum network itself. We can use the daily transactions as our tool.
Metcalfe’s Law aims to value the network effects of communication technologies like the Internet or social networking. The premise is that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system.
To determine a fair market price of ETH, we can compare the ethereum network transactions squared (or the network value) versus the market cap of ethereum.
In the following chart, we chose to graph the log of our inputs for a better visualization of the correlation.
Log graph of Transaction2 and Marketcap
The scale is misleading, but when we look back at the ETH market cap and see that it fell below the network valuation around the time of the DAO hack. The market cap languished as the ETH price suffered from a lack of investor confidence. But as investors licked their wounds and Bitcoin maximalists cheered, the ethereum transactions have steadily increased; they even outpaced the price correction. Yet, that was just the log graph. This is the actual Metcalfe’s Law graph demonstrating that network value of ethereum vs the market cap:
Metcalfe's Law for Ethereum
We can see clearly that the market cap is significantly lagging the network effect. Theoretically, the network valuation calculated by transactions squared should equal the market cap.
So here we are. We can conclude ETH appears cheap. But this is probably far from the truth: If the current network value equals the current market cap, we are completely discounting the future growth of the network.
Stock investors will buy stocks on their future earnings and growth potential years in advance. The Tesla stock has outperformed every incumbent metric due to tantalizing growth projections. But Tesla will likely not generate profits for years. In the case of ETH, this growth discount is significant. Not only does it not appear to exist in the price, but we can make 3 safe assumptions to forecast the opportunity for incredible growth:
Also, there are additional factors accelerating the scarcity of ETH:
Further Reading: u/mr_yukon_c touched on some other metrics signalling the strength of Ethereum Network in an excellent post the other day:
https://np.reddit.com/ethtradecomments/6cr75s/current_state_of_the_ethereum_network_extremely/
submitted by pittinout7 to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Predicting Value of Crypto

Almost every day, I hear the same sentiment expressed: the value of cryptocurrencies is impossible to predict, and therefore they cannot be considered an investment. Just last week, President Donald Trump hinted at this idea in a series of Tweets.

So, is Trump right? Does Bitcoin’s volatility mean that its value is just a roll of the dice, or is there a way to determine (with reasonable certainty) when to buy and sell? Can Metcalfe’s Law or another formula be used to determine when a currency may be over- or under-valued? Can assets that aren’t touched by banks have a true value at all?

Metcalfe’s Law: A Brief History

In the 1980s, Robert Metcalfe, the inventor of Ethernet, proposed that the value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of nodes (or users), N, in the network. Put another way, the value of a network is proportional to the number of connections between users, assuming that all users are connected to each other; the more people I can contact, the more valuable the system will be to me.
In 2015, Zhang et al. discovered that this same principle applies to Facebook and Tencent (China’s largest social media network) when the number of monthly active users is used as N.
In 2017, Ken Alabi demonstrated that the law also applies to three different cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Dash) fairly well. Just one year later, Wheatley, et al. proposed a modification to the formula for cryptocurrencies, N^(1.69), that fit the data better and accounted for the fact that not every user is connected to or interested in connecting to every other. The researchers estimated that each user is connected to N^(2/3) other users.

What About Bubbles?

Following a series of major crashes in the price of Bitcoin, many in the crypto community lost faith in the ability of Metcalfe’s Law to accurately predict the value of cryptocurrencies. After all, the number of users did not fall as dramatically as the price after Mt. Gox was hacked in 2011, a major Ponzi scheme involving Bitcoin was discovered in 2012, Mt. Gox collapsed in 2013 or South Korea threatened regulation in 2017.
However, Didier Sornette proposed that a market is bound to crash if its value is growing at a super-exponential rate (if its rate of growth is itself growing), unless there is an infinite supply of people to join the market. This idea is widely accepted, but it does not postulate exactly when the market will crash, only that it will eventually. The wise investor will be aware of this condition and, when the price starts tumbling, will sell immediately.

Sornette goes on to argue that the exact timing of each of these crashes was determined by the outside events affecting the market and that any market disruption would have caused similar effects due to this super-exponential growth. Each event was just the straw that broke the camel’s back (before the camel regenerated, only to have its back broken again).

Network Value to Transactions (NVT) Ratio

Popularized by Willy Woo and Chris Burniske, the Network Value to Transactions ratio is another formula that aims to determine when the price of a crypto asset is over- or under-valued.

NVT = (Daily Market Cap)/(90-Day Moving Average of Daily Transaction Volume)

Kalichkin suggests that any NVT over 20 indicates that a coin is overvalued and a correction is likely. However, as with the other models, one cannot use this to determine exactly when a correction will occur. In addition, it can be challenging to find accurate data on daily transaction volume, limiting the practicality of this metric.

Final Words

According to Edward Fricker, co-founder of the lightning wallet TrustlessBank, attempts to determine the objective value of Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies miss the mark: " Metcalfe’s Law and NVT have been promoted by analysts who struggled to find some way to determine an objective value [of Bitcoin] that is outside the market price, but in doing so, they failed to see the truth that was right in front of them: the market price is exactly the same as the objective value because Bitcoin is the most liquid asset in the world.”
submitted by thinker111111 to CryptoTradersRoom [link] [comments]

Why I Sold My Bitcoin

Disclaimers:
I think it's important to share a contrarian view here, given the hype and euphoria over the last few days. I think I also have a some-what unique perspective on cryptos. Educated as an economist, I've spent a career in the technology departments of large banks. I've also taken the licensing exams to open my own investment manager, though I haven't launched one yet. I held some bitcoin as a speculation, but have exited on this rally because the mania is getting out of hand - even for a believer in the technology with high risk tolerances.
I'm not trying to be a downer or spread FUD - just provide a sobering reality check based on my understanding of investing and market structure. After all, it is extremely easy to lose sight of reality when you're sitting on fat paper profits. That type of complacency is an integral part of market cycles and one of the core weaknesses that professional traders exploit.
I do believe bitcoin is both something of tremendous value, and a bubble. History shows that bubbles form as society digests new forms of value - it happened as humans minted their first coins, their first paper currency, their first stocks and bonds, etc. Every new innovation in financial instruments is typically accompanied by some sort of bubble - the 2008 innovations in mortgage securities should be fresh and memorable for most.
The size and scale of the bitcoin bubble's inflation speaks about the underlying technology. It will, no doubt, be transformative across society - in many ways we cannot foresee now. However, that doesn't mean it has unlimited value, and "it'll go to the moon!" Or that it's even an investment. In fact, the hallmark of a bubble when people buy for fear of missing out on a price, without connecting that price to underlying economic activity. That's exactly what's happening here.
Why Bitcoin is NOT an Investment, and that's Okay
First, let's talk about what an investment is. By definition, an investment is an asset that yields a return above its purchase price.
If you invest in bonds or equities, you're usually looking at some kind of discounted cash-flow to decide whether to invest or not. Either your bond will pay a coupon of $X per year, or your company will generate $X amount of cash annually - and you project these values over time. Then you compare that to the return on less risky assets, like the US 10 year Treasury, and decide if the return is worth the risk.
But bitcoin doesn't yield anything. No matter what industries it disrupts or entrenched powers it destroys, it will never yield anything. If you own 1 BTC today, it's still 1 BTC in the future without any dividends, coupons, or splits. By definition, it cannot be an investment - there's no return. Non-yielding assets can never be an investment.
This is why bitcoin is a cryptocurrency. Crypto for the source of authority (proof-of-work or proof-of-stake), but currency for the asset's behavior. You don't invest in a currency, you can only speculate in it. You can buy a currency in order to buy investments denominated in that currency (eg. trading dollars for yen to buy Japanese Government Bonds), but the currency itself is never an investment.
Now, it's perfectly okay to buy another currency in expectation that it's price (against your 'native' currency) will rise. But that's just a trade, and one fueled by speculation. And some speculation is okay, it helps grease financial markets and discover 'real' prices. It's just important not to fool yourself, and to realize what you are doing. This also means no HODLing - every transaction has a lifecycle that ends in liquidation.
Some professionals make a living doing this, but typically they're not just speculating - they're helping institutions and companies intermediate between their 'native' currency and wherever they do business.
Are you Toyota selling a car in the US, trying to bring your dollars home as yen? A currency trader can help you. It's probably also probably worth noting here the recent settlements between the world's biggest banks and their regulators for openly fixing currency markets. The professionals tend to stay in business with a healthy dose of fraud and trading against their clients.
This is not behavior to emulate, and should give pause to anyone speculating in cryptocurrency. Who do you think you're trading against when you buy bitcoin from an exchange? There's a concept that everyone trading needs to know - the 'greater fool trade.' Are you buying because you have reasonable ideas about what the asset will return, or because there's a greater fool who will pay you more for it?
From what I've seen, and the yield on bitcoin, it seems like most people are betting there are greater fools out there.
'Hard Money' and Metcalfe's Law
These are common arguments I've seen posted here. A lot of people don't trust the Federal Reserve, or think of bitcoin as some technology that can be priced according to a model that describes the adoption of ethernet. Neither make a ton of sense in the light of day.
The bitcoin mining curve is modeled after gold, the original 'hard money'. By design, it's supposed to be deflationary. I'll admit I've never gotten along well with gold bugs and usually don't persuade them, but I'm happy to trade against them.
There's hundreds of year of economic history demonstrating that deflationary currencies are bad for economic growth. Where deflationary currencies have existed, they've been out-competed by mildly inflationary currencies. This is why they don't exist anymore, except for brief periods of severe economic stress. The idea that real economic activity can occur with a deflationary bitcoin is contrary to both experience and theory, which shows that 'real' economic activity slows as people anticipate further gains in currency value. The incentive is to hoard instead of spending or lending, so they don't, and economic activity falls.
Likewise, gold has been a bad inflation hedge, and there's no reason to expect bitcoin to do better. The last hundred years of data shows that even in inflationary periods, stocks have performed better than gold (inflation adjusted, anyone who bought gold at it's local maxima in 1980 at $650/oz would still be underwater at 2011's global maxima at $1,900/oz). And needless to say, stocks have yielded many-fold the return over gold in that time period by dividends alone.
If you're holding bitcoin because you don't trust the dollar or are worried about inflation, you should ask yourself why you don't also hold gold. It's the same logic. Then you should ask yourself why you would hold either.
As for Metcalfe's Law, this is a bit of a red herring. The idea is simple - networking effects produce exponentially more value as more people join the network. Champions of this idea point to fax machines, the internet, and Facebook - and publish interesting graphs showing the price of bitcoin neatly following Metcalfe's curve.
But we need to remember what we're examining - users of the network. If I register a Coinbase account to speculate on bitcoin, am I really using the bitcoin network? Is bitcoin's value proposition becoming more valuable intrinsically? Or is the price just increasing, because of the money flowing into it?
Twitter provides a good example. It's dominated by bots who are 'on the network', but provide marginal value and don't conform to Metcalfe's Law. It's taken a few years, but the price (what you pay) has caught up to the value (what it's worth), as the market has digested that many nodes in the network don't really count.
If the value proposition of bitcoin is in trustless transactions, how many of it's exponentially growing users are actually using bitcoin to perform trustless transactions? Transaction volumes are relatively flat year-on-year, while the number of new wallets have skyrocketed - so let's not fool ourselves about Metcalfe's Law. Correlation does not mean causation, and the network is not becoming more intrinsically valuable because more people are trying to speculate on bitcoin's price.
There IS some real growth here from adoption in jurisdictions where cryptos have been recognized as legal tender, but we can't fool ourselves about the impact there. Again, bitcoin is deflationary, and the incentives are hold instead of spend. If recognition and accessibility were really driving adoption, transaction volumes shouldn't be flat year-on-year.
But What About the MASSIVE DISRUPTION?
This is where bitcoin shines - it has tremendous disruptive potential. It allows counterparties to interact without trust or central authority, which removes the role for banks, money transfer agents, and other folks who would usually clip some part of a transaction. Open, distributed blockchains will revolutionize many industries and social institutions.
However, this doesn't go too far in helping bitcoin's value. An asset's value depends on the rights it bestows to the owner - just like above, where we could value a stock or bond by the rights to the cashflow it grants. But what does bitcoin grant the owner?
We come up short. Bitcoin is a token representing a proof-of-work for authenticating transactions on the network. All it grants to the owner is a high mathematical likelihood that the token is not fraudulent or double-spent. So what's that worth?
Depends on who you're transacting with. When we pay in dollars, there are systems in the background looking for fraud. These costs get spread across society in the fees we pay for credit cards (both in our interest charges, and the fees charged to merchants for accepting cards). If we don't need a card issuer and bank to back the transaction and guarantee that it's legitimate, there is substantial value that can be recaptured.
Likewise, bitcoin's portability can be a source of value. If you can send bitcoin across borders, there's no need for money transfer agents to send remittances. There's no need to be scammed by a cabal of currency traders. This is all value that can be recaptured as old, expensive institutions become irrelevant.
However - is that value recaptured by the owner of the bitcoin? Or is it captured by the nodes on the network authenticating the transaction?
Bitcoin would substantially reduce the fee for sending money, but the actual fee would go to the miners - not the holder of bitcoin tokens. Holders of bitcoin would see no direct benefit.
Now - it's reasonable to think, "if bitcoin replaces those institutions, that's trillions of dollars that will have to flow into bitcoin, and the price will skyrocket!". And there's some truth to that. Based on money flow and bitcoin's illiquidity, it will have to rise. But it's not realistic that things will happen that way, as it embeds some bad assumptions:
The first two points are fairly straightforward. Even if bitcoin replaces existing institutions, it's important to consider how and when - and whether the market price for bitcoin today is being too optimistic and forward-looking. Likewise, bitcoin is not the only game in town, and other cryptos already have value propositions that can out-compete in certain niches. All the big banks are already working on their own blockchains, which aren't as revolutionary as bitcoin, but will likely be easier for mass consumer adoption.
The last bullet point is the real rub. Bitcoin is deflationary, and a main purpose of banks is to create leverage throughout the monetary system. $1 deposited in a bank can become $5 throughout the whole system, and extended further with clever credit structures and derivatives. Because bitcoin is deflationary, that kind of leverage (and face amount of fiat) cannot be lifted-and-shifted into bitcoin. No one would lend, except at interest rates high enough to contract the money supply. Several trillion dollars in the banking system today would shrink by orders of magnitude in a bitcoin economy. The initial inflows would create a spike in the dollar value of bitcoin, but economic activity would grind to a halt shortly after.
This is why the really smart folks like Andreas Antonopolous comment far more on what the technology can do than what the token is worth. It's why he's testified to the Canadian Senate that we will see many different 'monetary recipes' across different cryptos, and the future is wide open for any mix of them to dominate. It's why he talks about the bitcoin protocol as a base layer, which may be abstracted from any future end-use and doesn't speculate on the price.
If you're sitting on a big profit, maybe it's time to re-examine exactly why you think there's substantial value ahead. And if you're buying in at these levels, you should be asking yourself why it's worth paying ~$10k. As prices go up, the risks get bigger - not smaller. The rate of advance means there are a lot of people who have bought in the last three months, and could quickly leave if they see a big profit turn to a loss. Anytime a market moves like this is a time for greater caution, not greater greed.
** TL/DR ** There's a lot of enthusiasm, backed by naive and childish arguments, saying that bitcoin should keep advancing at a rapid clip. But there are still serious impediments, and even success of bitcoin (the technology) doesn't mean the tokens are worth anywhere near where they trade today. Everyone should be taking this rally as an opportunity to reality check their assumptions, and figure out if they're long because they're bullish - or if they're bullish because they're long. You can still love bitcoin without the hype.
submitted by The_Scho_Empire to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc, February 2016: "A year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB". August 2017: "Every Bitcoin developer with experience agrees that 2MB blocks are not safe". Whether he's incompetent, corrupt, compromised, or insane, he's unqualified to work on Bitcoin.

