Verwirrung über falschen Bitcoin Block: Was steckt hinter ...

Bitcoin Market loses 25% of value after Antpool signals support for Bitcoin Unlimited.

Bitcoin Market loses 25% of value after Antpool signals support for Bitcoin Unlimited. submitted by Cryptolution to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

@technology: RT @crypto: Bitcoin Cash has surged, in part because Antpool, one of the largest mining groups, is “burning” a portion of the coins it receives—potentially reducing supply and driving up the value https://t.co/L8fppFbRoq https://t.co/y9L6SFmPTQ

@technology: RT @crypto: Bitcoin Cash has surged, in part because Antpool, one of the largest mining groups, is “burning” a portion of the coins it receives—potentially reducing supply and driving up the value https://t.co/L8fppFbRoq https://t.co/y9L6SFmPTQ submitted by -en- to newsbotbot [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Market loses 25% of value after Antpool signals support for Bitcoin Unlimited. /r/Bitcoin

Bitcoin Market loses 25% of value after Antpool signals support for Bitcoin Unlimited. /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin halving took place

Bitcoin halving took place

https://preview.redd.it/03iz0gondcy41.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=a4e9ebafac4d01fc1c8221f1fe44eed206b443d1
On May 11, at 19:23 p.m. UTC the third halving of the block mining award in the bitcoin network took place.
Block 630,000 was mined by the AntPool pool - the reward for it decreased from 12.5 to 6.25 BTC. Halving is the basis of bitcoin and occurs every 210,000 blocks, that is, about once around every 4 years. The first two halvings took place on November 28, 2012, and July 9, 2016.
During the night, the price of BTC increased by 2.6% to $ 8,777. On March 13, the coin value fell below $4,000, and on May 7, on the verge of halving, it rose above $10,000.
submitted by bestchange_pr to bestchange [link] [comments]

A summary of QASH and why I believe it will serve a pivotal role in the growth of the cryptocurrency market worldwide.

SIDE NOTE: DO NEVER EVER LEAVE YOUR CRYPTOCURRENCIES ON QRYPTOS & QUOINE. WITHDRAWAL TAKES SEVERAL DAYS AND IN SOME CASES LONGER THAN A WEEK LATELY. MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HAVING HUGE TROUBLES
 
DISCLAIMER: I'm not affiliated with this project in any way. Don't take this as actual investment advice at face-value, but rather a comprehensive summary I put together based upon my own findings, research, and personal insight about the project. As always, if you do wish to invest, please DYOR beforehand and make your investments based upon your own assessment of the project.
 
 
The token is called QASH (by QUOINE) and it essentially serves as the financial utility and payment token for QUOINE's upcoming Liquid+ platform and all services which it provides. I haven't actually seen much talk going on about this anywhere, and to me, it's sort of baffling how seemingly under-the-radar this has been flying, given the problem that it's going to be solving in the cryptocurrency space.
 

The Problem

The platform that they've built is super intriguing to me as a cryptocurrency trader due to the fact that it's aiming to fundamentally solve a huge, yet often overlooked problem in this space: illiquidity. This really excites me because in my personal experience (and I'm sure for many others on this sub who are stuck trading with minor currencies), attempting to purchase BTC, ETH, or other tokens with a fiat currency like say, GBP, is just downright painful and usually ends up in an immediate loss since there are significantly fewer buyers and sellers in the relevant GBP markets than say, USD markets - and thus the market price can tend to slip easily in either direction even with relatively small trade amounts (as a result of high spreads).
 

The Solution: Liquid+

Now imagine the case whereupon this problem doesn't exist — where anyone around the world, whether it be individuals, institutional investment, businesses, etc., would always be able to have immediate access to highly liquid cryptocurrency markets, and not be subject to an inherent disadvantage simply by virtue of the specific fiat currency they're using to trade with or one particular exchange that they're trading on.
 
This is a landscape which the Liquid+ platform will be able to render to the cryptocurrency economy, and what I think solving this problem will ultimately mean is that we'll start to see a much more global influx of individuals and institutions coming into the cryptocurrency space because a massive, worldwide liquidity pool will have been created through the Liquid+ platform. Essentially, the platform will enable minor currencies such as the Rupee, Peso, Pound Sterling, Thai Baht, whatever it is you name it — to be traded with on the same level of liquidity that a major currency (e.g. USD) does. This is the function of what they're calling the "World Book".
 

World Book

The World Book essentially is a global aggregation of orders sourced from many different cryptocurrency exchanges (i.e. "liquidity silos"). Orders which are placed from within any of the connected exchanges can be simultaneously published into the Liquid+ platform and be matched with orders from a completely separate exchange. What's even more fascinating about this is that these matched orders aren't even necessarily required to be of the same trading pair.
 
So for instance, a trader who intends to make a btc-yen trade can be automatically matched up with another trader making a totally separate trade say, eth-euro, just by virtue of the world book internally executing a two-step transaction in order to "hop" from the euro trade to the yen trade. It's important to note that this entire process all happens seamlessly and is transparent to the end-user. Each trader would see every other traders' orders denominated in their preferred quote currency (even though the orders may actually be based on a different quote currency on the other side), meaning that the world book is "currency-agnostic" amongst all orders.
 
Performance-wise, the platform is deemed to be capable of handling over a million of these orders / FX-conversions per second, and is built upon a set of already established and tested technologies developed by QUOINE. As a result, much of the platform is actually already in place, and the integration work with many of the world's largest cryptocurrency exchanges are already underway or have been completed.
 
Additionally, here's a great explanation of what the World Book can do as described by Andre Pemmelaar, who is one of the architects of the platform. Further high level explanation by QUOINE CEO Mike Kayamori.
 
Another important point to note on this is that there's generally a big incentive for exchanges to participate in this World Book, as it will be able to funnel in substantially more trading volume from the markets of other exchanges.
 
In my mind, the World Book will no doubt be an absolute game changer to this space when it hits. However, there's another equally, if not more substantial component to the platform:
 

Prime Brokerage

Liquid+ will act as a Prime Brokerage service, and it will be the first of its kind in the cryptocurrency space (by which QUOINE is officially licensed by the JFSA, one of the strictest regulators in the world). One way you can think of it, is that this could effectively make Liquid+ into the Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley equivalent of the cryptocurrency space, and it's in fact aiming to become the platform upon which major hedge funds and institutional investors around the world will prefer to leverage in order to mitigate counter-party risk (such as a particular exchange getting hacked and losing funds), manage and move large amounts of fiat capital, as well as take advantage of the globally sourced liquidity pool provided by the world book.
 
To me, it makes perfect sense to have integrated, seeing as many of the major reputable exchanges around the world will have already been interconnected through the Liquid+ platform. Ultimately, it means individuals as well as major institutions coming into this space will no longer be required to deal with the pain of managing numerous individual accounts across multiple exchanges and transferring funds between each. Instead, Liquid+ allows its users to be provided with direct market access to the liquidity and trading pairs yielded by all associated exchanges in a single platform, and on a single account. By now, you can probably start to imagine just how attractive this is going to be for the major institutional players coming into this space, and on an international scale.
 

User-Generated Trading Strategies

Another intriguing feature is that once the QASH blockchain is implemented, the platform will be able to facilitate the authoring of custom-written automated trading strategies and algorithms by any of its users (including individuals as well as institutions), utilizing a variety of mainstream programming languages. These strategies can then be published to the platform and shared amongst other users. The profits yielded by these trading strategies are subject to fees which are then paid back in QASH to the authors of those strategies.
 

QASH Token Value Proposition

The value of the QASH token is proportional to the scale of its utility and velocity of usage. For starters, QASH can be used for payment on the Liquid+ platform for everything including trading fees, fees on profit from automated trading strategies (as described above), fiat / crypto credit lending, and for all other services that it renders. QASH can also be used as payment on QUOINE's other products: Quoinex and Qryptos. Additionally, users who elect to pay using QASH on these platforms do so at a discounted rate on fees.
 
Another important point to note here is that QASH will be used to fuel payment for all services rendered by the Prime Brokerage. So for instance when institutions start to utilize the platform, it means that this money will start to flow through the QASH token as well.
 
But I think perhaps the bigger and longer-term value proposition for QASH is the fact that it's striving to become the "Bitcoin or Ethereum of the financial services industry", meaning widespread adoption of QASH as the preferred cryptocurrency for use in financial institutions. As more and more of these institutions seek to gain a foothold in the blockchain space, they're going to be looking for cryptocurrencies that maintain trustworthy backing and have the appropriate governmental regulation / security frameworks set in place. QASH aims to fulfill this role and is in fact officially approved as a cryptocurrency by the Japanese government. Moreover, QUOINE is the only cryptocurrency exchange company which is audited by a "Big Four" accounting firm.
 
QASH is initially built upon the ERC-20 token standard, but will eventually migrate to its own blockchain by Q2 2019. As opposed to Ethereum, the blockchain will incorporate sophisticated tools and services which are geared specifically toward usage in the financial services industry (read more about these here). Having this inherent support for many financially related functions will be paramount for wider adoption as a token of preference, as QASH seeks to bridge the gap between traditional finance and the cryptocurrency economy.
 
With adoption by the financial services industry, the value of the QASH token can then be expected to continue increasing as a result of its ever expanding utility and usage.
 
Additionally, here's an explanation of the QASH blockchain as described by Andre.
 

Brief Company Background (QUOINE)

QUOINE is a profitable and established FinTech company (over 250 years of combined FinTech experience) who have built Quoinex, one of the top ranking exchanges in the world by volume, as well as Qryptos, a token-to-token asset exchange and ICO platform. Quoinex is one of the largest fiat-to-crypto exchanges in the world with $12 Billion in annual transactions. They are the first global cryptocurrency firm in the world to be officially licensed by the Japan Financial Services Agency (License 0002) and has as a "Big Four" external auditor.
 

