Everything you need to know about Bitcoin mining

Bitcoin Classic

Bitcoin Classic
[link]

speculation in the price of Bitcoins

Speculation is to profit from short or medium term fluctuations in the market.
[link]

We Are Bitcoin

This subreddit will serve as an alternative to /bitcoin, in an effort to create a community that shares the common goal of advancing bitcoin in a **positive** and **productive** manner. This sub will emphasize these two points above all else. Bitcoin is an incredible technology, and it will be our job as a community to properly represent it to the world.
[link]

A new licensed bitcoin mining farm is getting set up in Iran. iMiner already has an office in Iran’s Tehran city “for administrative purposes only” and had been providing services “only in an informal manner,”

submitted by olahdonat3 to CryptoCurrencyTrading [link] [comments]

05-03 14:05 - 'This is fairly embarrassing, the title of the white paper is peer to peer electronic cash system. Yes it should be sound money but it should also be easy to send money to another person, in a timely manner and of little co...' by /u/Lucania001 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 355-365min

'''
This is fairly embarrassing, the title of the white paper is peer to peer electronic cash system. Yes it should be sound money but it should also be easy to send money to another person, in a timely manner and of little cost.
The block size limit wasn’t even a thing in the original code, it was placed as a temporary measure for miners, always intended to be increased as we started hitting the limits.
This stuff is written in code and pull requests..... sigh
Good news is though I’m starting to feel like an old timer around here :)
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: Lucania001
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

I explained Bitcoin in a SIMPLE manner

I explained Bitcoin in a SIMPLE manner submitted by thisismaw to AdvertiseYourVideos [link] [comments]

Bitcoin will cost $ 500,000 and surpass gold in capitalization, - Bobby Lee

Bitcoin will cost $ 500,000 and surpass gold in capitalization, - Bobby Lee
Bobby Lee, co-founder and former CEO of BTCC Chinese crypto exchange, is sure that the price of bitcoin will reach $ 500 thousand by 2028.
https://preview.redd.it/h0u62vq3c9y31.png?width=1520&format=png&auto=webp&s=3c351ca4905810c1c99d254fa23fe566ca75134b
Today, the gold market is at about $ 8 trillion, which is 50x the worth of bitcoin. He predicts that flipping will occur within 9 years and BTC will rise above $ 500,000. Given the global scale of today's print money, the price of BTC may overcome the $ 1 million mark, according to Bobby Lee.
His forecast is based on the deficit bitcoin manner, which implies an inevitable increase in the price of an asset, subject to a constant or growing demand for it.
This material is considered a marketing communication and does not contain, and should not be construed as containing, investment advice or an investment recommendation or, an offer of or solicitation for any transactions in financial instruments. Forecast is not a reliable indicator of future results.
Risk Warning: CFDs are complex instruments and come with a high risk of losing money rapidly due to leverage. 81.65% of retail investor accounts lose money when trading CFDs with this provider. You should consider whether you understand how CFDs work and whether you can afford to take the high risk of losing your money.
Legal Information: ITRADER is operated by Hoch Capital Ltd., a Cypriot Investment Firm (CIF), authorized and regulated by the Cyprus Securities and Exchange Commission (CySEC) under the license no. 198/13, in accordance with the Markets in Financial Instruments Directive (MiFID II).
submitted by Itrader_com to u/Itrader_com [link] [comments]

u/Tempatroy: "u/adam3us, u/nullc, u/luke-jr don't even understand the basic premise of Bitcoin." ... u/nullc: "You have been around for thirteen hours and you think you understand Bitcoin better than people who have been maintaining it for the last six years" ... PLUS: a lengthy response from me :)

https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/68hkk5/former_core_fanboy_admits_95_of_core_loyalists/dgyp1ok/
I mean if you base your understanding of what Bitcoin is based on the whitepaper or even Satoshi’s talk, people heavily associated with Blockstream (like adam3us, nullc, luke-jr et al.) don’t even understand the basic premise of Bitcoin.
~ u/Tempatroy
Welcome to Reddit, Tempatroy.
Thank you for pinging me to your insult.
I’m always interested in hearing when someone who has been around for thirteen hours (and, in fact, needed to be manually whitelisted to get past the 24 hours automod rule in rbtc) thinks that they understand the premise of Bitcoin better than people who have been maintaining it for the last six years, participated in it before the overwhelming majority of people here, or who worked on cryptocurrency for a decade even before Bitcoin.
~ u/nullc
Here is my response to u/nullc:
TL;DR:
Bitcoin cannot be decentralized and permissionless and trustless if we use some political / social process to decide on “the rules”.
The only way that Bitcoin can be decentralized and permissionless and trustless is if we use Proof-of-Work to decide on “the rules”.
This implies that “the rules” of Bitcoin cannot be be defined using some political / social process before a block is appended several-confirmations-deep into the chain.
In the system invented by Satoshi, “the rules” can only be defined using Proof-of-Work. This requires observing which chain has the most Proof-of-work after a block has been appended several-confirmations-deep into the chain.
Yes this seems upside-down to people who are accustomed to rules being “handed down” by some authority (Satoshi, Greg, Blockstream, etc.).
But - if we want Bitcoin to remain decentralized and permissionless and trustless - then we must recognize that:
  • The chain with the most Proof-of-Work is the “valid” chain - ie, the chain with the most Proof-of-Work defines “the rules” after the fact; and
  • There is no concept in Bitcoin of some pre-existing “rules” defining the valid chain.
To put it even more bluntly:

”The rules” are not defined “before the fact” by Greg, or by Blockstream.

”The rules” are defined “after the fact” by observing the chain (not the “valid chain” - simply the “chain”) that has ended up having the most Proof-of-Work.

Details
As others have pointed out to u/nullc: u/Tempatroy wasn’t being insulting - he was merely making a factual observation - pointing out that:
Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc does not understand (or perhaps is merely pretending not to understand) the must fundamental aspect of Bitcoin.
I will describe this problem at length below.
I apologize in advance for the convolutedness of this exposition - this is only a first draft off the top of my head now.
Other people have explained this better - and hopefully I will also someday manage to put together a more succinct exposition of my own.
This major “blind spot” of Greg’s has already been commented on at length, eg:
Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg’s comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought “honest” meant “plays by Core rules.” [But] there is no “honesty” involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zxl2l/mining_is_how_you_vote_for_rule_changes_gregs/
It’s a subtle point.
It involves two approaches to defining Bitcoin’s “rules”:
  • a naive, incorrect approach used throughout most of human history - called ‘Approach (1)’ below, versus
  • the correct approach developed by Satoshi - called ‘Approach (2)’ below

‘Approach (1)’ - The “naive” (incorrect, pre-Satoshi) approach
This is the approach adopted by Greg Maxwell u/nullc, and many of the people who follow him - eg Adam Back u/adam3us CEO of Blockstream, and Luke-Jr u/luke-jr (who also thinks he can decide which transactions are “spam” and which are not - ie, he is authoritarian, the antithesis of Bitcoin) - and by the “low-information” people on the censored forum r\bitcoin.
I know it sounds like I am being rude here - but the situation is dire, after so many years of censorship, and with Bitcoin’s market cap dropping to 60% of total cryptocurrency market cap for the first time (despite the moderate price rise which actually makes people overlook this drop in market cap), and in view of the hope and promise of Bitcoin as designed by Satoshi - enabling a more rational and sustainable system for capital allocation.
Sidebar on Bitcoin’s “killer app”:
I think that “rational and sustainable allocation of capital” is the most important “killer app” of Bitcoin - not coffee, not remittances, not even as a store-of-value or a speculative asset class - although those are all nice things.
I would argue that “rational and sustainable allocation of capital” is the main thing which “fantasy fiat” has not been doing - causing the various social and economic and ecological crises which may destroy civilization on our planet in a few decades.
The main hope offered by Bitcoin is that, by preventing central bankers from “ninja-mining” their “fantasy fiat” and handing it out to their buddies to invest in non-rational, non-sustainable projects, Bitcoin could help people make decisions for allocating capital which actually increase our well-being, instead of increasing our suffering.
People like Greg and his followers (naively, incorrectly) believe (or pretend to believe) that the “rules” (specifically: the “rules” governing which block to append next) are somehow “pre-defined” and are somehow (already) manifested / incorporated / coded in “the software” - and that the miners must “honestly” obey these pre-defined rules.
On the surface (and to people who are used to obeying “rules” handed down from some authority: eg from a government, a religion, a dev team, etc.), this may have a certain appeal - but it is not how Satoshi actually designed Bitcoin.
‘Approach (2)’ - Satoshi’s approach - Proof-of-Work
Satoshi, (correctly, brilliantly, counter-intuitively) specified (in the whitepaper, and in his software) that the “rules” of Bitcoin are decided in a totally different way.
He specified that the “rules” are decided after the fact - because they are decided by Proof-of-Work.
This means that whichever (branch of the) chain ends up having the most Proof-of-Work is by definition the valid chain.
The (counter-intuitive, hard-to-understand) implication here is that before any particular (branch of the chain) has clearly “won” in this ongoing, every-ten-minutes battle...
  • The “rules” determining which “next” block is “valid” are still “up in the air”;
  • The rules are “not yet decided” until after a block has been buried a-few-blocks-deep into the chain;
  • The “rules” will only become clear / manifest after we inspect the last few blocks appended to the chain which ended up (“after the fact”) having the most Proof-of-Work.
If we closely examine these two (quite different approaches), we can make a several observations:
First: There is a massive logical flaw in “naive” ‘Approach (1)’, when people try to apply it to Bitcoin.
This flaw can perhaps be informally captured by the following phrase:
“In ‘Approach (1)’, it’s turtles all the way down (which is of course impossible).”