Here's Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc posting on February 1, 2016:
"Even a year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB" - nullc
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43lxgn/21_months_ago_gavin_andresen_published_a/czjb7tf/
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4jzf05/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/
https://archive.fo/pH9MZ
And here's the same Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc posting on August 13, 2017:
Blockstream CTO: every Bitcoin developer with experience agrees that 2MB blocks are not safe
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6tcrr2/why_transaction_malleability_cant_be_solved/dlju9dx/
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6te0yb/blockstream_cto_every_bitcoin_developer_with/
https://archive.fo/8d6Jm
What happened to Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc between Feburary 2016 and August 2017?
Computers and networks have been improving since then - and Bitcoin code has also become more efficient.
But something about Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc has been seriously "deteriorating" since then.
What happened to Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc to make him start denying reality??
Ultimately, we may never know with certainty what the problem is with Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc.
But Greg does have some kind of problem - a very serious problem.
  • Maybe he's gone insane.
  • Maybe someone put a gun to his head.
  • Maybe someone is paying him off.
  • Maybe he's just incompetent or corrupt.
Meanwhile, there is one thing we do know with certainty:
Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc is either incompetent or corrupt or compromised or insane - or some combination of the above.
Therefore Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc is not qualified to be involved with Bitcoin.
Background information
The average web page is more than 2 MB in size. https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22average+web+page%22+size+mb&t=hn&ia=web
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/52os89/the_average_web_page_is_more_than_2_mb_in_size/
"Even a year ago I said I though we could probably survive 2MB" - nullc ... So why the fuck has Core/Blockstream done everything they can to obstruct this simple, safe scaling solution? And where is SegWit? When are we going to judge Core/Blockstream by their (in)actions - and not by their words?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4jzf05/even_a_year_ago_i_said_i_though_we_could_probably/
Previously, Greg Maxwell u/nullc (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back u/adam3us (CEO of Blockstream), and u/theymos (owner of r\bitcoin) all said that bigger blocks would be fine. Now they prefer to risk splitting the community & the network, instead of upgrading to bigger blocks. What happened to them?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dtfld/previously_greg_maxwell_unullc_cto_of_blockstream/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
Overheard on r\bitcoin: "And when will the network adopt the Segwit2x(tm) block size hardfork?" ~ u/DeathScythe676 // "I estimate that will happen at roughly the same time as hell freezing over." ~ u/nullc, One-Meg Greg mAXAwell, CTO of the failed shitty startup Blockstream
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6s6biu/overheard_on_rbitcoin_and_when_will_the_network/
Finally, many people also remember the Cornell study, which determined - over a year ago - that 4MB blocks would already be fine for Bitcoin.
The Cornell study took into consideration factors specific to Bitcoin - such as upload speeds, the Great Firewall of China, and also the possibility of operating behind Tor - and concluded that Bitcoin could support 4MB blocks - over a y ear ago.
You can read various posts on the Cornell study here:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/search?q=cornell+4mb&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all
So... what happened to Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc between February 2016 and August 2017?
Why is he stating "alternate facts" like this now?
And when is Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc going to be removed from the Bitcoin project?
The choice is simple:
  • Either Greg Maxwell - an insane, toxic dev who denies reality - decides the blocksize.
  • Or the market decides the blocksize.
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5pcpec/the_debate_is_not_should_the_blocksize_be_1mb/
"Either the main chain will scale, or a unhobbled chain that provides scaling (like Bitcoin Cash) will become the main chain - and thus the rightful holder of the 'Bitcoin' name. In other words: Either Bitcoin will get scaling - or scaling will get 'Bitcoin'." ~ u/Capt_Roger_Murdock
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6r9uxd/either_the_main_chain_will_scale_or_a_unhobbled/
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
Greg can suppress Bitcoin (BTC). But he can't affect Bitcoin Cash (BCC, or BCH).
Fortunately, it doesn't really matter much anymore if the insane / incompetent / corrupt / compromomised / toxic Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc continues to suppress Bitcoin (ticker: BTC).
Because he cannot suppress Bitcoin Cash (ticker: BCC, or BCH).
Bitcoin Cash (ticker: BCC, or BCH) simply adheres to Satoshi Nakamoto's original design and roadmap for Bitcoin - rejecting the perversion of Bitcoin perpetrated by the insane / corrupt Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc.
ELI85 BCC vs BTC, for Grandma (1) BCC has BigBlocks (max 8MB), BTC has SmallBlocks (max 1-2?MB); (2) BCC has StrongSigs (signatures must be validated and saved on-chain), BTC has WeakSigs (signatures can be discarded with SegWit); (3) BCC has SingleSpend (for zero-conf); BTC has Replace-by-Fee (RBF)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6r7ub8/eli85_bcc_vs_btc_for_grandma_1_bcc_has_bigblocks/

Bitcoin Cash (ticker: BCC, or BCH)

Bitcoin Cash is the original Bitcoin as designed by Satoshi Nakamoto (and not suppressed by the insane / incompetent / corrupt / compromomised / toxic Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell).
Bitcoin Cash simply continues with Satoshi's original design and roadmap, whose success has always has been and always will be based on three essential features:
  • high on-chain market-based capacity supporting a greater number of faster and cheaper transactions on-chain;
  • strong on-chain cryptographic security guaranteeing that transaction signatures are always validated and saved on-chain;
  • prevention of double-spending guaranteeing that the same coin can only be spent once.
This means that Bitcoin Cash is the only version of Bitcoin which maintains support for:
  • BigBlocks, supporting increased on-chain transaction capacity - now supporting blocksizes up to 8MB (unlike the Bitcoin-SegWit(2x) "centrally planned blocksize" bug added by Core - which only supports 1-2MB blocksizes);
  • StrongSigs, enforcing mandatory on-chain signature validation - continuing to require miners to download, validate and save all transaction signatures on-chain (unlike the Bitcoin-SegWit(2x) "segregated witness" bug added by Core - which allows miners to discard or avoid downloading signature data);
  • SingleSpend, allowing merchants to continue to accept "zero confirmation" transactions (zero-conf) - facilitating small, in-person retail purchases (unlike the Bitcoin-SegWit(2x) Replace-by-Fee (RBF) bug added by Core - which allows a sender to change the recipient and/or the amount of a transaction, after already sending it).
  • If you were holding Bitcoin (BTC) before the fork on August 1 (where you personally controlled your private keys) then you also automatically have an equal quantity of Bitcoin Cash (BCC, or BCH) - without the need to do anything.
  • Many exchanges and wallets are starting to support Bitcoin Cash. This includes more and more exchanges which have agreed to honor their customers' pre-August 1 online holdings on both forks - Bitcoin (BTC) and Bitcoin Cash (BCC, or BCH).
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.54^2 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited

TL;DR
Details
(1) The current observed rates of increase in available network bandwidth (which went up 70% last year) should easily be able to support actual blocksizes increasing at the modest, slightly lower rate of only 54% per year.
Recent data shows that the "provisioned bandwidth" actually available on the Bitcoin network increased 70% in the past year.
If this 70% yearly increase in available bandwidth continues for the next 8 years, then actual blocksizes could easily increase at the slightly lower rate of 54% per year.
This would mean that in 8 years, actual blocksizes would be quite reasonable at about 1.548 = 32MB:
Hacking, Distributed/State of the Bitcoin Network: "In other words, the provisioned bandwidth of a typical full node is now 1.7X of what it was in 2016. The network overall is 70% faster compared to last year."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u85im/hacking_distributedstate_of_the_bitcoin_network/
http://hackingdistributed.com/2017/02/15/state-of-the-bitcoin-network/
Reinstating Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" for the next 8 years or so would effectively be similar to the 1MB "max blocksize" which Bitcoin used for the previous 8 years: simply a "ceiling" which doesn't really get in the way, while preventing any "unreasonably" large blocks from being produced.
As we know, for most of the past 8 years, actual blocksizes have always been far below the "max blocksize" of 1MB. This is because miners have always set their own blocksize (below the official "max blocksize") - in order to maximize their profits, while avoiding "orphan" blocks.
This setting of blocksizes on the part of miners would simply continue "as-is" if we reinstated Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" - with actual blocksizes continuing to grow gradually (still far below the 32MB "max blocksize" ceilng), and without introducing any new (risky, untested) "game theory" or economics - avoiding lots of worries and controversies, and bringing the community together around "Bitcoin Original".
So, simply reinstating Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" would have many advantages:
  • It would keep fees low (so users would be happy);
  • It would support much higher prices (so miners would be happy) - as explained in section (2) below;
  • It would avoid the need for any any possibly controversial changes such as:
    • SegWit/Lightning (the hack of making all UTXOs "anyone-can-spend" necessitated by Blockstream's insistence on using a selfish and dangerous "soft fork", the centrally planned and questionable, arbitrary discount of 1-versus-4 for certain transactions); and
    • Bitcon Unlimited (the newly introduced parameters for Excessive Block "EB" / Acceptance Depth "AD").
(2) Bitcoin blocksize growth of 54% per year would correlate (under Metcalfe's Law) to Bitcoin price growth of around 1.542 = 2.37x per year - or 2.378 = 1000x higher price - ie 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars after 8 years.
The observed, empirical data suggests that Bitcoin does indeed obey "Metcalfe's Law" - which states that the value of a network is roughly proportional to the square of the number of transactions.
In other words, Bitcoin price has corresponded to the square of Bitcoin transactions (which is basically the same thing as the blocksize) for most of the past 8 years.
Historical footnote:
Bitcoin price started to dip slightly below Metcalfe's Law since late 2014 - when the privately held, central-banker-funded off-chain scaling company Blockstream was founded by (now) CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and CTO Greg Maxwell - two people who have historically demonstrated an extremely poor understanding of the economics of Bitcoin, leading to a very polarizing effect on the community.
Since that time, Blockstream launched a massive propaganda campaign, funded by $76 million in fiat from central bankers who would go bankrupt if Bitcoin succeeded, and exploiting censorship on r\bitcoin, attacking the on-chain scaling which Satoshi originally planned for Bitcoin.
Legend states that Einstein once said that the tragedy of humanity is that we don't understand exponential growth.
A lot of people might think that it's crazy to claim that 1 bitcoin could actually be worth 1 million dollars in just 8 years.
But a Bitcoin price of 1 million dollars would actually require "only" a 1000x increase in 8 years. Of course, that still might sound crazy to some people.
But let's break it down by year.
What we want to calculate is the "8th root" of 1000 - or 10001/8. That will give us the desired "annual growth rate" that we need, in order for the price to increase by 1000x after a total of 8 years.
If "you do the math" - which you can easily perform with a calculator or with Excel - you'll see that:
  • 54% annual actual blocksize growth for 8 years would give 1.548 = 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 * 1.54 = 32MB blocksize after 8 years
  • Metcalfe's Law (where Bitcoin price corresponds to the square of Bitcoin transactions or volume / blocksize) would give 1.542 = 2.37 - ie, 54% bigger blocks (higher volume or more transaction) each year could support about 2.37 higher price each year.
  • 2.37x annual price growth for 8 years would be 2.378 = 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 * 2.37 = 1000 - giving a price of 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars if the price increases an average of 2.37x per year for 8 years, starting from 1 BTC = 1000 USD now.
So, even though initially it might seem crazy to think that we could get to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars in 8 years, it's actually not that far-fetched at all - based on:
  • some simple math,
  • the observed available bandwidth (already increasing at 70% per year), and
  • the increasing fragility and failures of many "legacy" debt-backed national fiat currencies and payment systems.
Does Metcalfe's Law hold for Bitcoin?
The past 8 years of data suggest that Metcalfe's Law really does hold for Bitcoin - you can check out some of the graphs here:
https://imgur.com/jLnrOuK
https://i.redd.it/kvjwzcuce3ay.png
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/800/1*22ix0l4oBDJ3agoLzVtUgQ.gif
(3) Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize" would provide an ultra-simple, ultra-safe, non-controversial approach which perhaps everyone could agree on: Bitcoin's original promise of "p2p electronic cash", 100% on-chain, eventually worth 1 BTC = 1 million dollars.
This could all be done using only the whitepaper - eg, no need for possibly "controversial" changes like SegWit/Lightning, Bitcoin Unlimited, etc.
As we know, the Bitcoin community has been fighting a lot lately - mainly about various controversial scaling proposals.
Some people are worried about SegWit, because:
  • It's actually not much of a scaling proposal - it would only give 1.7MB blocks, and only if everyone adopts it, and based on some fancy, questionable blocksize or new "block weight" accounting;
  • It would be implemented as an overly complicated and anti-democratic "soft" fork - depriving people of their right to vote via a much simpler and safer "hard" fork, and adding massive and unnecessary "technical debt" to Bitcoin's codebase (for example, dangerously making all UTXOs "anyone-can-spend", making future upgrades much more difficult - but giving long-term "job security" to Core/Blockstream devs);
  • It would require rewriting (and testing!) thousands of lines of code for existing wallets, exchanges and businesses;
  • It would introduce an arbitrary 1-to-4 "discount" favoring some kinds of transactions over others.
And some people are worried about Lightning, because:
  • There is no decentralized (p2p) routing in Lightning, so Lightning would be a terrible step backwards to the "bad old days" of centralized, censorable hubs or "crypto banks";
  • Your funds "locked" in a Lightning channel could be stolen if you don't constantly monitor them;
  • Lighting would steal fees from miners, and make on-chain p2p transactions prohibitively expensive, basically destroying Satoshi's p2p network, and turning it into SWIFT.
And some people are worried about Bitcoin Unlimited, because:
  • Bitcoin Unlimited extends the notion of Nakamoto Consensus to the blocksize itself, introducing the new parameters EB (Excess Blocksize) and AD (Acceptance Depth);
  • Bitcoin Unlimited has a new, smaller dev team.
(Note: Out of all the current scaling proposals available, I support Bitcoin Unlimited - because its extension of Nakamoto Consensus to include the blocksize has been shown to work, and because Bitcoin Unlimited is actually already coded and running on about 25% of the network.)
It is normal for reasonable people to have the above "concerns"!
But what if we could get to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars - without introducing any controversial new changes or discounts or consensus rules or game theory?
What if we could get to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars using just the whitepaper itself - by simply reinstating Satoshi's original 32MB "max blocksize"?
(4) We can easily reach "million-dollar bitcoin" by gradually and safely growing blocks to 32MB - Satoshi's original "max blocksize" - without changing anything else in the system!
If we simply reinstate "Bitcoin Original" (Satoshi's original 32MB blocksize), then we could avoid all the above "controversial" changes to Bitcoin - and the following 8-year scenario would be quite realistic:
  • Actual blocksizes growing modestly at 54% per year - well within the 70% increase in available "provisioned bandwidth" which we actually happened last year
  • This would give us a reasonable, totally feasible blocksize of 1.548 = 32MB ... after 8 years.
  • Bitcoin price growing at 2.37x per year, or a total increase of 2.378 = 1000x over the next 8 years - which is similar to what happened during the previous 8 years, when the price went from under 1 USDollars to over 1000 USDollars.
  • This would give us a possible Bitcoin price of 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars after 8 years.
  • There would still be plenty of decentralization - plenty of fully-validating nodes and mining nodes), because:
    • The Cornell study showed that 90% of nodes could already handle 4MB blocks - and that was several years ago (so we could already handle blocks even bigger than 4MB now).
    • 70% yearly increase in available bandwidth, combined with a mere 54% yearly increase in used bandwidth (plus new "block compression" technologies such as XThin and Compact Blocks) mean that nearly all existing nodes could easily handle 32MB blocks after 8 years; and
    • The "economic incentives" to run a node would be strong if the price were steadily rising to 1 BTC = 1 million USDollars
    • This would give a total market cap of 20 trillion USDollars after about 8 years - comparable to the total "money" in the world which some estimates put at around 82 trillion USDollars.
So maybe we should consider the idea of reinstating Satoshi's Original Bitcoin with its 32MB blocksize - using just the whitepaper and avoiding controversial changes - so we could re-unite the community to get to "million-dollar bitcoin" (and 20 trillion dollar market cap) in as little as 8 years.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

BAT Community Weekly Update: 10/05/2018 to 10/11/2018 — AMA with Yan Zhu, Why GDPR is kryptonite to Google & Facebook, Brave & Brendan Eich mentioned by US Senate committee (video), BAT/Brave Team at ETH SF, Worldwide BAT Meetups next week

Welcome to this week's BAT Community Update! Big thanks to u/MurphD for his contributions!

BLOG: Why GDPR is Kryptonite to Google & Facebook on Anti-Trust
Brave’s submission to Margrethe Vestager, the EU Anti-Trust Chief, responding to her call for stakeholder input. Brave’s recent submission to the European Competition Directorate General for Competition describes how a core principle of the GDPR called “purpose limitation” can be used to prevent anti-competitive behavior by Google and Facebook.
https://brave.com/vestage

VIDEO: Brave and Brendan Eich mentioned by US Senate committee
https://www.reddit.com/BATProject/comments/9nbz90/video_brave_and_brendan_eich_mentioned_by_us/

VIDEO: Brave & BAT at Founders Fund with Brendan Eich (CEO) — Detailed talk about BATBrave & BAT official meetup event graciously hosted at Founders Fund, featuring Brendan Eich. Brendan is the inventor of JavaScript, founder of Mozilla/Firefox and CEO of Brave.Brave is a new, privacy-first browser that blocks all third-party ads and trackers by default. Basic Attention Token (BAT) is a revolutionary digital advertising platform that rewards users in Ethereum-based BAT tokens for any ads they opt into seeing, and locally matches ads to user interests without any tracking or data collection required.
https://www.reddit.com/BATProject/comments/9mgb9l/video_brave_bat_at_founders_fund_with_brendan/

BAT Community presents its first worldwide meetup events: “24 HOURS OF BAT” (Oct. 16th)
The BAT was first integrated into Brave in October 2017. To celebrate reaching 1 year of BAT utility in Brave, we’ve asked all of our Regional Leaders and volunteers from around the world to host meetups in their country on October 16th, 2018 and create a full day of global BAT meetups!
If you are in the area where one of our meetups will be taking place, you are invited to join in! Meetups with event pages for each region are listed below. Keep an eye out over the coming weeks for more event pages for 24 Hours of BAT meetups in other countries!24 Hours of BAT meetup in Media, Pennsylvania:
https://www.meetup.com/BATPennsylvania/events/254956818/
24 Hours of BAT meetup in Jakarta, Indonesia:
https://www.meetup.com/BAT-Indonesia-Community/events/255078993/
24 Hours of BAT meetup in Vigo, Spain:
https://www.meetup.com/Meetup-de-Educacion-y-tecnologia-en-Vigo/events/255192626/
24 Hours of BAT meetup in Toronto, Canada:
https://www.reddit.com/BATProject/comments/9kh6z5/event_details_batbrave_meetup_on_october_16th/
24 Hours of BAT meetup in Bogotá, Colombia:https://www.meetup.com/BATColombia/events/255091430/?_xtd=gqFyqTI1ODQ1NDA2OaFwp2FuZHJvaWQ&from=ref
24 Hours of BAT meetup in Perth, Australia:https://www.meetup.com/BATPerth/events/255358589/
And be sure to check out these other upcoming BAT/Brave meetups!
BAT/Brave meetup in Medellín, Colombia on October 20th: https://www.meetup.com/BATColombia/events/254368593/
BAT/Brave meetup in Montreal, Canada on October 23rd:
https://www.meetup.com/BATMontreal/events/255413618/

BAT Community Merch Giveaway Winners!
The winners for our BAT Community Daily Merch Giveaways for this week are:
Click here to see pics of previous giveaway winners rocking their BAT/Brave merch!: https://imgur.com/a/lhF1G9I
Be sure to tune in to our social media channels every Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday and Friday to participate in our daily merch giveaways for your chance to win!