Leadership

What gives me confidence that QASH may succeed in becoming widely adopted by financial institutions is that the company is lead by those with strong financial leadership. QUOINE's executives hail from the financial services industry, many of whom have served executive positions at some of the biggest financial institutions in the world.
 
Detailed information about the executives and board directors can be found on the Liquid+ website (or in the whitepaper) so I won't list them all out here for the sake of conciseness, but many of them come from executive positions at major institutions including:
 
 

QASH / Platform Investors

Again, a full detailed list can be found on the Liquid+ website. Investors in the platform and QASH ICO include those who have executive leadership roles at companies such as:
 
 
Additionally, Mike had announced in his video AMA a few other notable investors in the ICO who aren't listed on the website:
 
 

Liquidity Partners

The platform of course needs a lot of liquidity partners from around the world participating in order for the system to function worthwhile. Andre discusses their numerous liquidity partnerships in this video, so I'll simply summarize:
 
 

Other Tidbits & Speculation

 

TL;DR

QASH, in the long-run, ultimately aims to become the standard preferred cryptocurrency used by financial institutions worldwide, the value of which is derived from the scale of its utility and widespread usage. The QASH token is also used to fuel payment for fees and services in QUOINE's trading platforms, one of which is an upcoming platform called Liquid+.
 
Liquid+ is a novel platform which I think will change the landscape of the cryptocurrency space. It builds a single massive global liquidity pool called the World Book which allows minor fiat currencies (e.g. Rupee, Peso, GBP, etc.) to trade crypto with the same liquidity that a major fiat currency (e.g. USD) does, significantly reducing losses due to high spreads, and ultimately provides the liquid on-ramp necessary for many potential untapped markets worldwide.
 
The platform also features a Prime Brokerage service (first of its kind in crypto) which will allow users direct market access to many exchanges throughout the world without the hassle of having to manage accounts on each, which mitigates counter-party risk. The Prime Brokerage service will be an attractive vehicle upon which major institutional investors will want to use for managing funds in the cryptocurrency space because it's safe, regulated, and government approved.
 
QASH is created by QUOINE, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchange companies. QUOINE is headed by executives who previously served high-level positions at the world's largest financial institutions. Investors in QASH include financial executives at major institutions, and also a few well known figures: Taizo Son, Nobuyuki Idei, and Jihan Wu.
 

Further Reading & Resources

submitted by swoopingmax to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

November BTC Fork - The Facts

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

Long live decentralized bitcoin(!) A reading list

Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today.
During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it)
In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited.
For more threads like this see UASF

Summary / The fundamental tradeoff

A trip to the moon requires a rocket with multiple stages by gmaxwell (must read) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/438hx0/a_trip_to_the_moon_requires_a_rocket_with/
Bram Cohen, creator of bittorrent, argues against a hard fork to a larger block size https://medium.com/@bramcohen/bitcoin-s-ironic-crisis-32226a85e39f#.558vetum4
gmaxwell's summary of the debate https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1343716.msg13701818#msg13701818
Core devs please explain your vision (see luke's post which also argues that blocks are already too big) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/
Mod of btc speaking against a hard fork https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57hd14/core_reaction_to_viabtc_this_week/d8scokm/
It's becoming clear to me that a lot of people don't understand how fragile bitcoin is https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/59kflj/its_becoming_clear_to_me_that_a_lot_of_people/
Blockchain space must be costly, it can never be free https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4og24h/i_just_attended_the_distributed_trade_conference/
Charlie Lee with a nice analogy about the fundamental tradeoff https://medium.com/@SatoshiLite/eating-the-bitcoin-cake-fc2b4ebfb85e#.444vr8shw
gmaxwell on the tradeoffs https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1520693.msg15303746#msg15303746
jratcliff on the layering https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/59upyh/segwit_the_poison_pill_for_bitcoin/d9bstuw/

Scaling on-chain will destroy bitcoin's decentralization

Peter Todd: How a floating blocksize limit inevitably leads towards centralization [Feb 2013] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=144895.0 mailing list https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2013-February/002176.html with discussion on reddit in Aug 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hnvi8/just_a_little_history_lesson_for_everyone_new_the/
Nick Szabo's blog post on what makes bitcoin so special http://unenumerated.blogspot.com/2017/02/money-blockchains-and-social-scalability.html
There is academic research showing that even small (2MB) increases to the blocksize results in drastic node dropoff counts due to the non-linear increase of RAM needed. http://bravenewcoin.com/assets/Whitepapers/block-size-1.1.1.pdf
Reddit summary of above link. In this table, you can see it estimates a 40% drop immediately in node count with a 2MB upgrade and a 50% over 6 months. At 4mb, it becomes 75% immediately and 80% over 6 months. At 8, it becomes 90% and 95%. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qw2wa_future_led_by_bitcoin_unlimited_is_a/dd442pw/
Larger block sizes make centralization pressures worse (mathematical) https://petertodd.org/2016/block-publication-incentives-for-miners
Talk at scalingbitcoin montreal, initial blockchain synchronization puts serious constraints on any increase in the block size https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgjrS-BPWDQ&t=2h02m06s with transcript https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/block-synchronization-time
Bitcoin's P2P Network: The Soft Underbelly of Bitcoin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6kibPzbrIc someone's notes: https://gist.github.com/romyilano/5e22394857a39889a1e5 reddit discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4py5df/so_f2pool_antpool_btcc_pool_are_actually_one_pool/
In adversarial environments blockchains dont scale https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/in-adversarial-environments-blockchains-dont-scale
Why miners will not voluntarily individually produce smaller blocks https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/why-miners-will-not-voluntarily-individually-produce-smaller-blocks
Hal Finney: bitcoin's blockchain can only be a settlement layer (mostly interesting because it's hal finney and its in 2010) https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3sb5nj/most_bitcoin_transactions_will_occur_between/
petertodd's 2013 video explaining this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cZp7UGgBR0I
luke-jr's summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/61yvvv/request_to_core_devs_please_explain_your_vision/dficjhj/
Another jratcliff thread https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/

Full blocks are not a disaster

Blocks must be always full, there must always be a backlog https://medium.com/@bergealex4/bitcoin-is-unstable-without-the-block-size-size-limit-70db07070a54#.kh2vi86lr
Same as above, the mining gap means there must always be a backlog talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2453&v=iKDC2DpzNbw transcript: https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/montreal2015/security-of-diminishing-block-subsidy
Backlogs arent that bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/49p011/was_the_fee_event_really_so_bad_my_mind_is/
Examples where scarce block space causes people to use precious resources more efficiently https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4kxxvj/i_just_singlehandedly_increased_bitcoin_network/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/47d4m2/why_does_coinbase_make_2_transactions_pe
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/53wucs/why_arent_blocks_full_yet/d7x19iv
Full blocks are fine https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5uld1a/misconception_full_blocks_mean_bitcoin_is_failing/
High miner fees imply a sustainable future for bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/680tvf/fundamentals_friday_week_of_friday_april_28_2017/dgwmhl7/
gmaxwell on why full blocks are good https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6b57ca/full_blocks_good_or_bad/dhjxwbz/
The whole idea of the mempool being "filled" is wrong headed. The mempool doesn't "clog" or get stuck, or anything like that. https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cusnx/to_the_people_still_doubting_that_this_congestion/dpssokf/

Segwit

What is segwit

luke-jr's longer summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6033h7/today_is_exactly_4_months_since_the_segwit_voting/df3tgwg/?context=1
Charlie Shrem's on upgrading to segwit https://twitter.com/CharlieShrem/status/842711238853513220
Original segwit talk at scalingbitcoin hong kong + transcript https://youtu.be/zchzn7aPQjI?t=110
https://scalingbitcoin.org/transcript/hongkong2015/segregated-witness-and-its-impact-on-scalability
Segwit is not too complex https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/57vjin/segwit_is_not_great/d8vos33/
Segwit does not make it possible for miners to steal coins, contrary to what some people say https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5e6bt0/concerns_with_segwit_and_anyone_can_spend/daa5jat/?context=1
https://keepingstock.net/segwit-eli5-misinformation-faq-19908ceacf23#.r8hlzaquz
Segwit is required for a useful lightning network It's now known that without a malleability fix useful indefinite channels are not really possible.
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqgda7/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5tzqtc/gentle_reminder_the_ln_doesnt_require_segwit/ddqbukj/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5x2oh0/olaoluwa_osuntokun_all_active_lightning_network/deeto14/?context=3
Clearing up SegWit Lies and Myths: https://achow101.com/2016/04/Segwit-FUD-Clearup
Segwit is bigger blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5pb8vs/misinformation_is_working_54_incorrectly_believe/dcpz3en/
Typical usage results in segwit allowing capacity equivalent to 2mb blocks https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/69i2md/observe_for_yourself_segwit_allows_2_mb_blocks_in/

Why is segwit being blocked

Jihan Wu (head of largest bitcoin mining group) is blocking segwit because of perceived loss of income https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60mb9e/complete_high_quality_translation_of_jihans/
Witness discount creates aligned incentives https://segwit.org/why-a-discount-factor-of-4-why-not-2-or-8-bbcebe91721e#.h36odthq0 https://medium.com/@SegWit.co/what-is-behind-the-segwit-discount-988f29dc1edf#.sr91dg406
or because he wants his mining enterprise to have control over bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6jdyk8/direct_report_of_jihan_wus_real_reason_fo

Segwit is being blocked because it breaks ASICBOOST, a patented optimization used by bitmain ASIC manufacturer