‘Approach (1)’ suffers from a fatal omission: it fails to specify how the rules manifested / incorporated / coded in the software get put there in the first place.
This might seem like a “detail” - but actually it is everything.
This can be seen if we ask ourselves the following (rarely asked) questions:
  • Where do the “rules” come from?
  • Who makes those rules?
  • Satoshi?
  • Greg / Adam / Luke-Jr?
  • Blockstream?
  • The miners?
  • “Users”? (see: “User-Activated Soft Fork” / UASF)
  • “Investors” (aka: the “economic majority”)?
This also leads to other, specific questions, which are applicable in the current situation:
  • By what process do the rules get defined?
  • By a social / political process?
  • By a particular dev team offering some code?
Of course, initially Satoshi did offer some code - and it did contain some rules.
But Satoshi also explicitly stated that those rules at some point could be changed.
Satoshi suggested a process which could involve some political and social debate offline, culminating in some new code being released, and everyone installing that code, and - voilà - new “rules” determining the validity of subsequent blocks would now be in place.
For example, Satoshi famously made an important remark on bitcointalk.org where he suggested how this process could be used to remove the temporary anti-spam kludge which had been added to temporarily impose a 1MB “max blocksize” limit.
But Satoshi is gone now. So we can’t use him as an “authority” to hand down “the rules” to us.
But we still want Bitcoin to evolve - to be upgraded. (Otherwise, it will be destroyed by the alt-coins!)
For example, SegWit, although it is technically described as a “soft fork”, is one proposal for upgrading / evolving Bitcoin - and SegWit would involve a rather substantial change to the “rules” - indeed, SegWit would involve making all transactions “anyone-can-spend” under the old rules - which, by the way, is the main reason why SegWit is so dangerous, and which is why it should be rejected.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin Unlimited doesn’t really “change the rules” per se - but it does make it easier for miners and full node operators to express their preference regarding one particular rule - the rule involving how big a block can be.
So we are now faced with the question:
  • Who makes the rules? And how?
Here’s the answer:
Satoshi’s revolutionary solution to defining “the rules” is not based on social or political processes - which can be manipulated (eg by sybil attacks, bribes, coercion, violence, etc.)
Instead, Satoshi’s brilliant mechanism for deciding which block to append next is based on Proof-of-Work, as summarized in the slogans “One CPU, one vote” or “They vote with their hashpower”.
This moment of “voting with their hashpower” is the actual process where “the rules” (governing the validity of the next block) come into existence.
This is all very counterintuitive to many people.
But other people (who perhaps have a more “sophisticated” appreciation of social and economic processes - or perhaps a “deeper” understanding of game theory) can often begin to glimpse the massive flaw in “naive” ‘Approach (1)’.
The problem with “naive” ‘Approach (1)’ is that it neglects to specify where the rules come from - ie, who makes “the rules” - and how.
Once Satohsi himself is removed from the picture, we have a situation where we have to “somehow” do all of the following:
  • agree on certain rules,
  • then get them into software,
  • and then get that software deployed on the network,
  • and then 51% of all hashpower has to start mining using those rules,
  • and then in a 10-minute period where various “candidate blocks” are competing to be appended to the chain, one of those blocks ends up getting “buried deeper” under more Proof-of-Work
  • and at that point , the system has been “upgraded”, and the newly appended block reflects the new “rules”.
In most cases (but not in all cases) “the new rules” are the same as “the old rules”.
This is because this system does allow the rules to be changed, when Bitcoin evolves or gets upgraded.
We should also add the ‘caveat’ there that this system only works if the majority of hashpower does not adopt “crazy rules” - ie rules which would decrease the value of everyone’s bitcoins.
The system only works if the majority of miners are always “intelligently profit-seeking” - ie, if the majority never adopts “crazy rules” which would destroy the value of everyone’s coins.
The important thing is that the rules are “post-defined” - after the next block has been added chain (and a few more blocks have been piled on top of it).
  • This means that there are no “pre-defined” rules in the system.
  • There are only “post-defined” rules, which can be observed by inspecting the decisions made by the majority of “intelligently profit-seeking” hashpower, as new blocks got appended to the chain.
The only part of this scenario that guarantees a decentralized, permissionless, trustless system is the on-chain Proof-of-Work stuff - not the off-chain social / political stuff.