Client Updates:

Brave releases desktop client] version v0.25.2
Brave releases Beta client version 0.55.12
https://github.com/brave/brave-browsereleases/tag/v0.55.12

Brave Team Tweets:

More fiat to cryptocurrencies exchanges to come?
Ivan Buncic @ivanbuncic Replying to @BrendanEich @brave will it [Brave] supports something else than bitcoins for contributions?
BrendanEich @BrendanEich We switched from Bitcoin last year, to @attentiontoken. @UpholdInc is first partner enabling exchange to many fiats/cryptos in many regions. More to come. 3:01 PM - Oct 5, 2018

Almost 30,000 publishers/creators, and coming up on 5 million active users!
BrendanEich @BrendanEich Early October @Brave stats: 4.6M MAU 28.7K publishers/creators (23.1K verified) 1:52 PM - 5 Oct 2018
BAT Community @BAT_Community Official BAT/Brave event last night with a great presentation by @BrendanEich! Thanks to Founders Fund for providing the beautiful venue. ☁️✨🦁🚀$BAT #Brave #BeBrave @AttentionToken @brave11:45 AM - Oct 5, 2018

Check out Brendan’s post on Hacker News discussing sending crypto anonymously to favorite sites and creators:
BrendanEich @BrendanEich Oct 6, 2018 I just commented on "Brave – A private, secure and fast browser", HN post at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18154545 …
BrendanEich @BrendanEich “In this sense, all browsers insert the vast majority of ads today.” pic.twitter.com/cbyXw9GLVr 1:03 PM - Oct 6, 2018

Brave’s ad deals don’t come through exchanges.
BrendanEich @BrendanEich As noted elsewhere, we already do antifraud. I'll reply at length, but note our ad deals do not come through exchanges, they require integrity-checked Brave -- so there's no way that fork would get paid so easily. To cheat us, fraudster would have to fake users who run our code. 5:08 PM - Oct 6, 2018

Brave working on BAT for premium content… and don’t forget: Brave gives you token grants!
BrendanEich @BrendanEich Oct 7, 2018 Replying to @naval @sriramk Brave (see the Payments panel in settings/preferences) does let you take a token grant _gratis_ and pin percentages of your monthly budget to any site or YouTube or Twitch channel you want. Reddit & Twitter account support coming. As Brave Rewards, revamped & on mobile very soon.
BrendanEich @BrendanEich
We’re working with some of those sites + other publishers (e.g., Dow Jones Media Group) on “BAT for premium content” too. Everyone needs non-adtech revenue. From recent trips to NYC and Paris, it’s clear to me that publishers are waking up, like the Ents in Tolkien going to war. 10:23 AM - Oct 7, 2018

Brendan’s response to “Why not imitate a specific model (Patreon) that is working in the wild?”
Naval @naval Oct 7, 2018 Replying to @BrendanEich and 2 others
IMHO too oblique and roundabout. Why not imitate a specific model (Patreon) that is working in the wild? Pay USD to sponsor publishers. Publisher’s site unlocks specific content to paying subscribers. Of course this requires some module on the publisher’s side. cc @photomatt
BrendanEich @BrendanEich
If you want roundabout, try getting publishers & users at the same time, with a pitch that requires both at once. Metcalfe’s Law, Catch-22. So we start with users and now, nearing 5M MAU, we have over 23,000 creators on board. We do not centralize data or censor, unlike Patreon.
11:32 AM - Oct 7, 2018
BrendanEich @BrendanEich Last thing: most users do not want to pay, at least not at first. So we give token grants while building other models to pay the user to let paid tokens flow by default to their top or pinned sites. >430K user wallets from desktop only option, coming to mobile in several weeks.
9:15 PM - Oct 7, 2018

How is the adblock support on Brave? Sampson explains:
Kevin S. @ifandbut01 Oct 8, 2018 Replying to @Grummz @brave
How is the ad block support?
Sampson | [email protected]
@brave uses the same lists which power other popular ad-blockers. One exception is that we don't have a pay-to-play model (like others) which lets some advertisers through. We go a step further too, blocking cryptominers (first browser to do so?), auto-play media, and more.
10:44 AM - Oct 8, 2018

Too many browsers, Luke?
Luke Mulks @lukemulks You know you work for a browser, when you have 12 browsers installed on your machine, and at least 3 of them are from the same company. Lol. 4:57 PM - Oct 8, 2018

GDPR only helping big incumbents?
BrendanEich @BrendanEich It's a silly slogan that GDPR only helps big incumbents. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18132868 … 2:03 PM - Oct 3, 2018

Has Brave always been based on Chromium? Sampson explains:
Sampson | brave.com @BraveSampson Brave has pretty much always been built on Chromium. The current released inherited the Chromium code by way of another project called Electron. We forked Electron to improve security, but this slowed us down. Brave Core is us moving closer to the root code-base, for many gains… 8:12 PM - Oct 8, 2018

Will advertisers on Brave would be required to purchase the $BAT token?
Mike Rogers @mikerogers121 Oct 9, 2018 Replying to @BrendanEich and 3 others Sorry Brendan, I made a mistake with the first Q. What I wanted to know is if advertisers on Brave would be required to purchase the $BAT token, via Uphold or other exchange, in order to pay for ads on the Brave platform?
BrendanEich @BrendanEich Yes, the token flows from advertisers to users and publishers. It is the unit of account for attention, sent p2p in as many cases as we can do w/ anonymity, held in user wallets over 30 days of anonymous analytics, settled either via Uphold or soon p2p to optional pub eth wallet.
9:23 PM - Oct 9, 2018

From Reddit: Can extensions spy on us? If it can, how do we prevent it after 1.0 release?
Great response from Chris here:
https://www.reddit.com/BATProject/comments/9n5nws/can_extensions_spy_on_us_if_it_can_how_do_we/

News You Should Know:

Facebook to release first-party cookie option for ads, pull web analytics from Safari
Facebook is the latest big digital ad seller to release a solution to address moves by browsers to kill third-party cookies. The company is releasing a new first-party cookie option for advertisers, publishers, and developers to measure and optimize Facebook ads and capture analytics data from browsers that block third-party cookies — namely Apple’s Safari and soon Mozilla’s Firefox.
https://marketingland.com/facebook-to-release-first-party-pixel-for-ads-web-analytics-from-browsers-like-safari-249478

The EU’s new privacy law is starting to bite Facebook
REGULATION helps incumbents, which have the resources to comply, but hurts newcomers. Or so argue critics of the European Commission’s new rules for the digital realm and of its privacy law, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). That may yet prove true, although the GDPR makes exceptions for smaller firms. But for now these new laws are making life harder for big technology firms. Facebook, in particular, is in the cross-hairs of European regulators as never before.
https://www.economist.com/business/2018/10/06/the-eus-new-privacy-law-is-starting-to-bite-facebook

Exclusive: Audit cleared Google privacy practices despite security flaw
An independent auditing firm signed off on Google's privacy practices earlier this year after the internet giant had discovered a software bug that exposed private information on potentially hundreds of thousands of users.
https://thehill.com/policy/technology/410568-exclusive-privacy-audit-failed-to-mention-of-google-plus-security-flaw

Google shutting down Google+ after exposing data of up to 500,000 users
A vulnerability in the Google+ social network exposed the personal data of up to 500,000 people using the site between 2015 and March 2018, the search giant acknowledged Monday.
https://www.cnet.com/news/google-reportedly-exposed-data-of-hundreds-of-thousands-of-google-users/

Roaring Fans:

Yagiz‏ @anonrig Today's the day I switch from Google Chrome to @brave 6:15 PM - 6 Oct 2018

Ö. Onur ERGINOGLU @OnurErginoglu Hey @BrendanEich and @brave team! thank you for saving my 60 minutes from being wasted! There is nothing precious than the time! 9:50 PM - Oct 7, 2018

Zach‏ @heyztb 31,000 ads blocked, just over 31 minutes of times saved @brave Funny how that works out. 3:37 PM - 8 Oct 2018

Tereza Iofciu‏ @terezaif Damn.. this is like in 5 mins after starting to use @brave creepy af #adsblocked #browsermagic #Brave 8h8 hours ago
Just a Random Person‏ @ShrekOverflow First day using @brave with moderate usage (mostly google sites). 20h20 hours ago

Christopher Scott‏ @chrisjscott I'm in love - @Brave browser for macOS + @DuckDuckGo search engine has become my new jam. #MyDataNotYours Oct 10

Kim Priestap‏ @kimpriestap Google is too big, too powerful. Divest from Google. Use @DuckDuckGo for search engine and @Brave for browser. I'm also switching over to @protonmail for email. https://www.wsj.com/articles/google-exposed-user-data-feared-repercussions-of-disclosing-to-public-1539017194 … via @WSJ Oct 10

Barbora the explorer‏ @barbori_j Started using @brave today and couldn't be happier with it! Fast, smart, no ads, hallelu! Try it too #bravebrowser @AttentionToken #blockchain #innovation
Oct 10
submitted by CryptoJennie to BATProject [link] [comments]

2 more blatant LIES from Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc: (1) "On most weeken[d]s the effective feerate drops to 1/2 satoshi/byte" (FALSE! The median fee is now well over 100 sat/byte) (2) SegWit is only a "trivial configuration change" (FALSE! SegWit is the most radical change to Bitcoin ever)