Details and discovery by gmaxwell https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html
Reddit thread with discussion https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/
Simplified explaination by jonny1000 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/
http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin/public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
https://medium.com/@jimmysong/examining-bitmains-claims-about-asicboost-1d61118c678d
Evidence https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63yo27/some_circumstantial_evidence_supporting_the_claim/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63vn5g/please_dont_stop_us_from_using_asicboost_which/dfxmm75/
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63soe3/reverse_engineering_an_asic_is_a_significant_task/dfx9nc
Bitmain admits their chips have asicboost but they say they never used it on the network (haha a likely story) https://blog.bitmain.com/en/regarding-recent-allegations-smear-campaigns/
Worth $100m per year to them (also in gmaxwell's original email) https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/849798529929424898
Other calculations show less https://medium.com/@vcorem/the-real-savings-from-asicboost-to-bitmaintech-ff265c2d305b
This also blocks all these other cool updates, not just segwit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63otrp/gregory_maxwell_major_asic_manufacturer_is/dfw0ej3/
Summary of bad consequences of asicboost https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/64qq5g/attempted_explanation_of_the_alleged_asicboost/dg4hyqk/?context=1
Luke's summary of the entire situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ego3s/why_is_killing_asicboost_not_a_priority/diagkkb/?context=1
Prices goes up because now segwit looks more likely https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/849846845425799168
Asicboost discovery made the price rise https://twitter.com/TuurDemeestestatus/851520094677200901
A pool was caught red handed doing asicboost, by this time it seemed fairly certain that segwit would get activated so it didnt produce as much interest as earlier https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p7lr5/1hash_pool_has_mined_2_invalid_blocks/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6p95dl/interesting_1hash_pool_mined_some_invalid_blocks/ and https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/889475196322811904
This btc user is outraged at the entire forum because they support Bitmain and ASICBOOST https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/67t43y/dragons_den_planned_smear_campaign_of_bitmain/dgtg9l2/
Antbleed, turns out Bitmain can shut down all its ASICs by remote control: http://www.antbleed.com/

What if segwit never activates

What if segwit never activates? https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ab8js/transaction_fees_are_now_making_btc_like_the_banks/dhdq3id/ with https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ksu3o/blinded_bearer_certificates/ and https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4xy0fm/scaling_quickly/

Lightning

bitcoinmagazine's series on what lightning is and how it works https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-building-a-bidirectional-payment-channel-1464710791/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-creating-the-network-1465326903/ https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/understanding-the-lightning-network-part-completing-the-puzzle-and-closing-the-channel-1466178980/
The Lightning Network ELIDHDICACS (Explain Like I Don’t Have Degrees in Cryptography and Computer Science) https://letstalkbitcoin.com/blog/post/the-lightning-network-elidhdicacs
Ligtning will increases fees for miners, not lower them https://medium.com/lightning-resources/the-lightning-paradox-f15ce0e8e374#.erfgunumh
Cost-benefit analysis of lightning from the point of view of miners https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/miners-and-bitcoin-lightning-a133cd550310#.x42rovlg8
Routing blog post by rusty https://medium.com/@rusty_lightning/routing-dijkstra-bellman-ford-and-bfg-7715840f004 and reddit comments https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/4lzkz1/rusty_russell_on_lightning_routing_routing/
Lightning protocol rfc https://github.com/lightningnetwork/lightning-rfc
Blog post with screenshots of ln being used on testnet https://medium.com/@btc_coach/lightning-network-in-action-b18a035c955d video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxGiMu4V7ns
Video of sending and receiving ln on testnet https://twitter.com/alexbosworth/status/844030573131706368
Lightning tradeoffs http://www.coindesk.com/lightning-technical-challenges-bitcoin-scalability/
Beer sold for testnet lightning https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/62uw23/lightning_network_is_working_room77_is_accepting/ and https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/848265171269283845
Lightning will result in far fewer coins being stored on third parties because it supports instant transactions https://medium.com/@thecryptoconomy/the-barely-discussed-incredible-benefit-of-the-lightning-network-4ce82c75eb58
jgarzik argues strongly against LN, he owns a coin tracking startup https://twitter.com/petertoddbtc/status/860826532650123264 https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/886128801926795264
luke's great debunking / answer of some misinformation questions https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6st4eq/questions_about_lightning_network/dlfap0u/
Lightning centralization doesnt happen https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6vzau5/reminder_bitcoins_key_strength_is_in_being/dm4ou3v/?context=1
roasbeef on hubs and charging fees https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930209165728825344 and https://twitter.com/roasbeef/status/930210145790976000

Immutability / Being a swiss bank in your pocket / Why doing a hard fork (especially without consensus) is damaging

A downside of hard forks is damaging bitcoin's immutability https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5em6vu/what_happens_if_segwit_doesnt_activate/dae1r6c/?context=3
Interesting analysis of miners incentives and how failure is possible, don't trust the miners for long term https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5gtew4/why_an_increased_block_size_increases_the_cost_of/daybazj/?context=2
waxwing on the meaning of cash and settlement https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ei7m3/unconfirmed_transactions_60k_total_fees_14btc/dad001v/
maaku on the cash question https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5i5iq5/we_are_spoiled/db5luiv/?context=1
Digital gold funamentalists gain nothing from supporting a hard fork to larger block sizes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xzunq/core_please_compromise_before_we_end_up_with_bu/dem73xg/?context=1
Those asking for a compromise don't understand the underlying political forces https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ef7wb/some_comments_on_the_bip148_uasf_from_the/dia236b/?context=3
Nobody wants a contentious hard fork actually, anti-core people got emotionally manipulated https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5sq5ocontentious_forks_vs_incremental_progress/ddip57o/
The hard work of the core developers has kept bitcoin scalable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/3hfgpo/an_initiative_to_bring_advanced_privacy_features/cu7mhw8?context=9
Recent PRs to improve bitcoin scaleability ignored by the debate https://twitter.com/jfnewbery/status/883001356168167425
gmaxwell against hard forks since 2013 https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=140233.20
maaku: hard forks are really bad https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zxjza/adam_greg_core_devs_and_big_blockers_now_is_the/df275yk/?context=2

Some metrics on what the market thinks of decentralization and hostile hard forks

The price history shows that the exchange rate drops every time a hard fork threatens: https://i.imgur.com/EVPYLR8.jpg
and this example from 2017 https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/845562763820912642
http://imgur.com/a/DuHAn btc users lose money
price supporting theymos' moderation https://i.imgur.com/0jZdF9h.png
old version https://i.imgur.com/BFTxTJl.png
older version https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CxqtUakUQAEmC0d.jpg
about 50% of nodes updated to the soft fork node quite quickly https://imgur.com/O0xboVI

Bitcoin Unlimited / Emergent Consensus is badly designed, changes the game theory of bitcoin

Bitcoin Unlimited was a proposed hard fork client, it was made with the intention to stop segwit from activating
A Future Led by Bitcoin Unlimited is a Centralized Future https://blog.sia.tech/a-future-led-by-bitcoin-unlimited-is-a-centralized-future-e48ab52c817a#.p1ly6hldk
Flexible transactions are bugged https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/57tf5g/bitcoindev_bluematt_on_flexible_transactions/
Bugged BU software mines an invalid block, wasting 13 bitcoins or $12k
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5qwtr2/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5qx18i/bitcoincom_loses_132btc_trying_to_fork_the/
bitcoin.com employees are moderators of btc https://medium.com/@WhalePanda/the-curious-relation-between-bitcoin-com-anti-segwit-propaganda-26c877249976#.vl02566k4
miners don't control stuff like the block size http://hackingdistributed.com/2016/01/03/time-for-bitcoin-user-voice/
even gavin agreed that economic majority controls things https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5ywoi9/in_2010_gavin_predicted_that_exchanges_ie_the/
fork clients are trying to steal bitcoin's brand and network effect, theyre no different from altcoins https://medium.com/@Coinosphere/why-bitcoin-unlimited-should-be-correctly-classified-as-an-attempted-robbery-of-bitcoin-not-a-9355d075763c#.qeaynlx5m
BU being active makes it easier to reverse payments, increases wasted work making the network less secure and giving an advantage to bigger miners https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5g1x84/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_median_value_of_miner_eb/
bitcoin unlimited takes power away from users and gives it to miners https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/bitcoin-unlimiteds-placebo-controls-6320cbc137d4#.q0dv15gd5
bitcoin unlimited's accepted depth https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/804770009272696832
BU's lying propaganda poster https://imgur.com/osrViDE

BU is bugged, poorly-reviewed and crashes

bitcoin unlimited allegedly funded by kraken stolen coins
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/55ajuh/taint_analysis_on_bitcoin_stolen_from_kraken_on/
https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/559miz/taint_analysis_on_btc_allegedly_stolen_from_kraken/
Other funding stuff
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zozmn/damning_evidence_on_how_bitcoin_unlimited_pays/
A serious bug in BU https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5h70s3/bitcoin_unlimited_bu_the_developers_have_realized/
A summary of what's wrong with BU: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5z3wg2/jihanwu_we_will_switch_the_entire_pool_to/devak98/

Bitcoin Unlimited Remote Exploit Crash 14/3/2017

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zdkv3/bitcoin_unlimited_remote_exploit_crash/ https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zeb76/timbe https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zdrru/peter_todd_bu_remote_crash_dos_wtf_bug_assert0_in/
BU devs calling it as disaster https://twitter.com/SooMartindale/status/841758265188966401 also btc deleted a thread about the exploit https://i.imgur.com/lVvFRqN.png
Summary of incident https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zf97j/i_was_undecided_now_im_not/
More than 20 exchanges will list BTU as an altcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zyg6g/bitcoin_exchanges_unveil_emergency_hard_fork/
Again a few days later https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/60qmkt/bu_is_taking_another_shit_timberrrrr

User Activated Soft Fork (UASF)

site for it, including list of businesses supporting it http://www.uasf.co/
luke's view
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5zsk45/i_am_shaolinfry_author_of_the_recent_usedf1dqen/?context=3
threat of UASF makes the miner fall into line in litecoin
https://www.reddit.com/litecoin/comments/66omhlitecoin_global_roundtable_resolution/dgk2thk/?context=3
UASF delivers the goods for vertcoin
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/692mi3/in_test_case_uasf_results_in_miner_consensus/dh3cm34/?context=1
UASF coin is more valuable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cgv44/a_uasf_chain_will_be_profoundly_more_valuable/
All the links together in one place https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6dzpew/hi_its_mkwia_again_maintainer_of_uasfbitcoin_on/
p2sh was a uasf https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/v0.6.0/src/main.cpp#L1281-L1283
jgarzik annoyed at the strict timeline that segwit2x has to follow because of bip148 https://twitter.com/jgarzik/status/886605836902162432
Committed intolerant minority https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6d7dyt/a_plea_for_rational_intolerance_extremism_and/
alp on the game theory of the intolerant minority https://medium.com/@alpalpalp/user-activated-soft-forks-and-the-intolerant-minority-a54e57869f57
The risk of UASF is less than the cost of doing nothing https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6bof7a/were_getting_to_the_point_where_a_the_cost_of_not/
uasf delivered the goods for bitcoin, it forced antpool and others to signal (May 2016) https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/antpool-will-not-run-segwit-without-block-size-increase-hard-fork-1464028753/ "When asked specifically whether Antpool would run SegWit code without a hard fork increase in the block size also included in a release of Bitcoin Core, Wu responded: “No. It is acceptable that the hard fork code is not activated, but it needs to be included in a ‘release’ of Bitcoin Core. I have made it clear about the definition of ‘release,’ which is not ‘public.’”"
Screenshot of peter rizun capitulating https://twitter.com/chris_belcher_/status/905231603991007232

Fighting off 2x HF

https://twitter.com/MrHodl/status/895089909723049984
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6h612o/can_someone_explain_to_me_why_core_wont_endorse/?st=j6ic5n17&sh=cc37ee23
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6smezz/segwit2x_hard_fork_is_completely_useless_its_a/?st=j6ic2aw3&sh=371418dd
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sbspv/who_exactly_is_segwit2x_catering_for_now_segwit/?st=j6ic5nic&sh=1f86cadd
https://medium.com/@elliotolds/lesser-known-reasons-to-keep-blocks-small-in-the-words-of-bitcoin-core-developers-44861968185e
b2x is most of all about firing core https://twitter.com/WhalePanda/status/912664487135760384
https://medium.com/@StopAndDecrypt/thats-not-bitcoin-this-is-bitcoin-95f05a6fd6c2

Misinformation / sockpuppets

https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6uqz6k/markets_update_bitcoin_cash_rallies_for_three/dlurbpx/
three year old account, only started posting today https://archive.is/3STjH
Why we should not hard fork after the UASF worked: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6sl1qf/heres_why_we_should_not_hard_fork_in_a_few_months/

History

Good article that covers virtually all the important history https://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/long-road-segwit-how-bitcoins-biggest-protocol-upgrade-became-reality/
Interesting post with some history pre-2015 https://btcmanager.com/the-long-history-of-the-fight-over-scaling-bitcoin/
The core scalabality roadmap + my summary from 3/2017 https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2015-Decembe011865.html my summary https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xa5fa/the_core_development_scalability_roadmap/
History from summer 2015 https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/5xg7f8/the_origins_of_the_blocksize_debate/
Brief reminders of the ETC situation https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6nvlgo/simple_breakdown_of_bip91_its_simply_the_miners/dkcycrz/
Longer writeup of ethereum's TheDAO bailout fraud https://www.reddit.com/ethereumfraud/comments/6bgvqv/faq_what_exactly_is_the_fraud_in_ethereum/
Point that the bigblocker side is only blocking segwit as a hostage https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/5sqhcq/daily_discussion_wednesday_february_08_2017/ddi3ctv/?context=3
jonny1000's recall of the history of bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6s34gg/rbtc_spreading_misinformation_in_rbitcoinmarkets/dl9wkfx/

Misc (mostly memes)

libbitcoin's Understanding Bitcoin series (another must read, most of it) https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin/wiki/Understanding-Bitcoin
github commit where satoshi added the block size limit https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/63859l/github_commit_where_satoshi_added_the_block_size/
hard fork proposals from some core devs https://bitcoinhardforkresearch.github.io/
blockstream hasnt taken over the entire bitcoin core project https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/622bjp/bitcoin_core_blockstream/
blockstream is one of the good guys https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6cttkh/its_happening_blockstream_opens_liquid_sidechain/dhxu4e
Forkers, we're not raising a single byte! Song lyrics by belcher https://gist.github.com/chris-belche7264cd6750a86f8b4a9a
Some stuff here along with that cool photoshopped poster https://medium.com/@jimmysong/bitcoin-realism-or-how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-1mb-blocks-c191c35e74cb
Nice graphic https://twitter.com/RNR_0/status/871070843698380800
gmaxwell saying how he is probably responsible for the most privacy tech in bitcoin, while mike hearn screwed up privacy https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/6azyme/hey_bu_wheres_your_testnet/dhiq3xo/?context=6
Fairly cool propaganda poster https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/880476631583924225
btc tankman https://i.redd.it/gxjqenzpr27z.png https://twitter.com/DanDarkPill/status/853653168151986177
asicboost discovery meme https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
https://twitter.com/urbanarson/status/882020516521013250
gavin wanted to kill the bitcoin chain https://twitter.com/allenscottoshi/status/849888189124947971
stuff that btc believes https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ld4a5/serious_is_the_rbtc_and_the_bu_crowd_a_joke_how/djszsqu/
after segwit2x NYA got agreed all the fee pressure disappeared, laurenmt found they were artificial spam https://twitter.com/i/moments/885827802775396352
theymos saying why victory isnt inevitable https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6lmpll/explaining_why_big_blocks_are_bad/djvxv2o/
with ignorant enemies like these its no wonder we won https://bitco.in/forum/threads/gold-collapsing-bitcoin-up.16/page-999 ""So, once segwit2x activates, from that moment on it will require a coordinated fork to avoid the up coming "baked in" HF. ""
a positive effect of bcash, it made blockchain utxo spammers move away from bitcoin https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/76lv0b/cryptograffitiinfo_now_accepts_bitcoin_cash/dof38gw/
summary of craig wright, jihan wu and roger ver's positions https://medium.com/@HjalmarPeters/the-big-blockers-bead6027deb2
Why is bitcoin so strong against attack?!?! (because we're motivated and awesome) https://www.reddit.com/btc/comments/64wo1h/bitcoin_unlimited_is_being_blocked_by_antivirus/dg5n00x/
what happened to #oldjeffgarzik https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/6ufv5x/a_reminder_of_some_of_jeff_garziks_greatest/
big blockers fully deserve to lose every last bitcoin they ever had and more https://www.reddit.com/BitcoinMarkets/comments/756nxf/daily_discussion_monday_october_09_2017/do5ihqi/
gavinandresen brainstorming how to kill bitcoin with a 51% in a nasty way https://twitter.com/btcdrak/status/843914877542567937
Roger Ver as bitcoin Judas https://imgur.com/a/Rf1Pi
A bunch of tweets and memes celebrating UASF
https://twitter.com/shaolinfry/status/842457019286188032 | https://twitter.com/SatoshiLite/status/888335092560441345 | https://twitter.com/btcArtGallery/status/887485162925285377 | https://twitter.com/Beautyon_/status/888109901611802624 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/889211512966873088 | https://twitter.com/lopp/status/888200452197801984 | https://twitter.com/AlpacaSW/status/886988980524396544 | https://twitter.com/BashCo_/status/877253729531162624 | https://twitter.com/tdryja/status/865212300361379840 | https://twitter.com/Excellion/status/871179040157179904 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/849856343074902016 | https://twitter.com/TraceMayestatus/841855022640033792 | https://fs.bitcoinmagazine.com/img/images/Screen_Shot_2017-08-18_at_01.36.47.original.png
submitted by belcher_ to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Will Bitcoin really rise again?

Hello, I feel I should introduce myself first.
I got into Bitcoin back mid-2017. I bought in at about 1.8k if I remember correctly. I was also invested in Ethereum at this time, and got in between 60-120 (my friend sent me some at 60, but I continued to buy around 120).
As many of you know. Bitcoin has been in a bear market for the past several months. And over these past several months concerns have popped into my mind in regards to the overall health and future of Bitcoin:
None of what I mentioned above was an issue in 2013, or 2015 when we saw our previous bear markets in Bitcoin. This makes me truly believe that we're unlikely to see a bull run like we did in 2017 ever again. Not to mention the fact that Cryptocurrencies in and of themselves are more regulated than ever before, which could in turn lead to lower levels of volatility now and in the years to come. I'm sure Bitcoin will have its pops and bull runs, but nothing parabolic like we've seen in the past.

Please tell me I'm wrong, because I'd rather be wrong than right in this case.
submitted by 7Leven to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

A 14-year-old's experience with Bitcoin

First-time poster here, don’t bully me, apologies for the potentially atrocious formatting :) TL;DR at the end
So in the wake of Bitcoin’s explosive rise in value and media attention, I’ve been encouraged by others to share my experience over the past few years as a miner. Here's my story (it's kinda long, you've been warned)

Humble Beginnings

It all started almost three years ago in the beginning of 2015 when Bitcoin flew under my radar. Looking into it, I admittedly wasn’t drawn in because of the decentralisation or the anonymous payments, I was hooked on the idea that anyone could get their hands on some just by running a program and leaving it to do its own thing. I know, how shallow of me. But the idea of making even a bit of money without ‘any work’ was convincing enough for 11-year-old me to do more digging into the matter.
To my disappointment, I soon found out that the era of mining Bitcoins with a PC’s CPU or GPU was long obsolete and instead it was all ASICs at that point.
So that summer, for my twelfth birthday, I got a little ASIC machine for €60, an Antminer U3. This little thing took up less space than a graphics card but could mine at 60 GH/s. Because, at the time, I didn’t have a controller device that could be kept up and running all day long so it could run the program that mined Bitcoin using the U3, I went ahead and got a Raspberry Pi. After setting up the Pi and installing all the necessary stuff (took an awfully long time), I connected it to AntPool and plugged the U3 in. Two days past and the mining pool sent the first Bitcoin I ever received to my wallet (I was using Blockchain.info). It was just 30 cents worth of BTC but I felt a bit of a rush because I was earning a bit of money through this completely new thing and the idea of that was thrilling.
Let’s back up for a second. I just used the term ‘earning’ as if I was profiting, and naive me 2 years ago was no different. In reality, I was at first oblivious to the fact that I was most likely LOSING money overall because of how much energy that little sucker was taking in. But, I was comforted thinking that using that machine was just a practical way of learning about this modern currency and that the loss of several cents’ worth of energy was acceptable in the name of education and learning.
Fast forward ten months to the wonderful summer of 2016. I had recently turned 13 and the Antminer U3 had been running on and off throughout. Various pauses and breaks in mining would be observed, as I had to manually get everything up and running after frequent breaks in the Internet connection. You’d expect my newly-turned-teenage brain to lose interest in Bitcoin as it does with many other gimmicks, but – even surprising myself – I miraculously didn’t. Good thing I maintained interest thinking about it now, not so good at the time for my parents. Why do I say this? I felt like it was time to get a little upgrade in my hardware.