Below are actual quotes (archived for posterity) showing these two latest bizarre lies (from a single comment!) now being peddled by the toxic dev-troll Greg Maxwell u/nullc - CTO of AXA-owned Blockstream:
(1) Here is AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc lying about fees:
On most weeken[d]s the effective feerate drops to 1/2 satoshi/byte... [?!?!] basically nothing-- which is how traffic will be on most weekdays if there is only a bit more capacity.
(2) Here is AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc lying about SegWit:
Miners could trigger a doubling of the network's capacity with no disruption in ~2 weeks, the software for it is already deployed all over the network-- on some 90%+ of nodes (though 20% would have been sufficient!), miners need only make a trivial configuration change [SegWit] [?!?!]
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6bnor6/uasf_for_segwit_is_our_only_practical_path_to/dhoy205/
https://archive.fo/avsib
And this is on top of another bizarre / delusional statement / lie / "alternative fact" that Greg Maxwell u/nullc also blurted out this week:
(3) Here's the sickest, dirtiest lie ever from Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc: "There were nodes before miners." This is part of Core/Blockstream's latest propaganda/lie/attack on miners - claiming that "Non-mining nodes are the real Bitcoin, miners don't count" (their desperate argument for UASF)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6cega2/heres_the_sickest_dirtiest_lie_ever_from/
Seriously?
This is the guy that the astroturfers / trolls / sockpuppets / suicidal UASF lemmings from r\bitcoin want as their "leader" deciding on the "roadmap" for Bitcoin?
Well, then it's no big surprise that Greg Maxwell's "roadmap" has been driving Bitcoin into a ditch - as shown by this recent graph:
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6a72vm/purely_coincidental
At this point, the sane people involved with Bitcoin be starting to wonder if maybe Greg Maxwell is just a slightly-more-cryptographically-talented version of another Core nut-job: the notoriously bat-shit insane Luke-Jr.
Commentary and analysis
Greg is supposedly a smart guy and a good cryptographer - but now for some weird reason he seems to be going into total melt-down and turning bat-shit insane - spreading outrageous lies about fees and about SegWit.
Maybe he can't handle the fact that that almost 60% of hashpower is now voting for bigger blocks - ie the majority of miners are explicitly rejecting the dead-end scaling stalling road-map of "One Meg" Greg & Core/Blockstream/AXA, based on their centrally-planned blocksize + their dangerous overly-complicated SegWit hack.
To be clear: there is a very specific reason why the SegWit-as-a-soft-fork hack is very dangerous: doing SegWit-as-a-soft-fork would dangerously require making all coins "anyone-can-spend".
This would create an enormous new unprecedented class of threat vectors against Bitcoin. In other words, with SegWit-as-a-soft-fork, for the first time ever in Bitcoin's history, a 51% attack would not only be able to double-spend, or prevent people from spending: with SegWit-as-a-soft-fork, a 51% attack would, for the first time ever in Bitcoin, be able to steal everyone's coins.
This kind kind of "threat vector" previously did not exist in Bitcoin. And this is what Greg lies and refers to as a "minor configuration change" (when SegWit is actually the most radical and irresponsible change ever proposed in the history of Bitcoin) - in the same breath where he is also lying and saying that "fees are 1/2 satoshi per byte" (when fees are actually hundreds of satoshis per byte now).
Now, here is the truth - which AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc doesn't want you to know - about fees and about SegWit:
(1) Fees are never "1/2 satoshi per byte" - fees are now usually hundreds of satoshis per byte
The network is now permanently backlogged, and fees are skyrocketing, as you can see from this graph:
https://jochen-hoenicke.de/queue/#2w
The backlog used to clear out over the weekend. But not anymore. Now the Bitcoin network is permanently backlogged - and the person most to blame is the incompetent / lying toxic dev-troll AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc.
The median fee on the beige-colored zone on this graph shows that most people are actually paying 280-300 satoshis / byte in the real world - not 1/2 satoshi / byte as lying Greg bizarrely claimed.
You can also compare with these other two graphs, which show similar skyrocketing fees:
http://statoshi.info/dashboard/db/fee-estimates
https://bitcoinfees.21.co/
So when AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc says "On most weeken[d]s the effective feerate drops to 1/2 satoshi/byte.. basically nothing"... everyone can immediately look at the graphs and immediately see that Greg is lying.
AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc is the "mastermind" to blame for Bitcoin's current suicidal dead-end roadmap, which is causing:
I mean, seriously, what the fuck?!?
How can people even be continue to think that this guy Greg Maxwell u/nullc any credibility left at this point, if he's publicly on the record making this bizarre statement that fees are 1/2 satoshi per byte, when everyone already knows that fees are hundreds of satoshis per byte???
And what is wrong with Greg? Supposedly he's some kind of great mathematician and cryptographer - but he's apparently incapable of reading a simple graph or counting?
This is the kind of "leader" who people the ignorant brainwashed lemmings on r\bitcoin "trust" to decide on Bitcoin's "roadmap"?
Well - no wonder shit like this graph is happening now, under the leadership of a toxic delusional nutjob like "One Meg" Greg, the "great mathematician and cryptoprapher" who now we discover apparently doesn't know the difference between "1/2 a satoshi" versus "hundreds of satoshis".
How can the community even have anything resembling a normal debate when a bizarre nutjob like Greg Maxwell u/nullc is considered some kind of "respected leader"?
How can Bitcoin survive if we continue to listen to this guy Greg who is now starting to apparently show serious cognitive and mental issues, about basic obvious concepts like "numbers" and "nodes"?
(2) SegWit would be the most radical and irresponsible change ever in the history of Bitcoin - which is why most miners (except centralized, central-banker-owned "miners" like BitFury and BTCC) are rejecting SegWit.
Below are multiple posts explaining all the problems with SegWit.
Of course, it would be nice to fix malleability and quadratic hashing in Bitcoin. But as the posts below show, SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is the wrong way to do this - and besides, the most urgent problem facing Bitcoin right now (for us, the users) is not malleability or quadratic hashing - the main problem in Bitcoin right now is the never-ending backlog - which SegWit is too-little too-late to fix.
By the way, there are many theories out there regarding why AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc is so insistent on forcing everyone to adopt SegWit.
Maybe I'm overly worried, but my theory is this: due to the sheer complexity of SegWit (and the impossibility of ever "rolling it back" to to the horrific "anyone-can-spend" hack which it uses in order to be do-able as a soft fork), the real reason why AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc insists on forcing SegWit on everyone is so that Blockstream (and their owners at AXA) can permanently centralize and control Bitcoin development).
At any rate, SegWit is clearly not the way forward for Bitcoin - and it is not even something that we can "compromise" on. Bitcoin will be seriously harmed by SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - and we really need to be asking ourselves why a guy like Greg Maxwell u/nullc insists on lying and saying that SegWit is a "minor configuration change" when everyone who understands Bitcoin and programming knows that SegWit is a messy dangerous hack which would be the most radical and irresponsible change ever introduced into Bitcoin - as all the posts below amply demonstrate.
Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!
~ u/Windowly (link to article on wallstreettechnologist.com)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5gd181/core_segwit_thinking_of_upgrading_you_need_to/
SegWit is not great
~ u/deadalnix (link to [his blog post](www.deadalnix.me/2016/10/17/segwit-is-not-great/))
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57vjin/segwit_is_not_great/
Here is a list (on medium.com) of 13 articles that explain why SegWit would be bad for Bitcoin.
~ u/ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/646kmv/here_is_a_list_on_mediumcom_of_13_articles_that
Is it me, or does the segwit implementation look horribly complicated.
~ u/Leithm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4tfcal/is_it_me_or_does_the_segwit_implementation_look/
Bitcoin Scaling Solution Segwit a “Bait and Switch”, says Roger Ver
~ u/blockologist
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ca65k/bitcoin_scaling_solution_segwit_a_bait_and_switch/
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
~ u/BiggerBlocksPlease
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ge1ks/segwit_cannot_be_rolled_back_because_to/
SegWit false start attack allows a minority of miners to steal bitcoins from SegWit transactions
~ u/homerjthompson_
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/59vent/segwit_false_start_attack_allows_a_minority_of/
Blockstream Core developer luke-jr admits the real reason for SegWit-as-soft-fork is that a soft fork does not require consensus, a hard fork would require consensus among network actors and "that it[SegWit] would fail on that basis."
~ u/blockstreamcoin
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u35kk/blockstream_core_developer_lukejr_admits_the_real/
If SegWit were to activate today, it would have absolutely no positive effect on the backlog. If big blocks activate today, it would be solved in no time.
~ u/ThomasZander
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6byunq/if_segwit_were_to_activate_today_it_would_have/
Segwit is too complicated, too soon
~ u/redmarlen
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4cou20/segwit_is_too_complicated_too_soon/
Surpise: SegWit SF becomes more and more centralized - around half of all Segwit signals come from Bitfury
~ u/Shock_The_Stream
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5s6nasurpise_segwit_sf_becomes_more_and_more/
"Regarding SegWit, I don't know if you have actually looked at the code but the amount of code changed, including consensus code, is huge."
~ u/realistbtc
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/41a3o2/regarding_segwit_i_dont_know_if_you_have_actually/
Segwit: The Poison Pill for Bitcoin
~ u/jEanduluoz
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/59upyh/segwit_the_poison_pill_for_bitcoin/
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
~ u/ydtm
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rfh4i/3_excellent_articles_highlighting_some_of_the/
Segwit as a soft-fork is not backward compatible. Older nodes do not continue to protect users' funds by verifying signatures (because they can't see these). Smart people won't use SegWit so that when a "Bitcoin Classic" fork is created, they can use or sell their copies of coins on that fork too
~ u/BTC_number_1_fan
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5689t6/segwit_as_a_softfork_is_not_backward_compatible/
jtoomim "SegWit would require all bitcoin software (including SPV wallets) to be partially rewritten in order to have the same level of security they currently have, whereas a blocksize increase only requires full nodes to be updated (and with pretty minor changes)."
~ u/specialenmity
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ymdws/ujtoomim_segwit_would_require_all_bitcoin/
Segwit requires 100% of infrastructure refactoring
~ u/HermanSchoenfeld
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/62dog4/segwit_requires_100_of_infrastructure_refactoring/
Segwit is too dangerous to activate. It will require years of testing to make sure it's safe. Meanwhile, unconfirmed transactions are at 207,000+ and users are over-paying millions in excessive fees. The only option is to upgrade the protocol with a hard fork to 8MB as soon as possible.
~ u/Annapurna317
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6bx4fs/segwit_is_too_dangerous_to_activate_it_will/
You've been lied to by Core devs - SegWit is NOT backwards compatible!
~ u/increaseblocks (quoting @olivierjanss on Twitter)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/618tw4/youve_been_lied_to_by_core_devs_segwit_is_not/
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdl1j/segwit_encumbers_bitcoin_with_irreversible/
Blockstream having patents in Segwit makes all the weird pieces of the last three years fall perfectly into place
~ u/Falkvinge (Rick Falkvinge, founder of the first Pirate Party)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/68kflu/blockstream_having_patents_in_segwit_makes_all
Finally, we need to ask ourselves:
(1) Why is AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc engaging in these kind of blatant, obvious lies about fees and about SegWit - the two most critical issues facing Bitcoin today?
(2) Why is AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc so insistent on trying to force Bitcoin to accept SegWit, when SegWit is so dangerous, and when there are other, much safer ways of dealing with minor issues like malleability and quadratic hashing?
(3) Now that AXA-owned Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc has clearly shown that:
  • He doesn't know the difference between "half a satoshi" and "hundreds of satoshis",
  • He doesn't know the difference between "minor configuration change" and "the most irresponsible and radical change ever" in Bitcoin, and
  • He thinks that somehow "non-mining nodes existed before mining nodes"
...then... um... Is there any mechanism in our community for somehow rejecting / ignoring / removing this toxic so-called "leader" Greg Maxwell who has now clearly shown that he is totally delusional and/or mentally incapacitated - in order to prevent him from totally destroying our investment in Bitcoin?
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

The only acceptable "compromise" is SegWit NEVER, bigger blocks NOW. SegWit-as-a-soft-fork involves an "anyone-can-spend" hack - which would give Core/Blockstream/AXA a MONOPOLY on Bitcoin development FOREVER. The goal of SegWit is NOT to help Bitcoin. It is to HURT Bitcoin and HELP Blockstream/AXA.