Getting an upgrade

Days passed with me comparing every ASIC miner I could at that price point. It was then I set my eyes upon the Antminer S7 (same folks who did my U3, nice). I had put it up against a plethora of other miners and I figured the S7 was my best bet; the thing costs only about 10 times that of my U3 but could run at 4.73 TH/s, almost 80 times as powerful. The only problem being its power consumption was at 1300 watts, which would put a massive dent in the electricity bill and eliminate any profit I would make. Fortunately, I had a secret weapon up my sleeve – or rather my mum did. She had rented out an office outside our apartment where she would keep files and paperwork. The office’s electricity bill was a flat rate as far as I’m aware and it ended up being my saving grace because it virtually got rid of the “oh no I’m actually going to be losing money because of how much electricity I’m eating up” factor, making this whole hardware upgrade viable.
After convincing my parents, they finally agreed to shell out the requested amount, with the initial investment being paid back with time. I went to a local Bitcoin vendor and purchased 1 BTC for about $665 in cash (sigh yes, I know. $665 dollars). Shortly after, I used about 0.9 BTC to purchase the Antminer S7 and a 1600W power supply for a grand total of $600. The products would be made and shipped from China so I was definitely in for a wait.
A month passes and the package arrives at last. I connected all the wires from the power supply into the S7 and – with great anticipation – I plugged it into the wall to start its first ever run. And what do you know? An extremely loud and high-pitched whirring sound blasted out from the fans on both the power supply as well as the S7. After killing the thing, I questioned my choices. I couldn’t dare put that thing anywhere near my mum’s office in the event it drive everyone in the building absolutely nuts. I was at a loss. However, I soon recovered from my temporarily debilitated state and got working on a solution.
The first idea that came to my mind: change the fans. The stocks fans were by Evercool and spun at around 3000 RPM. The power supply used a small, robust fan that looked like a cube that must’ve spun at extremely high speeds judging by how high the sound it produced was. I got my parents to give me some more funding so I could acquire the replacement fans and I did. Bust. After installation and testing, none of the fans would work. I managed to configure the S7 to connect to my Antpool account and the machine would manage mining for several minutes running at peak performance but ultimately be automatically cut off because of how hot the machine was getting (I’m talking about 80 degrees Celsius kinda hot in that thing). The fans got refunded and I was back to the drawing board.
After combing through some forum posts and videos, I came across this video and a forum post in which people have their mining rigs placed inside a ventilated, muffled cabinet. Undertaking a project like this would be time-consuming and risky but I had no better ideas so I decided to go through with the idea anyway.
Firstly, I sought out a cabinet with suitable dimensions. I managed to get just what I needed at a second-hand IKEA shop. Great. Secondly, I went ahead and acquired some sound-absorbing acoustic foam from a local provider. Fantastic. Finally I had to get a ventilation system going within the cabinet, otherwise, all the hot air would roast the machine alive in there in a bloody mess. With the help of my dad, we found a pair cabinet fans on the Internet that were close to silent but could circulate the air well enough.
Eventually, all the materials came and, with the help of my parents, put everything together. The process took quite long time and we had a couple hiccups along the way, but we got it done and it came out pretty nice.
The moment of truth came and, to my relief, it ran so much quieter than without the cabinet. It was nowhere near silent but it reduced the noise a great deal. Soon after, I got the thing into the office and set everything up from there. Unfortunately, I was forced to underclock it because you could still hear the machine’s whining from outside the thin office door. Gunning the hashrate down about 25% to 3.7TH/s, I could lower the fan speed without risking the machine burning up. Sure, I wasn’t getting the full potential of the machine but I didn’t complain because electricity was not an issue there and it was still a whole lot better than my U3. With it up and running, I could leave it there, periodically checking to see if it was mining on Antpool.

The aftermath

In the months that followed, I was getting a solid $2.5 worth of BTC on daily basis. Half a year later, May of 2017, I had accumulated a satisfactory $600. I thought, “At this rate, I’d be able to pay my parents’ investment back in a few months” (the total investment came close to $900). Bitcoin had risen to over $1500 so I was already over the moon at that point because of how well everything was going. Little did I know…
I hit 0.5 BTC midway through September this year. The price of BTC had dropped after a sudden rise to $5000, but I couldn’t have asked for more. Although I possessed only half the amount of BTC I paid for the machine, its value was over twice that of the initial investment. I thought BTC would level off at around $4000 but nope.
In the month of October, the price skyrocketed. Since September, I had only mined 0.017 BTC but the value was already over $3000. It was just a matter of selling it, but I decided to hodl. Good thing I did.
As of November 5, I have approximately 0.52 BTC mined in total from my S7, valued at $4000. If I were to sell it right now, I’d have a profit of over $3100. And as for my miner, it’s churning out 0.0006 BTC daily, sounds like nothing but it’s still the equivalent of $5 today and I couldn’t be happier, at least with the miner and Bitcoin.
You remember that $665 for 1 BTC that I mentioned earlier? In hindsight, it would’ve been such a better idea to just keep that one Bitcoin and not do anything with it until today (in the interest of making much more money), as I’d theoretically have upwards of $7000. The idea of that still haunts me sometimes if I dwell on it too long but knowing that I’m in possession of an already hefty amount, the pain of it had numbed slightly. It’s not all doom and gloom for me from the exponential increase in Bitcoin’s value, however. Those first $0.3 payments from my humble little U3 all those years ago now are now the equivalent of over $6 today!
Bitcoin and everything it encompasses has been and still is a journey of discovery and an adventure. Looking back, starting with a modest €60 Antminer U3 to having a sum of Bitcoin equivalent to two extremely high-end gaming rigs (first thing I could think of as a comparison, sorry) has been something I can’t really describe. Through the course of the past few years, I’ve learned more about technology, I’ve unexpectedly gotten insight into economics and business and – of course – I’ve made a lot of money (if I decide to stop hodling that is).
Also, props to my parents for keeping an open mind throughout, I know some parents would be horrified at their kids being involved in something that has been used in some less-than-savoury ways and it's great knowing mine have been supportive all the way.
TL;DR got into Bitcoin mining 3 years ago at age 11 with an Antminer U3 that ran at 60 GH/s, got an Antminer S7 (4.73TH/s) and built a sound-muffling, ventilated cabinet for it. Am sat here today with $3000 profit if I decide to sell right now.
submitted by xx_riptide_xx to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash: A Reflection on How Far We’ve Come

On August 1, Bitcoin resumed its original roadmap, scaling on-chain towards global adoption as Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash.
It’s been just 3 and a half months since Bitcoin Cash broke away from BTC in order avoid a software mutation called Segwit, and to restore progress and growth to the ecosystem.
After a recent price rally that saw us reach 0.5 BTC ($3000), the reality is setting in that an overnight ‘flippening’ scenario that some people hoped for is unlikely, and that we have a longer road ahead.
It’s really important to remember how much has been achieved in such a short time.
Let’s take a moment to reflect on how far we’ve come as a young community.
July:
August:
September:
October:
November:
This rate and scale of industry adoption is unprecedented.
With every BTC holder receiving an equal amount of Bitcoin Cash, and with the price over $1300, the rate and scale of user adoption is unprecedented.
With fast, reliable transactions and fees that are less than 1 cent, and with both BitPay & Coinbase hinting at a full Bitcoin Cash integration, the rate and scale of merchant adoption will be unprecedented.
With unprecedented industry, user and merchant adoption, it’s only a matter of time until Bitcoin Cash becomes the default medium of exchange and store of value cryptocurrency.
The old Bitcoin is back. You can feel it. It’s the resurgence of a grassroots movement not seen for years. People are putting Bitcoin Cash posters in the streets, handing out leaflets, tipping strangers a few dollars online, and asking in forums how they can contribute to the community.
Just in the last couple of days a ‘Bitcoin Cash Fund’ was established, to assist with marketing and projects. The initial goal was $200 to make a short animated advert, but over $17,000 has been donated already. All of this positivity and energy is inspiring.
While businesses are being forced to abandon BTC due to exorbitant and skyrocketing fees (upwards of $10), they’re being cheered on every day as they embrace Bitcoin Cash.
The original vision is still alive. As an early bitcoiner, I’ve never been more optimistic.
Make sure you involve yourself in the community, we’re just getting started :)
Reddit: BTC or BitcoinCash
Twitter: twitter.com/BITCOINCASH
Website: bitcoincash.org
Dev: Mailing List
Also posted on Yours: Bitcoin Cash: A Reflection on How Far We’ve Come
submitted by cryptomic to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Mining Profitability: How Long Does it Take to Mine One Bitcoin in 2019?

When it comes to Bitcoin (BTC) mining, the major questions on people’s minds are “how profitable is Bitcoin mining” and “how long would it take to mine one Bitcoin?” To answer these questions, we need to take an in-depth look at the current state of the Bitcoin mining industry — and how it has changed — over the last several years.
Bitcoin mining is, essentially, the process of participating in Bitcoin’s underlying security mechanism — known as proof-of-work — to help secure the Bitcoin blockchain. In return, participants receive compensation in bitcoins (BTC).
When you participate in Bitcoin mining, you are essentially searching for blocks by crunching complex cryptographic challenges using your mining hardware. Once a block is discovered, new transactions are recorded and verified within the block and the block discoverer receives the block rewards — currently set at 12.5 BTC — as well as the transactions fees for the transactions included within the block.
Once the maximum supply of 21 million Bitcoins has been mined, no further Bitcoins will ever come into existence. This property makes Bitcoin deflationary, something which many argue will inevitably increase the value of each Bitcoin unit as it becomes more scarce due to increased global adoption.
The limited supply of Bitcoin is also one of the reasons why Bitcoin mining has become so popular. In previous years, Bitcoin mining proved to be a lucrative investment option — netting miners with several fold returns on their investment with relatively little effort.
bitcoin mining hardware
Mining Hardware
The mining hardware you choose will mostly depend on your circumstances — in terms of budget, location and electricity costs. Since the amount of hashing power you can dedicate to the mining process is directly correlated with how much Bitcoin you will mine per day, it is wise to ensure your hardware is still competitive in 2019.
Bitcoin uses SHA256 as its mining algorithm. Because of this, only hardware compatible with this algorithm can be used to mine Bitcoin. Although it is technically possible to mine Bitcoin on your current computer hardware — using your CPU or GPU — this will almost certainly not generate a positive return on your investment and you may end up damaging your device.
The most cost-effective way to mine Bitcoin in 2019 is using application-specific integrated circuit (ASIC) mining hardware. These are specially-designed machines that offer much higher performance per watt than typical computers and have been an absolutely essential purchase for anybody looking to get into Bitcoin mining since the first Avalon ASICs were shipped in 2013.
When it comes to selecting Bitcoin mining hardware, there are several main parameters to consider — though the importance of each of these may vary based on personal circumstances and budget.
Performance per Watt
When it comes to Bitcoin mining, performance per watt is a measure of how many gigahashes per watt a machine is capable of and is, hence, a simple measure of its efficiency. Since electricity costs are likely to be one of the largest expenses when mining Bitcoin, it is usually a good idea to ensure that you are getting good performance per watt out of your hardware.
Ideally, your mining hardware would be highly efficient, allowing it to mine Bitcoin with lower energy requirements — though this will need to be balanced with acquisition costs, as often the most efficient hardware is also the most expensive. This means it may take longer to see a return on investment.
In countries with cheap electricity, performance per watt is often less of a concern than acquisition costs and price-performance ratio. In most countries, operating outdated mining hardware is typically cost prohibitive, as energy costs outweigh the income generated by the mining equipment.
However, this may not be the case for those operating in countries with extremely cheap electricity — such as Kuwait and Venezuela — as even older equipment can still be profitable. Similarly, miners with a free energy surplus, such as from wind or solar electric generators, can benefit from the minimal gains offered by still running outdated hardware.
Longevity
The lifetime of mining hardware also plays a critical role in determining how profitable your mining venture will be. It’s always a good idea to do whatever possible to ensure it runs as smoothly as possible.
Since mining equipment tends to run at a full (or almost full) load for extended periods, they also tend to break down and fail more frequently than most electronics — which can seriously damage your profitability. Equipment failure is even more common when purchasing second-hand equipment. Since warranty claims are often challenging, it can often take a long time to receive a warranty replacement.
Price-Performance Ratio
In many cases, one of the major criteria used to select mining hardware is the price-performance ratio — a measure of how much performance a machine outputs per unit price. In the case of cryptocurrency mining hardware, this is commonly expressed as gigahashes per dollar or GH/$.
Under ideal circumstances, the mining hardware would have a high price-performance ratio, ensuring you get a lot of bang for your buck. However, this must also be considered in combination with the acquisition costs and the expected lifetime of the machine — since the absolute most powerful machines are not always the cheapest or the most energy efficient.
Acquisition Costs
Acquisition costs are almost always the biggest barrier to entry for most Bitcoin miners since most top-end mining hardware costs several thousand dollars. This problem is further compounded by the fact that many hardware manufacturers offer discounts for bulk purchases, allowing those with deeper pockets to achieve a better price-performance ratio.
Acquisition costs include all the costs involved in purchasing any mining equipment, including hardware costs, shipping costs, import duties, and any further costs. For example, many ASIC miners do not include a power supply — which can be another considerable expense, since the 1,000W+ power supplies usually required tend to cost several hundred dollars alone.
Ensuring your equipment runs smoothly can also add in additional costs, such as cooling and maintenance expenses. In addition, some miners may want to invest in uninterruptible power supplies to ensure their hardware keeps running — even if the power fails temporarily.
asic mining
Current Generation Hardware
One of the most recent additions to the Bitcoin mining hardware market is the Ebang Ebit E11++, which was released in October 2018. Using a 10nm fabrication process for its processors, the Ebit E11++ is able to achieve one of the highest hash rates on the market at 44TH/s.
In terms of efficiency, the Ebang Ebit E11++ is arguably the best on the market, offering 44TH/s of hash rate while drawing just 1,980W of power, offering 22.2GH/W performance. However, as of writing, the Ebang Ebit E11++ is out of stock until March 31, 2019 — while its price of $2,024 (excluding shipping) may make it prohibitively expensive for those first getting involved with Bitcoin mining.
Another popular choice is the ASICminer 8 Nano, a machine released in October 2018 that offers 44TH/s for $3,900 excluding shipping. The ASICminer 8 Nano draws 2,100W of power, giving it an efficiency of almost 21GH/W — slightly lower than the Ebit E11++ while costing almost double the price. However, unlike the E11++, the 8 Nano is actually in stock and available to purchase.
ASICminer also offers the 8 Nano Pro, a machine launched in mid-2018 that offers 80 TH/s of hash rate for $9,500 (excluding shipping). However, unlike the Ebit E11++ and 8 Nano, the minimum order quantity for the 8 Nano Pro is curiously set at five, meaning you will need to lay out a minimum of $47,500 in order to actually get your hands on one (or five).
While the 8 Nano Pro doesn’t offer the same performance per watt as the Ebit E11+ or AICMiner 8 Nano, it is one of the quieter miners on this list, making it more suitable for a home or office environment. That being said, the ASICminer 8 Nano Pro is easily the most expensive miner per TH on this list — costing a whopping $118.75/TH, compared to the $46/TH offered by the E11++ and $88.64 offered by the 8 Nano.
The latest hardware on this list is the Innosilicon T3 43T, which is currently available for pre-order at $2,279, and estimated to ship in March 2019. Offering 43TH/s of performance at 2,100W, the T3 43T comes in at an efficiency of 20.4GH/W, which is around 10 percent less energy efficient than the Ebit E11++.
The T3 43T also has a minimum order quantity of three units, making the minimum acquisition cost $6837 + shipping for preorders. All in all, the T3 43T is more costly and less efficient than the E11++ but may arrive slightly earlier since Ebang will not ship the E11++ units until at least end March 29, 2019.
Finally, this list would not be complete without including Bitmain’s latest offering, the Antminer S15-28TH/s, which — as its name suggests — offers 28TH/s of hash power while drawing just under 1600W at the wall. The Antminer S15 is one of the only SHA256 miners to use 7nm processors, making it somewhat smaller than some of the other devices on this list.
Like most pieces of top-end Bitcoin mining hardware, the Antminer S15 27TH/s model is currently sold out, with current orders not shipping until mid-February 2019. However, the S15 is offered at a significantly lower price than many of its competitors at just $1020 (excluding shipping), with no minimum quantity restriction. At these rates, the Antminer comes in at just $37.78/TH — though its energy efficiency is a much less impressive 17.5GH/W.
Mining Hardware Mining Hardware Comparison
Performance (GH/W) Price Performance Ratio ($/TH)
Ebang Ebit E11++ 22.2GH/W $46/TH
ASICminer 8 Nano 21GH/W $88.64/TH
ASICminer 8 Nano Pro 19GH/W $118.75/TH
Innosilicon T3 43T 20.4GH/W $53/TH
Antminer S15-28TH/s 17.5GH/W $37.78/TH
How To Select a Good Mining Pool
Mining pools are platforms that allow miners to pool their resources together to achieve a higher collective hash rate — which, in turn, allows the collective to mine more blocks than they would be able to achieve alone.
Typically, these mining pools will distribute block rewards to contributing miners based on the proportion of the hash rate they supply. If a pool contributing a total of 20 TH/s of hash rate successfully mines the next block, a user responsible for 10 percent of this hash rate will receive 10 percent of the 12.5 BTC reward.
Pools essentially allow smaller miners to compete with large private mining organizations by ensuring that the collective hash rate is high enough to successfully mine blocks on regular basis. Without operating through a mining pool, many miners would be unlikely to discover any blocks at all — due to only contributing a tiny fraction of the overall Bitcoin hash rate.
While it is quite possible to be successful mining without a pool, this typically requires an extremely large mining operation and is usually not recommended — unless you have enough hash rate to mine blocks on a regular basis.
Although it is technically possible to discover blocks mining solo and keep the entire 12.5 BTC reward for yourself, the odds of this actually occurring are practically zero — making pool collaboration practically the only way to compete in 2019 and beyond.
Selecting the best pool for you can be a challenging job since the vast majority of pools are quite similar and offer similar features and comparable fees. Because of this, we have broken down the qualities you should be looking for in a new pool into four categories; reputation, hash rate, pool fees, and usability/features:
Reputation
The reputation of a pool is one of the most important factors in selecting the pool that is best for you. Well-reputed pools will tend to be much larger than newer or less well-established pools since few pools with a poor reputation can stand the test of time.
Well-reputed pools also tend to be more transparent about their operation, many of which provide tools to ensure that each user is getting the correct reward based on the hash rate contributed. By using only pools with a great reputation, you also ensure your hash rate is not being used for nefarious purposes — such as powering a 51 percent attack.
When comparing a list of pools that appear suitable for you, it is a wise move to read their user reviews before making your choice — ensuring you don’t end up mining at a pool that steals your hard-fought earnings.
Hash Rate
When it comes to mining Bitcoin, the probability of discovering the next block is directly related to the amount of hashing power you contribute to the network. Because of this, one of the major features you should be considering when selecting your pool is its total hash rate — which is often closely related to the proportion of new blocks mined by the pool
Since the total hash rate of a pool is directly related to how quickly it discovers new blocks, this means the largest pools tend to discover a relative majority of blocks — leading to more regular rewards. However, the very largest pools also tend the have higher fees but often make up for this with sheer success and additional features.
Sometimes, some of the largest pools have a minimum hash rate requirement ù leaving some of the smaller miners left out of the loop. Although smaller pools typically have more relaxed requirements with reduced performance thresholds, these pools may be only slightly more profitable than mining solo.
Pool Fees
When choosing a suitable pool, typically one of the major considerations is its fees. Typically, most pools will charge a small fee that is deducted from your earnings and is usually around 1-2 percent — but sometimes slightly lower or higher.
There are also pools that offer 0 percent fees. However, these are often much smaller than the major pools and tend to make their money in a different way — such as through monthly subscriptions or donations.
Ideally, you will choose the pool that offers the best balance of fees to other features. Usually, the pool with the absolute lowest fees is not the best choice. Additionally, pools with the lowest fees often have the highest withdrawal minimums — making pool hopping uneconomical for most.
Usability and Features
When first starting out with Bitcoin mining, learning how to set up a pool and navigating through the settings can be a challenge. Because of this, several pools target their services to newer users by offering a simple to navigate user interface and providing detailed learning resources and prompt customer support.
However, for more experienced miners, simple pools don’t tend to offer a variety of features needed to maximize profitability. For example, although many mining pools focus their entire hash rate towards mining a single cryptocurrency, some are large enough to offer additional options — allowing users to mine other SHA256 coins such as Bitcoin Cash (BCH) or Fantom if they choose.
These pools are technically more challenging to use and mostly designed for those familiar with mining, happy to hop from coin to coin mining whichever is most profitable at the time. There are even some exchanges that automatically direct their combined hash rate at the most profitable cryptocurrency — taking the guesswork out of the equation.
bitcoin mining pool
Best Mining Pools for 2019
The Bitcoin mining pool industry has a large number of players, but the vast majority of the Bitcoin hash rate is concentrated within just a few pools. Currently, there are dozens of suitable pools to choose from — but we have selected just a few of the best to help get you started on your journey.
Slushpool was the first Bitcoin mining pool released, being launched way back in 2010 under the name “Bitcoin Pooled Mining Server.” Since then, Slushpool has grown into one of the most popular pools around — currently accounting for just under 10 percent of the total Bitcoin hash rate.
Although Slushpool isn’t one of the very largest pools, it does offer a newbie-friendly interface alongside more advanced features for those that need them. The pool has moderately high fees of 2 percent but offers servers in several countries — including the U.S., Europe, China, and Japan — giving it a good balance of fees to features.
BTC.com is another potential candidate for your pool and currently stands as the largest public Bitcoin mining pool. It is responsible for mining around 17 percent of new blocks. Being the largest public mining pool provides users with a sense of security, ensuring blocks are mined regularly and a stable income is made.
Image courtesy of Blockchain.info.
BTC.com is owned by Bitmain, a company that manufacturers mining hardware, and charges a 1.5 percent fees — placing it squarely in the middle-tier in terms of fees. Unlike other platforms, BTC.com uses its own payment structure known as FPPS (Full Pay Per Share), which means miners also receive a share of the transaction fees included within mined blocks — making it slightly more profitable than standard payment per share (PPS) pools.
Another great option is Antpool, a mining pool that supports mining services for 10 different cryptocurrencies, including Bitcoin, Litecoin (LTC) and Ethereum (ETH). AntPool frequently trades places with BTC.com as the largest Bitcoin mining pool. However, as of this writing, it occupies the title of the third-largest public mining pool.
What sets Antpool apart from other pools is the ability to choose your own fee system — including PPS, PPS+, and PPLNS. If you choose PPLNS, using Antpool is free but you will not receive any transaction fees from any blocks mined. Antpool also offers regular payouts and has a low minimum payout of just 0.001 BTC, making it suitable for smaller miners.
Last on the list of the best Bitcoin mining pools in 2019 is the Bitcoin.com mining pool. Although this is one of the smaller pools available, the Bitcoin.com pool has some redeeming features that make it worth a look. It offers mining contracts, allowing you to test out Bitcoin mining before investing in mining equipment of your own. According to Bitcoin.com, they are the highest paying Pay Per Share (PPS) pool in the world, offering up to 98 percent block rewards as well as automatic switching between BTC and BCH mining to optimize profitability.