TL;DR: Adding a poison pill like SegWit to Bitcoin would not be a "compromise" - it would be suicide, because SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" hack would give a permanent monopoly on Bitcoin development to the corrupt, incompetent, toxic dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA, who are only interested in staying in power and helping themselves at all costs - even if they end up hurting Bitcoin.
Most of this post will probably not be new information for many people.
It is being provided mainly as a reminder, to counteract the constant flood of lies and propaganda coming from Core/Blocsktream/AXA in their attempt to force this unwanted SegWit poison pill into Bitcoin - in particular, their latest desperate lie: that there could somehow be some kind of "compromise" involving SegWit.
But adding a poison pill / trojan horse like SegWit to our code would not be some kind of "compromise". It would be simply be suicide.
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is an existential threat to Bitcoin development - because SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" hack would give a permanent monopoly on Bitcoin development to the corrupt / incompetent centralized dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA who are directly to blame for the current mess of Bitcoin's crippled, clogged network and drastically falling market cap.
Furthermore, markets don't even do "compromise". They do "winner-takes-all". Any coin adopting SegWit is going to lose, simply because SegWit is such shitty code:
"Compromise is not part of Honey Badger's vocabulary. Such notions are alien to Bitcoin, as it is a creature of the market with no central levers to compromise over. Bitcoin unhampered by hardcoding a 1MB cap is free to optimize itself perfectly to defeat all competition." ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5y7vsi/compromise_is_not_part_of_honey_badgers/
SegWit-as-a-soft-fork is a poison-pill / trojan horse for Bitcoin
SegWit is brought to you by the anti-Bitcoin central bankers at AXA and the economically ignorant, central blocksize planners at Blockstream whose dead-end "road map" for Bitcoin is:
AXA is trying to sabotage Bitcoin by paying the most ignorant, anti-market devs in Bitcoin: Core/Blockstream
This is the direction that Bitcoin has been heading in since late 2014 when Blockstream started spreading their censorship and propaganda and started bribing and corrupting the "Core" devs using $76 million in fiat provided by corrupt, anti-Bitcoin "fantasy fiat" finance firms like the debt-backed, derivatives-addicted insurance mega-giant AXA.
Remember: The real goals of Core/Blocsktream/AXA with SegWit are to:
  • permanently supress Bitcoin's price / adoption / network capacity / market cap / growth - via SegWit's too-little, too-late centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize;
  • permanently control Bitcoin development - via SegWit's deadly "anyone-can-spend" hack.
In order to see this, all you need to do is judge Core/Blocsktream/AXA by their actions (and the results of their actions - and by their shitty code):
Purely coincidental... ~ u/ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6a72vm/purely_coincidental/
Do not judge Core/Blocsktream/AXA by their words.
As we have seen, their words have been just an endless stream of lies and propaganda involving changing explanations and shifting goalposts and insane nonsense - including this latest outrageous concept of SegWit as some kind of "compromise" which some people may be "falling for":
Latest Segwit Trickery involves prominent support for "SW Now 2MB Later" which will lead to only half of the deal being honored. Barry Silbert front and center. Of course.
~ u/SouperNerd
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6btm5u/latest_segwit_trickery_involves_prominent_support/
The people we are dealing with are the WORST type of manipulators and liars.
There is absolutely NO reason why they should not deliver a 2 MB block size at the same time as SegWit.
This is like a dealer saying "hey gimme that $200 now, I just gotta run home and get your weed, I promise I'll be right back".
~ u/BitAlien
Barry Silbert's "proposal" is just another bait and switch
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6btl26/barry_silberts_proposal_is_just_another_bait_and/
Right, so the wording is:
I agree to immediately support the activation of Segregated Witness and commit to effectuate a block size increase to 2MB within 12 months
[Based] on [their] previous performance [in the Hong Kong agreement - which they already broke], they're going to say, "Segregated Witness was a block size increase, to a total of 4MB, so we have delivered our side of the compromise."
~ u/edmundedgar
Barry is an investor in Blockstream. What else needs to be said?
~ u/coinlock
Nothing involving SegWit is a "compromise".
SegWit would basically hijack Bitcoin development forever - giving a permanent monopoly to the centralized, corrupt dev team of Core/Blockstream/AXA.
  • SegWit would impose a centrally planned blocksize of 1.7MB right now - too little and too late.
  • Segwit would permanently "cement" Core/Blockstream/AXA as the only people controlling Bitcoin development - forever.
If you are sick and tired of these attempts by Core/Blockstream/AXA to sabotage Bitcoin - then the last thing you should support is SegWit in any way, shape or form - even as some kind of so-called "compromise".
This is because SegWit is not primarily a "malleability fix" or a "capacity increase".
SegWit is a poison pill / trojan horse which would put the idiots and traitors at Core/Blockstream/AXA permanently and exclusively in control of Bitcoin development - forever and ever.
Here are the real problems with SegWit (which Core/Blockstream/AXA is not telling you about):
Initially, I liked SegWit. But then I learned SegWit-as-a-SOFT-fork is dangerous (making transactions "anyone-can-spend"??) & centrally planned (1.7MB blocksize??). Instead, Bitcoin Unlimited is simple & safe, with MARKET-BASED BLOCKSIZE. This is why more & more people have decided to REJECT SEGWIT.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5vbofp/initially_i_liked_segwit_but_then_i_learned/
Segwit cannot be rolled back because to non-upgraded clients, ANYONE can spend Segwit txn outputs. If Segwit is rolled back, all funds locked in Segwit outputs can be taken by anyone. As more funds gets locked up in segwit outputs, incentive for miners to collude to claim them grows.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ge1ks/segwit_cannot_be_rolled_back_because_to/
"So, Core wants us to trust miners not to steal Segwit's anyone-can-spends, but will not let them have a say on block size. Weird."~Cornell U Professor and bitcoin researcher Emin Gün Sirer.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/60ac4q/so_core_wants_us_to_trust_miners_not_to_steal/
Brock Pierce's BLOCKCHAIN CAPITAL is part-owner of Bitcoin's biggest, private, fiat-funded private dev team (Blockstream) & biggest, private, fiat-funded private mining operation (BitFury). Both are pushing SegWit - with its "centrally planned blocksize" & dangerous "anyone-can-spend kludge".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5sndsz/brock_pierces_blockchain_capital_is_partowner_of/
u/Luke-Jr invented SegWit's dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork kludge. Now he helped kill Bitcoin trading at Circle. He thinks Bitcoin should only hard-fork TO DEAL WITH QUANTUM COMPUTING. Luke-Jr will continue to kill Bitcoin if we continue to let him. To prosper, BITCOIN MUST IGNORE LUKE-JR.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5h0yf0/ulukejr_invented_segwits_dangerous_anyonecanspend/
"SegWit encumbers Bitcoin with irreversible technical debt. Miners should reject SWSF. SW is the most radical and irresponsible protocol upgrade Bitcoin has faced in its history. The scale of the code changes are far from trivial - nearly every part of the codebase is affected by SW" Jaqen Hash’ghar
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rdl1j/segwit_encumbers_bitcoin_with_irreversible/
"We had our arms twisted to accept 2MB hardfork + SegWit. We then got a bait and switch 1MB + SegWit with no hardfork, and accounting tricks to make P2SH transactions cheaper (for sidechains and Lightning, which is all Blockstream wants because they can use it to control Bitcoin)." ~ u/URGOVERNMENT
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ju5r8/we_had_our_arms_twisted_to_accept_2mb_hardfork/
Here is a list (on medium.com) of 13 articles that explain why SegWit would be bad for Bitcoin.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/646kmv/here_is_a_list_on_mediumcom_of_13_articles_that/
"Why is Flexible Transactions more future-proof than SegWit?" by u/ThomasZander
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rbv1j/why_is_flexible_transactions_more_futureproof/
Core/Blockstream & their supporters keep saying that "SegWit has been tested". But this is false. Other software used by miners, exchanges, Bitcoin hardware manufacturers, non-Core software developers/companies, and Bitcoin enthusiasts would all need to be rewritten, to be compatible with SegWit
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5dlyz7/coreblockstream_their_supporters_keep_saying_that/
"SegWit [would] bring unnecessary complexity to the bitcoin blockchain. Huge changes it introduces into the client are a veritable minefield of issues, [with] huge changes needed for all wallets, exchanges, remittance, and virtually all bitcoin software that will use it." ~ u/Bitcoinopoly (self.btc)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jqgpz/segwit_would_bring_unnecessary_complexity_to_the/
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5rfh4i/3_excellent_articles_highlighting_some_of_the/
Normal users understand that SegWit-as-a-softfork is dangerous, because it deceives non-upgraded nodes into thinking transactions are valid when actually they're not - turning those nodes into "zombie nodes". Greg Maxwell and Blockstream are jeopardizing Bitcoin - in order to stay in power.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mnpxx/normal_users_understand_that_segwitasasoftfork_is/
As Benjamin Frankline once said: "Given a choice between Liberty (with a few Bugs), and Slavery (with no Bugs), a Free People will choose Liberty every time." Bitcoin Unlimited is liberty: market-based blocksizes. SegWit is slavery: centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize & "anyone-can-spend" transactions
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zievg/as_benjamin_frankline_once_said_given_a_choice/
u/Uptrenda on SegWit: "Core is forcing every Bitcoin startup to abandon their entire code base for a Rube Goldberg machine making their products so slow, inconvenient, and confusing that even if they do manage to 'migrate' to this cluster-fuck of technical debt it will kill their businesses anyway."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e86fg/uuptrenda_on_segwit_core_is_forcing_every_bitcoin/
Just because something is a "soft fork" doesn't mean it isn't a massive change. SegWit is an alt-coin. It would introduce radical and unpredictable changes in Bitcoin's economic parameters and incentives. Just read this thread. Nobody has any idea how the mainnet will react to SegWit in real life.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5fc1ii/just_because_something_is_a_soft_fork_doesnt_mean/
Here are the real reasons why Core/Blockstream/AXA is terrified of hard forks:
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
The real reason why Core / Blockstream always favors soft-forks over hard-forks (even though hard-forks are actually safer because hard-forks are explicit) is because soft-forks allow the "incumbent" code to quietly remain incumbent forever (and in this case, the "incumbent" code is Core)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4080mw/the_real_reason_why_core_blockstream_always/
Reminder: Previous posts showing that Blockstream's opposition to hard-forks is dangerous, obstructionist, selfish FUD. As many of us already know, the reason that Blockstream is against hard forks is simple: Hard forks are good for Bitcoin, but bad for the private company Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ttmk3/reminder_previous_posts_showing_that_blockstreams/
Core/Blockstream is living in a fantasy world. In the real world everyone knows (1) our hardware can support 4-8 MB (even with the Great Firewall), and (2) hard forks are cleaner than soft forks. Core/Blockstream refuses to offer either of these things. Other implementations (eg: BU) can offer both.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ejmin/coreblockstream_is_living_in_a_fantasy_world_in/
If Blockstream were truly "conservative" and wanted to "protect Bitcoin" then they would deploy SegWit AS A HARD FORK. Insisting on deploying SegWit as a soft fork (overly complicated so more dangerous for Bitcoin) exposes that they are LYING about being "conservative" and "protecting Bitcoin".
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/57zbkp/if_blockstream_were_truly_conservative_and_wanted/
If some bozo dev team proposed what Core/Blockstream is proposing (Let's deploy a malleability fix as a "soft" fork that dangerously overcomplicates the code and breaks non-upgraded nodes so it's de facto HARD! Let's freeze capacity at 1 MB during a capacity crisis!), they'd be ridiculed and ignored
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5944j6/if_some_bozo_dev_team_proposed_what/
"Negotiations have failed. BS/Core will never HF - except to fire the miners and create an altcoin. Malleability & quadratic verification time should be fixed - but not via SWSF political/economic trojan horse. CHANGES TO BITCOIN ECONOMICS MUST BE THRU FULL NODE REFERENDUM OF A HF." ~ u/TunaMelt
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e410j/negotiations_have_failed_bscore_will_never_hf/
The proper terminology for a "hard fork" should be a "FULL NODE REFERENDUM" - an open, transparent EXPLICIT process where everyone has the right to vote FOR or AGAINST an upgrade. The proper terminology for a "soft fork" should be a "SNEAKY TROJAN HORSE" - because IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e4e7d/the_proper_terminology_for_a_hard_fork_should_be/
Here are the real reasons why Core/Blockstream/AXA has been trying to choke the Bitcoin network and suppress Bitcoin's price & adoption. (Hint: Blockstream is controlled by central bankers who hate Bitcoin - because they will go bankrupt if Bitcoin succeeds as a major world currency).
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4r2pw5/if_bitcoin_becomes_a_major_currency_then_tens_of/
Who owns the world? (1) Barclays, (2) AXA, (3) State Street Bank. (Infographic in German - but you can understand it without knowing much German: "Wem gehört die Welt?" = "Who owns the world?") AXA is the #2 company with the most economic poweconnections in the world. And AXA owns Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5btu02/who_owns_the_world_1_barclays_2_axa_3_state/
Double standards: The other sub would go ballistic if Unlimited was funded by AXA. But they are just fine when AXA funds BS-core.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/62ykv1/double_standards_the_other_sub_would_go_ballistic/
The insurance company with the biggest exposure to the 1.2 quadrillion dollar (ie, 1200 TRILLION dollar) derivatives casino is AXA. Yeah, that AXA, the company whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group, and whose "venture capital" arm bought out Bitcoin development by "investing" in Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4k1r7v/the_insurance_company_with_the_biggest_exposure/
Bilderberg Group -> AXA Strategic Ventures -> funds Blockstream -> Blockstream Core Devs. (The chairman of Bilderberg is Henri de Castries. The CEO of AXA Henri de Castries.)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/576ac9/bilderberg_group_axa_strategic_ventures_funds/
Why is Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc trying to pretend AXA isn't one of the top 5 "companies that control the world"? AXA relies on debt & derivatives to pretend it's not bankrupt. Million-dollar Bitcoin would destroy AXA's phony balance sheet. How much is AXA paying Greg to cripple Bitcoin?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/62htv0/why_is_blockstream_cto_greg_maxwell_unullc_trying/
Core/AXA/Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell, CEO Adam Back, attack dog Luke-Jr and censor Theymos are sabotaging Bitcoin - but they lack the social skills to even feel guilty for this. Anyone who attempts to overrule the market and limit or hard-code Bitcoin's blocksize must be rejected by the community.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/689y1e/coreaxablockstream_cto_greg_maxwell_ceo_adam_back/
"I'm angry about AXA scraping some counterfeit money out of their fraudulent empire to pay autistic lunatics millions of dollars to stall the biggest sociotechnological phenomenon since the internet and then blame me and people like me for being upset about it." ~ u/dresden_k
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5xjkof/im_angry_about_axa_scraping_some_counterfeit/
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4mlo0z/greg_maxwell_used_to_have_intelligent_nuanced/
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5obe2m/this_traders_price_volume_graph_model_predicted/
Just as a reminder: The main funder of Blockstream is Henri de Castries, chairman of French insurance company AXA, and chairman of the Bilderberg Group!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uw6cc/just_as_a_reminder_the_main_funder_of_blockstream/
AXA/Blockstream are suppressing Bitcoin price at 1000 bits = 1 USD. If 1 bit = 1 USD, then Bitcoin's market cap would be 15 trillion USD - close to the 82 trillion USD of "money" in the world. With Bitcoin Unlimited, we can get to 1 bit = 1 USD on-chain with 32MB blocksize ("Million-Dollar Bitcoin")
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5u72va/axablockstream_are_suppressing_bitcoin_price_at/
Bitcoin can go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks, so it will go to 10,000 USD with 4 MB blocks. All the censorship & shilling on r\bitcoin & fantasy fiat from AXA can't stop that. BitcoinCORE might STALL at 1,000 USD and 1 MB blocks, but BITCOIN will SCALE to 10,000 USD and 4 MB blocks - and beyond
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5jgkxv/bitcoin_can_go_to_10000_usd_with_4_mb_blocks_so/
And finally, here's one easy way that Bitcoin can massively succeed without SegWit - and even without the need for any other major or controversial changes to the code:
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Core/Blockstream attacks any dev who knows how to do simple & safe "Satoshi-style" on-chain scaling for Bitcoin, like Mike Hearn and Gavin Andresen. Now we're left with idiots like Greg Maxwell, Adam Back and Luke-Jr - who don't really understand scaling, mining, Bitcoin, or capacity planning.

Before Core and AXA-owned Blockstream started trying to monopolize and hijack Bitcoin development, Bitcoin had some intelligent devs.
Remember Mike Hearn?
Mike Hearn was a professional capacity planner for one of the world's busiest websites: Google Maps / Earth.
TIL On chain scaling advocate Mike Hearn was a professional capacity planner for one of the world’s busiest websites.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6aylng/til_on_chain_scaling_advocate_mike_hearn_was_a/
Mike Hearn also invented a decentralized Bitcoin-based crowdfunding app, named Lighthouse.
Lighthouse: A development retrospective - Mike Hearn - Zürich
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i4iZKISMZS8
Mike Hearn also developed BitcoinJ - a Java-based Bitcoin wallet still used on many Android devices.
Mike Hearn: bitcoinj 0.12 released
https://np.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/2i6t6h/mike_hearn_bitcoinj_012_released/
So of course, Core / Blockstream had to relentlessly slander and attack Mike Hearn - until he left Bitcoin.
Thank you, Mike Hearn
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/40v0dx/thank_you_mike_hearn/
Remember Gavin Andresen?
Satoshi originally gave control of the Bitcoin project to Gavin. (Later Gavin naïvely gave control of the repo to the an idiot dev named Wladimir van der Laan, who is now "Lead Maintainer for Bitcoin Core".)
Gavin provided a simple & safe scaling roadmap for Bitcoin, based on Satoshi's original vision.
21 months ago, Gavin Andresen published "A Scalability Roadmap", including sections called: "Increasing transaction volume", "Bigger Block Road Map", and "The Future Looks Bright". This was the Bitcoin we signed up for. It's time for us to take Bitcoin back from the strangle-hold of Blockstream.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43lxgn/21_months_ago_gavin_andresen_published_a/
Gavin Andresen: "Let's eliminate the limit. Nothing bad will happen if we do, and if I'm wrong the bad things would be mild annoyances, not existential risks, much less risky than operating a network near 100% capacity." (June 2016)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6delid/gavin_andresen_lets_eliminate_the_limit_nothing/
Gavin's scaling roadmap for Bitcoin is in line with Satoshi's roadmap:
Satoshi's original scaling plan to ~700MB blocks, where most users just have SPV wallets, does NOT require fraud proofs to be secure (contrary to Core dogma)
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6di2mf/satoshis_original_scaling_plan_to_700mb_blocks/
So of course, Core / Blockstream had to relentlessly slander and attack Gavin Andresen - until he basically left Bitcoin.
Gavin, Thanks and ... 'Stay the course'.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/45sv55/gavin_thanks_and_stay_the_course/
In fact, Core and AXA-funded Blockstream devs and trolls have relentlessly attacked and slandered all talented devs who know how to provide simple and safe on-chain scaling for Bitcoin:
"Notice how anyone who has even remotely supported on-chain scaling has been censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed from any area of Core influence. Community, business, Hearn, Gavin, Jeff, XT, Classic, Coinbase, Unlimited, ViaBTC, Ver, Jihan, Bitcoin.com, btc" ~ u/randy-lawnmole
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5omufj/notice_how_anyone_who_has_even_remotely_supported/).
So who are the "leaders" of Bitcoin development now?
Basically we've been left with three toxic and insane wannabe "leaders": Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr and Adam Back.
Here's the kind of nonsense that /nullc - Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell has been saying lately:
Here's the kind of nonsense that the authoritarian nut-job u/luke-jr Luke-Jr has been saying lately:
Meanwhile, Adam Back u/adam3us, CEO of the AXA-owned Blockstream, is adamantly against Bitcoin upgrading and scaling on-chain via any simple and safe hard forks, because a hard fork, while safer for Bitcoin, might remove Blockstream from power.
In addition to blatantly (and egotistically) misdefining Bitcoin on his Twitter profile as "Bitcoin is Hashcash extended with inflation control", Adam Back has never understood how Bitcoin works.
4 weird facts about Adam Back: (1) He never contributed any code to Bitcoin. (2) His Twitter profile contains 2 lies. (3) He wasn't an early adopter, because he never thought Bitcoin would work. (4) He can't figure out how to make Lightning Network decentralized. So... why do people listen to him??
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47fr3p/4_weird_facts_about_adam_back_1_he_neve
The alarming graph below shows where Bitcoin is today, after several years of "leadership" by idiots like Greg Maxwell, Luke Jr, and Adam Back:
Purely coincidental...
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6a72vm/purely_coincidental/
Why does it seem so hard to "scale" Bitcoin?
Because we've been following toxic insane "leaders" like Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr, and Adam Back.
Here are two old posts - from over a year ago - when everyone already had their hair on fire about the urgency of increaing the blocksize.
Meanwhile the clueless "leaders" from Core - Greg Maxwell and Luke-Jr - ignored everyone because they're are apparently too stupid to read a simple graph:
Just click on these historical blocksize graphs - all trending dangerously close to the 1 MB (1000KB) artificial limit. And then ask yourself: Would you hire a CTO / team whose Capacity Planning Roadmap from December 2015 officially stated: "The current capacity situation is no emergency" ?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/3ynswc/just_click_on_these_historical_blocksize_graphs/
Look at these graphs, and you will see that Luke-Jr is lying when he says: "At the current rate of growth, we will not hit 1 MB for 4 more years."
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47jwxu/look_at_these_graphs_and_you_will_see_that_lukej
What's the roadmap from Greg Maxwell, Adam Back, and Luke-Jr?
They've failed to get users and miners to adopt their dangerous SegWit-as-a-soft-fork - so now they're becoming even more desperate and reckless, advocating a suicidal "user (ie, non-miner) activated soft fork, or "UASF".
Miner-activated soft forks were already bad enough - because they take away your right to vote.
"They [Core/Blockstream] fear a hard fork will remove them from their dominant position." ... "Hard forks are 'dangerous' because they put the market in charge, and the market might vote against '[the] experts' [at Core/Blockstream]" - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/43h4cq/they_coreblockstream_fear_a_hard_fork_will_remove/
But a user-activated soft fork is simply suicidal (for the users who try to adopt it - but fortunately not for everyone else).
"The 'logic' of a 'UASF' is that if a minority throw themselves off a cliff, the majority will follow behind and hand them a parachute before they hit the ground. Plus, I'm not even sure SegWit on a minority chain makes any sense given the Anyone-Can-Spend hack that was used." ~ u/Capt_Roger_Murdock
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/6dr9tc/the_logic_of_a_uasf_is_that_if_a_minority_throw/
Is there a better way forward?
Yes there is.
There is no need to people to listen to toxic insane "leaders" like:
  • Greg Maxwell u/nullc - CTO of Blockstream
  • Luke-Jr u/luke-jr - authoritarian nutjob
  • Adam Back u/adam3us - CEO of Blockstream
They have been immensely damaging to Bitcoin with their repeated denials of reality and their total misunderstanding of how Bitcoin works.
Insane toxic "leaders" like Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr and Adam Back keep spreading nonsense and lies which are harmful to the needs of Bitcoin users and miners.
What can we do now?
Code that supports bigger blocks (Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic, Extension Blocks, 8 MB blocksize) is already being used by 40-50% of hashpower on the network.
https://coin.dance/blocks
http://nodecounter.com/#bitcoin_classic_blocks
Code that supports bigger blocks:
Scaling Bitcoin is only complicated or dangerous if you listen to insane toxic "leaders" like Greg Maxwell, Luke-Jr and Adam Back.
Scaling Bitcoin is safe and simple if you just ignore the bizarre proposals like SegWit and now UASF being pushed by those insane toxic "leaders".
We can simply install software like Bitcoin Unlimited, Bitcoin Classic - or any client supporting bigger blocks, such as Extension Blocks or 8 MB blocksize - and move forward to simple & safe on-chain scaling for Bitcoin - and we could easily enjoy a scenario such as the following:
Bitcoin Original: Reinstate Satoshi's original 32MB max blocksize. If actual blocks grow 54% per year (and price grows 1.542 = 2.37x per year - Metcalfe's Law), then in 8 years we'd have 32MB blocks, 100 txns/sec, 1 BTC = 1 million USD - 100% on-chain P2P cash, without SegWit/Lightning or Unlimited
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5uljaf/bitcoin_original_reinstate_satoshis_original_32mb/
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Network effect and why most coins failed.

If you’ve spent anytime in the cryptocurrency sphere you have probably come across a notion called network effect. Most commonly this is attributed to Bitcoin — in particular, it is given as a reason for its continued success as the cryptocurrency standing taller over all others.‬
In this post I will articulate exactly what a network effect is, why it is important and how most projects have failed because of it, or more precisely, because of not having it.
Network affect is a phenomena that assumes the basic notion whereby a product or service gains additional value as more people use it. More accurately, if we take a network with number of nodes N, then each node on that network can engage with every other node on that network making N-1 connections. If, then, N nodes can make N-1 connections, then the net number of connections in the network would be equal to N(N-1). Thus the network’s value grows with the number of possible connections, in the order of N squared. This insight is the basis of Metcalfe’s law that states that the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of members within the network.
This insight is extremely powerful when our objective is to build robust and functional networks just like many crypto projects are trying to achieve. Metcalfe’s law realises the abstracted value of having a large user base in which value V doesn’t map proportionally to N; linear growth of N results in an exponential growth of V in V=N².
So how does this apply to crypto?
I will explain how this applies to crypto by first giving 7 distinct examples of Bitcoin’s network effects to further demonstrate its importance and then explain how the absence of said effect leaves smaller capitalised coins at a considerable disadvantage and thus more vulnerable to failure.
Bitcoin, being the largest cryptocurrency with 45% dominance as of writing, has the biggest network effect. The 7 effects are interlaced and therefore entrenched within one another in a self-reinforcing, compounded effect. These effects can be characterised as follows:
Speculation around bitcoin causes infrastructure to be developed to meet the speculators demands. Items like hardware wallets and exchanges as well as user friendly wallet software and educational material will all reduce ingress and egress friction points and further accelerate the mean rate of adoption over time. (Interestingly, adoption is often a non-linear function with respect to time and follows an ‘S-curve’ of adoption’.)
Merchants are a second order network effect in which they accept Bitcoin because of the increasing speculator demand. Bitpay is one solution that has integrated large scale retailers like Microsoft and Shopify, directly increasing the number of application and therefore utility of Bitcoin.
Consumers are the third order network effect. Consumers begin using bitcoin because merchants accept it. One example of this is purse.io, they allows consumers to save 15% on their amazon orders simply for purchasing with Bitcoin.
Miners contribute an unfathomable amount of computational power to secure the bitcoin blockchain. By this measure it is hard to see another blockchain being as secure as Bitcoin’s for this exact reason.
Software developers are incentivised to develop on top of Bitcoin because it is the most secure and has the biggest user base. This in turn brings more applications and utility into the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Financialisation of Bitcoin happens as more regulated financial instruments are created such as the recent CME and CBOE Bitcoin futures.
World reserve currency is the last layer on Bitcoin’s stack of network effects and is therefore can only be theoretical in nature and yet to be realised. The more bitcoin is socially accepted as a world reserve currency i.e. the less people have to ‘cash out’ or ‘settle’ into Dollars, Euro etc when moving value, the greater the need and confidence in Bitcoin becomes.
Now take a new, bootstrapped, cryptocurrency project that is trying to compete with Bitcoin, more accurately, Bitcoin’s network effect. They have to incentivise speculators, merchants, consumers, miners, developers and financiers to use their new cryptocurrency by offering them greater utility. It is not enough to even offer equal or marginally greater utility because stakeholders will still prefer to avoid the time and cost it would take to transfer over to the new cryptocurrency than benefit form the marginally better quality service it provides.
This is not to say that no other cryptocurrency has a chance of competing with Bitcoin because they evidently can; one only needs to look at coinmarketcap to realise this. There are 2 ways this has been demonstrated to be possible: vertical innovation and horizontal innovation.
Let’s first take a look at vertical innovation. In traditional business management theory, it states a company can achieve its objectives (i.e. higher sales revenue, increased market dominance, greater brand awareness etc.) by improving the quality of its product. If we ignore the politics around Bitcoin’s future for a second and take the simplified presupposition that Bitcoin’s value proposition is as a peer-to-peer, decentralised and global digital currency network, then a cryptocurrency that wants to compete with this will have to undergo vertical innovation. This is where the currency has the same intended use case but goes about achieving it in a more efficient/favourable way. By nature of being ‘open-source’ anyone can and have already attempted this. Dash, Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash are three notable examples of this; their communities believe they will prevail as the cryptocurrency for global payments, but ultimately only the open market can decide this over time. So far the market has valued all 3 of their currencies combined 1/5th that of Bitcoin.
We have seen horizontal innovation to be far more common in crypto for many reasons, notably, it just makes more logical sense! It turns out that competing with the most secure, most global and most heavily resourced (both intellectually and financially) digital currency network in the world is difficult. It is much easier to compete where bitcoin is not and monopolise a niche by offering a different value proposition. Ethereum offered a virtual machine and bespoke programming language, Solidity, to build decentralised and ‘secure’ applications, IOTA offers free and instant transactions for the futures IOT connected devices to facilitate micro-transactions, Monero enables privacy and fungibility by adding an extra layer of cryptography like ring signatures to obfuscate its ledger. All these projects have been successful in their attempts so far but will all need continued development to further increase scalability and adoption beyond current speculation as we move into the future. How many of these coins will need to coexist is still yet to be determined, and how many will have flown to close to Bitcoin’s sun and get their wing’s burnt by Bitcoin’s innovation (i.e. think Schnorr sig’s and Lightning network improving fungibility and micro-payments) is also an unknown.
What does this all mean?
It means that there are 4,500 cryptocurrencies currently in existence, only 1,500 of these are tradable on exchanges, and the rest are only trapping value. It means that in an open source, highly competitive and merit based market like cryptocurrencies the majority of projects will turn to the graveyard because the ‘innovative minority’ will always steal users form their smaller counterparts. It means that projects like CoinJanitor will be necessary to restore trapped value from dead or failed coins back into the cryptoeconomy to promote further growth, innovation and ultimately…network effect. CoinJanitor will actually gain its own network effect as it absorbs and amalgamates dead coins from the community as well. By absorbing the networks of smaller, under-utilised cryptocurrencies, CoinJanitor’s potency will compound enabling even larger scale value release back into the cryptocurrency communities. This is a very exciting concept!
submitted by Marlie3 to CryptoCurrencyTrading [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Metcalfe's Law Analysis