Electricity Costs
While your mining hardware is most important when it comes to how much BTC you can earn when mining, your electricity costs are usually the largest additional expense. With electricity costs often varying dramatically between countries, ensuring you are on the best cost-per-KWh plan available will help to keep costs down when mining.
Most commonly, large mining operations will be set up in countries where electricity costs are the lowest — such as Iceland, India, and Ukraine. Since China has one of the lowest energy costs in the world, it was previously the epicenter of Bitcoin mining. However, since the government began cracking down on cryptocurrencies, it has largely fallen out of favor with miners.
Technically, Venezuela is one of the cheapest countries in the world in terms of electricity, with the government heavily subsidizing these energy costs — while Bitcoin offers an escape from the hyperinflation suffered by the Venezuelan bolivar. Despite this, importing mining hardware into the country is a costly endeavor, making it impractical for many people.
Finding ways to lower your electricity costs is one of the best ways to improve your mining profitability. This can include investing in renewable energy sources such as solar, geothermal, or wind — which can yield increased profitability over the long term.
if you are looking to buy bitcoin mining equipment here is some links:

Model Antminer S17 Pro (56Th) from Bitmain mining SHA-256 algorithm with a maximum hashrate of 56Th/s for a power consumption of 2385W.
https://miningwholesale.eu/product/bitmain-antminer-s17-pro-56th-copy/?wpam_id=17
Model Antminer S9K from Bitmain mining SHA-256 algorithm with a maximum hashrate of 14Th/s for a power consumption of 1323W.
https://miningwholesale.eu/product/bitmain-antminer-s9k-14-th-s/?wpam_id=17
Model T2T 30Tfrom Innosilicon mining SHA-256 algorithm with a maximum hashrate of 30Th/s for a power consumption of 2200W.
https://miningwholesale.eu/product/innosilicon-t2t-30t/?wpam_id=17
mining wholesale website:
https://miningwholesale.eu/?wpam_id=17
submitted by mohamadk to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

A (Hopefully neutral) game-theoretical and mathematical look at the upcoming hard-fork.

Hey everyone, November is here and a hash war on BCH is likely to heat up soon. I wanted to take time to post about the possible outcomes of the chain split and hash war from a game-theoretical standpoint.
Realistically, there are only 3 major outcomes:
1) SV "wins" by preventing any form of replay protection while having more hash power.
2) SV splits and two different chains are formed - one off of the SV specification and one off the ABC / BU specification.
3) ABC / BU win by SV disallowing a hard fork while alternate clients maintain a higher hash rate.
The Mining Pools
So first, let's talk about mining pools, their interests, and their hash power.
We know that Coingeek, SVpool, okminer and BMGpool are the pools essentially rooting for SV to win. All of these pools have at least some affiliation with Craig Wright or nChain.
As of this morning, here are the Bitcoin Cash mining statistics for these pools:
BMG Pool: 620EH/s
Coingeek: 395PH/s
SVPool: 263PH/s
okminer: 237PH/s Edit - okminer appears to be onboard with ABC and I may have grouped them into SV improperly
Total SV Hashrate: 1.52EH/s 1.29EH/s
In comparison, several pools have indicated support for ABC / BU including:
Bitcoin.com: 300PH/s
ViaBTC: 266PH/s
BTC.com: 231PH/s
AntPool: 137PH/s
Total ABC / BU hash rate: 934PH/s
I would consider BTC.top a wild card as they have not announced explicit support, however they have indicated they use ABC for BCH mining in the past with their mining preference being primarily financial, they have also announced a goal of having 100k BCH on hand.. My instincts tell me they will want to protect their current interests and will likely maintain being on the ABC chain. Also, a non-split chain creates a hash vacuum that they will be happy to fill.
BTC.top: 369 PH/s
Total confirmed and likely ABC / BU hash rate: 1.30EH/s
Sources: BTC.com BCH pool statistics; Coin.dance BCH pool statistics.
The Other Chain
"But wait," you say... "with those statistics, it's pretty clear that SV is going to win the hash war." Not by a long shot. In fact, right now there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by swapping hashrate between the two primary SHA256 chains: BTC and BCH.
Because the hash war has not yet started, we should consider each mining pool's contributions to BOTH SHA256 chains.
Let's start with SV's contribution to the BTC chain:
BMG Pool: 0H/s
Coingeek: 0H/s
SVPool: 0H/s
okminer: 0H/s
Total SV Hashrate available: 1.52EH/s
In fact, the SV pools appear to be blindly mining BCH regardless of price. At best, this is absolute faith that the BCH chain is and will be superior. At worst, this is the owners of the SV pool economically pushing hash power off of BCH to unfairly try and convince people "who's is bigger."
Because there is currently nothing economic at stake, some of the pools that allow chain switching have substantial hash rate on the other chain. Let's take a look at that:
Bitcoin.com: 1.36EH/s
ViaBTC: 5.44EH/s
BTC.com: 9.15EH/s
AntPool: 5.32EH/s
Total additional confirmed ABC/BU hash power available: 22.2EH/s
Again, BTC.top may stick their horse in this race, so let's include some wild-card stats too:
BTC.top: 5.81EH/s
Total confirmed and likely ABC / BU hash power available: 28.4EH/s
Sources: BTC.com BTH pool statistics; Coin.dance BTC pool statistics.
Economic Game Theory and Idealism
I've heard from a few places that we can't count on pools to act out of idealism, and I think for the most part those concerns are correct. I also think there are non-idealistic reasons some pools have for mining BCH at a slight to moderate economic disadvantage. I also forsee an economic hash vacuum being created that will naturally be filled by miners at an economic advantage.
First off, let's talk about Bitmain:
Bitmain has a relatively firm say in what and how the AntPool and BTC.com pool mine. They also have given investment startup to ViaBTC so it's likely they have serious pull there too.
According to leaked documents, Bitmain has previously reported owning over 1M BCH. A hard-fork that is perceived as malicious would undermine the value of their insanely sizable investment in BCH. I think it would be naive to believe that Bitmain won't temporarily be willing to mine even at a slight to moderate economic disadvantage to quash an SV chain. We don't have to rely on altruism to come to this easy conclusion.
Chance of Bitmain switching hash power to BCH during a contentious hard fork: Virtual guarantee
If you include only BTC.com and AntPool, Bitmain currently has 14.8EH/s at their disposal. It would take 15% of their hash power alone to guarantee a safe 60% majority over SV.
If you include ViaBTC, their mining power increases to 20.5EH/s and only 11% of their resources are needed to guarantee a safe 60% majority.
On top of that, a hash war with no replay protection means that one chain wins everything and one chain loses everything. If Bitmain points 2.28EH/s of their mining power at BCH (ABC) and only accept non-SV blocks, it will orphan every SV block that is mined. The 1.52EH/s of mining power for SV is effectively worth nothing which actually leaves more room on the main BCH (ABC) chain for other miners to come in at an economic advantage.
Let's even assume that the price of BCH reduces back to the ~$420 per coin rate of a few days ago and the hash-rate follows. The hash rate at that time was around 3.3EH/s meaning that not only could Bitmain come in with 2.28EH/s to guarantee a lock, but another 1.1EH/s would still follow in its footsteps at an economic advantage. This is the hash vacuum I was referring to that would be filled due to SV mining at a total loss.
This scenario would hurt SV pools (potentially) exclusively.
Even with Bitmain pitching in hashrate by itself, SV cannot compete.
As an additional note, The current total BCH network hashrate as of today is 4.6EH/s which means that SV doesn't even control a majority at the current economic equilibrium.
Next up, we'll discuss Bitcoin.com
While it's my current understanding that Roger Ver does not directly make mining decisions about the Bitcoin.com mining pool, he will probably have a clear influence.
I don't know if he's disclosed his BCH holdings publicly, but I believe it's safe to assume his holdings are substantial.
I think he would have enough influence that either he could have the Bitcoin.com mining pool mine at a slight economic disadvantage -or- he could provide a subsidy out of his own pocket temporarily and still have a long-term economic advantage.
Chance of Bitcoin.com switching hash power to BCH during a contentious hard fork: somewhat likely for protective reasons alone, even more likely for economic reasons.
Bitcoin.com alone accounts for 1.66PH/s of hashing power. They couldn't gain a 60% majority themselves, but if they point all hash power at BCH, they alone could squeak out a 52% Majority.
Because this would require all of their hash power with only a slight hash advantage, they do run the risk of getting unlucky for a substantial period of time if they go it alone. With that being said, even with the tiniest bit of help, the ABC side of the chain gains a clear majority.
MemoryDealers - care to comment on the intended hash distribution of the Bitcoin.com pool? I'll gladly update to directly link your comment for visibility in return.
The final pool to discuss (as well as being the biggest wild-card in the ABC bunch) is BTC.top.
BTC.top controls 6.18EH/s of hashing power.
While their motives seem economic in nature, their goal of owning 100k BCH means they likely also have a substantially nest-egg to protect. In general, they seem to have just gone-with-the-flow in the past, and could very well chose to do the same thing here.
Chance of BTC.top switching hash power to BCH during a contentious hard fork: They will be happy to fill the economic vacuum that SV mining at a total loss creates.
If BTC.top chose to outright protect the ABC/BU side of the chain, they can gain a safe 60% hashing majority with ~38% of their total available hashpower. More likely, I think they just happily fill out any remaining economic advantage from Bitmain and/or Bitcoin.com protecting their own interests.
So what the heck is going to happen?
Well, that depends.
Right now, SV hasn't shown that they have the hash power to even gain a majority hash of the current BCH network. Their pools were temporarily close to or above the 51% mark at the economic equilibrium of the lower $400-$450 price range, but as of today, they're only showing around 38% of hash power.
If SV has hash power offline or if they can get additional pools to use SV and mine BCH exclusively, our equations may change some... but I'm highly skeptical.
I find it unlikely that SV-based miners have thousands of peta-hash worth of miners sitting idly waiting for the hard-fork. Leaving that many miners idle for half of a month would effectively be the same as lighting millions of dollars in cash on fire.
My estimation is that to even have a chance, SV would need at least half of the hash power of Bitmain as that would force them to start to make some non-ideal economic decisions.
Even ignoring ViaBTC, that would require around 6EH/s remaining idle.
6EH/s of hash power is currently worth around $1.5M USD per day.
This would also require almost half-a million units at a start-up cost of around $3.1B (assuming Antminer S9s). I find it unlikely that an instillation that large will possibly be installed in the next 10 days.
I find the prospect of that many offline or to-be-installed miners insanely unlikely.
With that being said, it's fairly clear that SV will almost certainly not attain majority hash-power.
They are highly likely to not even reach the point where they make it economically disadvantageous to mine BCH to protect the primary (ABC / BU) chain. In fact, they likely make the prospect better.
ABC / BU would be at no obligation to implement replay protection as they will likely have majority hash-rate with no economic disadvantage.
While I think it's their best option, If SV chooses to implement replay protection and officially split, I think they shoot themselves in the foot economically. There may end up being two chains, but my impression is that most people with mining or economic interest are going to follow the ABC/BU chain. I think this makes the price of SV as a separate entity decline very substantially.
If SV chooses not to implement replay protection, they almost certainly get out-hashed until they've suffered enough economically to throw in the towel.
An additional note about the recent price increase
Many people are stating that the price increase is due to the prospect of a chain split. It is my impression however, that the former price depression was due to the perceived mismanagement that would occur as a result of having only one client (SV) and one primary entity (SV-controlled pools) essentially dictate changes.
I think it's important moving forward that we maintain a diverse and non-centralized array of wallet projects who effectively communicate potential protocol changes to each-other. I also think it's important moving forward that we maintain a diverse interest of independent pools.
While I don't think BCH is 100% there yet, I'm pretty sure the result of the November hard fork will reveal that we're headed very much in the correct direction.
I think the renewed price confidence is due in part to the superficial reason that "oh, look... there will be two chains" and for the non-superficial reason that the project still very much appears to be headed in the correct direction.
TL;DR - ABC has as much as 28.4EH/s ready to go while SV sits around 1.52EH/s. All signs point to ABC/BU being a virtual lock for November 15th
I still recommend paying attention to total pool hashrates and how they shift between BTC/BCH in the upcoming days, but it doesn't look good for SV.
submitted by CaptainPatent to btc [link] [comments]

November Fork - The Facts

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

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

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

The November BTC Fork and Bitcoin Cash - The Facts

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

Bitcoin Mining Pool AntPool to Sponsor NBA’s Houston Rockets Antpool Starts Mining Bitcoin Unlimited Big News! Genesis ... Antpool mining bitcoin - Bitmain antpool setup Review Antminer S9 Mining at antpool for a Month Bitcoin Cash Are USB Bitcoin Miners Profitable RIGHT NOW In 2020? - YouTube

1) AntPool makes payouts each day. Once your earnings reach the minimum payment amount, coins will be sent to your wallet automatically. (BTC default minimum payment amount is 0.05, BCH is 0.001. This threshold value can be modified in AntPool by yourself.) 2) Payment will be sent to the wallet you set up in AntPool. You could check the payment ... Antpool is a bitcoin mining and forex trading company, formed by professionals with expertise in the cryptocurrency/ Binary industry as one of the biggest financials today. Our focus is to provide our Affiliates with Daily Returns on their and high hash mining pools at extreme low cost of complete mining operation, totally aimed at efficiency delivery on ROI of your investment. Become a member ... The Antpool Statistics page shows the overall block mining data of antpool and antpool users The antpool support page is the official manual of antpool, including features, support downloads, tech specs, and tutorials AntPool propagiert ungültigen Block. Wie BitMEX Research, die Forschungssparte der Bitcoin-Börse BitMEX, tweetet, versuchte AntPool Block 584.802 mit Transaktionsgebühren auszustatten, die im Block überhaupt nicht enthalten waren. Bitcoin had an invalid block at height 584,802, as spotted by @juscamarena

[index] [12188] [40782] [31443] [42001] [46480] [12132] [37010] [18112] [24196] [22337]

Bitcoin Mining Pool AntPool to Sponsor NBA’s Houston Rockets

Produced by https://CryptoCousins.com: Bitman’s Antpool is one of the world’s largest crypto mining companies, and they have entered into a sponsorship agreement with the popular NBA Houston ... 0.43 Bitcoin Cash, and the price of a BCH was around U$2300 back then.So around U$900 of course after 2 difficulty ajustaments and the drop in Price, it came out to only 0,31 BCH so around U$450 ... Our partner: https://www.cloudtokenwallet.com/ Registration code: 5516709372 Info partners: bitcoingarden.tk, coinidol.com The hard fork of bitcoin is inevit... Bitcoin price: 13,888.00 Bitcoin cash price: $2,469.89 ***I am not a financial adviser. This information is for education purposes only. *** If you want to join the FaceBook discussion group ... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue

#