First would like to credit an article from Willy Woo from September as an inspiration for this analysis. Secondly I'm posting in the spirit of spurring discussion and getting feedback. I'm most definitely not an expert, not giving financial advise, yada yada yada. For God's sakes, if I were an "expert" I'd be sipping brandy, smoking cigars, and having some nice times with my girlfriend in the back of a yacht in Thailand, not posting on reddit in a condo eating mangos.
Anyway, Metcalfe's Law: in short, the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of participants. This means that as members increase linearly, network value will increase quadratically (not exponentially). A simple way to think of it is a doubling in users increases value 4x.
For this analysis to be valid we have to assume that Bitcoin is fundamentally a network (the "internet of money" as Andreas Antonopoulos calls it), not simply analogous to a commodity, stock, or precious metal, and therefore it's underlying value is tied to the size of it's network.
So how big is the bitcoin network? Alas, there is no way to directly measure the number of Bitcoin users. You can't just count wallets because 1) the vast majority of wallets contain "dust" <0.001 bitcoin and 2) many users own multiple wallets. So the best we can do is find measurable data we think is correlated to the number of users. One set of data that's been suggested is network transactions excluding long chains (currently ~200k transactions/day). There are benefits and drawbacks to using this as I'm sure folks will point out. Let's roll with it.
Taking the current market cap, and dividing it by this transaction value squared should (if Metcalfe's Law holds) produce a proportionality constant that remains roughly consistent over time. I'll call this the Transaction Metcalfe Ratio (TMR). Notice that by the ways it's calculated, a high TMR indicates the price is relatively high given the amount of actual transactions occurring (ie could indicate it's "overvalued" as a network).
When we calculate TMR over the past 5 years you get the following chart:
https://ibb.co/cqfKDF
Two things that stand out: the Metcalfe ratio was relatively high and very volatile during and after the 2013-2014 price run-up.
However when you look at the ratio starting around Q3 2015, it's remained both low and remarkably consistent, settling around 0.5, spiking up here and there occasionally to just above 1. This is an order of magnitude lower than where we were at in 2013. Interesting indeed.
TLDR: Market cap may be holding consistent with Metcalfe's Law for at least a year and a half now. I like brandy.
submitted by Platypodes_Attack to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Food for thought - $250B Protocol

Just some food for thought.
Number of Ethereum wallets are going parabolic, yesterday over 100k new addresses were created. Ethereum transactions per day are in the 500k ballpark. Metcalfs Law says the value of a network is n squared, where n = number of users. If you take BTC which averages 330k tx/day and apply the formula you get a total network value of $109B.
Bitcoins current market cap is $113B. So if this is a lagging indicator, ETHs value should be in the range of $250B or $2631/ETH.
Because # of transactions by itself could be manipulated, this should only be part of a valuation model.
So the next Ethereum bull run, when people start asking why the price is skyrocketing, it'll most likely be an upwards correction based on adoption, network effects, & herd mentality. Don't chase pumps, do your own research and due diligence. Put your money into undervalued assets and sell when they become over valued.
Bitcoin addresses https://blockchain.info/charts/n-unique-addresses
Bitcoin transactions per day https://blockchain.info/charts/n-transactions
Ethereum addresses https://etherscan.io/chart/address
Ethereum transactions per day https://etherscan.io/chart/tx
submitted by Hiphopsince1988 to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Network effect and why most coins failed.

If you’ve spent anytime in the cryptocurrency sphere you have probably come across a notion called network effect. Most commonly this is attributed to Bitcoin — in particular, it is given as a reason for its continued success as the cryptocurrency standing taller over all others.‬
In this post I will articulate exactly what a network effect is, why it is important and how most projects have failed because of it, or more precisely, because of not having it.
Network affect is a phenomena that assumes the basic notion whereby a product or service gains additional value as more people use it. More accurately, if we take a network with number of nodes N, then each node on that network can engage with every other node on that network making N-1 connections. If, then, N nodes can make N-1 connections, then the net number of connections in the network would be equal to N(N-1). Thus the network’s value grows with the number of possible connections, in the order of N squared. This insight is the basis of Metcalfe’s law that states that the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of members within the network.
This insight is extremely powerful when our objective is to build robust and functional networks just like many crypto projects are trying to achieve. Metcalfe’s law realises the abstracted value of having a large user base in which value V doesn’t map proportionally to N; linear growth of N results in an exponential growth of V in V=N².
So how does this apply to crypto?
I will explain how this applies to crypto by first giving 7 distinct examples of Bitcoin’s network effects to further demonstrate its importance and then explain how the absence of said effect leaves smaller capitalised coins at a considerable disadvantage and thus more vulnerable to failure.
Bitcoin, being the largest cryptocurrency with 45% dominance as of writing, has the biggest network effect. The 7 effects are interlaced and therefore entrenched within one another in a self-reinforcing, compounded effect. These effects can be characterised as follows:
Now take a new, bootstrapped, cryptocurrency project that is trying to compete with Bitcoin, more accurately, Bitcoin’s network effect. They have to incentivise speculators, merchants, consumers, miners, developers and financiers to use their new cryptocurrency by offering them greater utility. It is not enough to even offer equal or marginally greater utility because stakeholders will still prefer to avoid the time and cost it would take to transfer over to the new cryptocurrency than benefit form the marginally better quality service it provides.
This is not to say that no other cryptocurrency has a chance of competing with Bitcoin because they evidently can; one only needs to look at coinmarketcap to realise this. There are 2 ways this has been demonstrated to be possible: vertical innovation and horizontal innovation.
Let’s first take a look at vertical innovation. In traditional business management theory, it states a company can achieve its objectives (i.e. higher sales revenue, increased market dominance, greater brand awareness etc.) by improving the quality of its product. If we ignore the politics around Bitcoin’s future for a second and take the simplified presupposition that Bitcoin’s value proposition is as a peer-to-peer, decentralised and global digital currency network, then a cryptocurrency that wants to compete with this will have to undergo vertical innovation. This is where the currency has the same intended use case but goes about achieving it in a more efficient/favourable way. By nature of being ‘open-source’ anyone can and have already attempted this. Dash, Litecoin and Bitcoin Cash are three notable examples of this; their communities believe they will prevail as the cryptocurrency for global payments, but ultimately only the open market can decide this over time. So far the market has valued all 3 of their currencies combined 1/5th that of Bitcoin.
We have seen horizontal innovation to be far more common in crypto for many reasons, notably, it just makes more logical sense! It turns out that competing with the most secure, most global and most heavily resourced (both intellectually and financially) digital currency network in the world is difficult. It is much easier to compete where bitcoin is not and monopolise a niche by offering a different value proposition. Ethereum offered a virtual machine and bespoke programming language, Solidity, to build decentralised and ‘secure’ applications, IOTA offers free and instant transactions for the futures IOT connected devices to facilitate micro-transactions, Monero enables privacy and fungibility by adding an extra layer of cryptography like ring signatures to obfuscate its ledger. All these projects have been successful in their attempts so far but will all need continued development to further increase scalability and adoption beyond current speculation as we move into the future. How many of these coins will need to coexist is still yet to be determined, and how many will have flown to close to Bitcoin’s sun and get their wing’s burnt by Bitcoin’s innovation (i.e. think Schnorr sig’s and Lightning network improving fungibility and micro-payments) is also an unknown.
What does this all mean?
It means that there are 4,500 cryptocurrencies currently in existence, only 1,500 of these are tradable on exchanges, and the rest are only trapping value. It means that in an open source, highly competitive and merit based market like cryptocurrencies the majority of projects will turn to the graveyard because the ‘innovative minority’ will always steal users form their smaller counterparts. It means that projects like CoinJanitor will be necessary to restore trapped value from dead or failed coins back into the cryptoeconomy to promote further growth, innovation and ultimately…network effect. CoinJanitor will actually gain its own network effect as it absorbs and amalgamates dead coins from the community as well. By absorbing the networks of smaller, under-utilised cryptocurrencies, CoinJanitor’s potency will compound enabling even larger scale value release back into the cryptocurrency communities. This is a very exciting concept!
submitted by Marlie3 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Metcalfe's Law After 40 Years of Ethernet - YouTube Metcalfe's Law and Uber Why Bitcoin Has Become Such A Popular Cryptocurrency Presentation about Metcalfe's Law Metcalfe's Law

In the absence of a clearly superior product, Metcalfe’s law effects (for real user adoption) are yet to kick in on any large scale for most themes in blockchain (except arguably with bitcoin as a store-of-value) whether it be programmable computing or secrecy coins or prediction markets or indeed anything else (0x and the decentralized ... Tag: bitcoin wallet ... Metcalfe knows what he’s talking about when it comes to technology. He invented the Ethernet computer networking technology… founded computer network company 3Com… and formulated Metcalfe’s law (which states that the bigger the network of users, the greater the value of the network). ... So, if bitcoin adoption happens at a similar rate to internet adoption, then in a decade, user numbers should imply a price of seven figures… if it does follow Metcalfe’s Law. Thus far, if you squint a bit, then the bitcoin adoption graph does roughly reflect that of internet adoption. E-wallet.io: a new approach to cryptocurrency wallets. ... Can the price of Bitcoin be evaluated with Metcalfe’s law? ... the variance is too high to confirm the law but, in the long term, that is, over a time span of more than 200 days, Metcalfe’s law has been confirmed. Metcalfe’s Law Only Good For The Long Term. A new study called Metcalfe’s law and herding behavior in the cryptocurrency market, authored by Danial Traian Pele and Miruna Mazurency-Marinescu-Pele has confirmed that Metcalfe’s law may only apply to Bitcoin’s network in the long term.

[index] [23183] [15653] [34418] [33684] [10919] [17490] [26853] [4167] [33902] [12984]

Metcalfe's Law After 40 Years of Ethernet - YouTube

An overview of Metcalfe's Law for our Admin Class MIS 4478. If you would like to support this channel you can donate here. Thanks guys! Electroneum App Referral Code: 75DC62 Bitcoin: 1PudDHWXzzygXdoK4xn4a6WD7nAnXdjXtY ... While Metcalfe's Law on the exponential growth in the value of a network as more "nodes" are added is of some value, it can not really be used on its own as a measure of the value of bitcoin or ... Metcalfe's Law. How to measure the value of Bitcoin with a bunch of bananas and why it is heading to a +$1,000,000. It has the Social network effect. the Metcalfe’s law that says that the value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of users on the network.

#