All the other stuff (the political / social process where people argue about rules, code them up in software, and deploy that software on the network) - all that “prior” stuff is done using the “old” “pre-Satoshi” methods - so it’s not actually reliable (ie, it’s not decentralized or permissionless or trustless - ie, it can be sabotaged by sybils, or bribery, or threats of violence, etc.)
So the political / social process of talking about the rules on Reddit or on a mailing list, or coding up some rules in some code and offering that code to the public (eg, Greg Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream, saying “These are the rules”) - that part of the process is not “Nakamoto Consensus”, so it’s not reliable, and it’s not “Bitcoin.”
The magical moment where the system actually becomes “Bitcoin” is when the majority of “intelligently profit-seeking miners” use Proof-of-Work to decide what block is the one that gets appended to the chain.
Another metaphor might be that the (naive, incorrect) ‘Approach (1)’ assumes that some other higher authority (Satoshi, Greg, Core/Blockstream) has already handed down the “rules” in C++ code.
Meanwhile the correct ‘Approach (2)’ - (Nakamoto Consensus a/k/a “one CPU, one vote” a/k/a “They vote with their hashpower”) does not require the existence of any authority (no Satoshi, no Greg, no Blockstream) to pre-define the “rules”.
Bitcoin simply requires that the majority of miners must be “intelligently profit seeking” - and then whatever they vote on as being “the next block” is by definition the next block - and they “re-decide” on this (essentially “re-deciding” on what the rules are) every ten minutes.
This is incredibly counter-intuitive to many, many people - especially to people who are of an “authoritarian” mindset - ie, they are accustomed to “rules being handed down from some higher authority”.
But this is how Bitcoin actually works.
The rules are decided not by me or by you or by Satoshi or by Greg or by Blockstream.
The rules are decided by the miners - and re-decided every ten minutes (usually the “same old” rules as during the previous ten minutes - but not “always”: because there are times when the rules may indeed be upgraded, if the majority of hashpower suddenly decides so).
And the mechanism for these rules being decided (and re-decided, and re-decided, every ten minutes) is: hashpower, a/k/a “one CPU, one vote” - which simply requires that the majority of miners must be “intelligently profit-seeking”.
Sidebar:
Of course, Exhibit A in any discussion about “authoritarianism” would be Luke-Jr, because he provides the most glaring and grotesque example of the “error of authoritarianism”.
This may indeed be a deep-seated psychological problem, so we can’t really “blame” the person for it.
But at the same time, we should always be vigilant to make sure that this “error of authoritarianism” does not get adopted as part of Bitcoin’s system for determining “the rules” - because the only way that Bitcoin can remain decentralized and permissionless and trustless is if we use Proof-of-Work (and not some “higher authority”) to determine “the rules”.
‘Approach (1)’ is used quite widely. It powers many legacy systems in the world - but it’s not what makes Bitcoin decentralized and permissionless and trustless!
In “legacy” systems, people used a political / social process to agree upon some rules (vulnerable to all the old attacks: in particularly sybil attacks, social coercion, ostracism, bribes, threats of violence or actual acts of violence, etc.) - and, eventually, through this messy process, a set of rules was finally hammered out.
Then these socially / politically selected rules become manifested / incorporated (“coded up”) in some software, and that software gets deployed on the network, and then everything becomes wonderfully easy: it is now just a question of checking whether a particular block satisfies those rules or not.
This (naive, non-Bitcoin) ‘Approach (1)’ all sounds wonderful until one remembers that it does not provide us with any decentralized, permissionless, trustless mechanism for actually forming consensus on what these “rules” should be, and then coding them in software, and getting everyone to install that software on the network!
At this point, many people (eg, the smart investors who understood Bitcoin from the very beginning) can see that this “naive” ‘Approach (1)’ neglects to specify the process of how these particular “rules” got manifested / incorporated / coded in the software itself - and how people reached a consensus to deploy this particular software on the network.
The current ongoing “blocksize debate” uses a social / political process for deciding on “the rules” - ie, it does not use Proof-of-Work.
This is the social / political / off-chain war we’re seeing now - where:
  • One faction (Core/Blockstream today) wants a “rule” that says that blocks must be less than 1 MB,
  • Another faction wants a rule that says that blocks must be less than 8 MB,
  • Another faction (BU / Emergent Consensus) wants a convenient “on-chain pre-signaling system” where miners can pre-announce their intention to adopt certain rules regarding the maximum size of the next block that they will mine (1 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB, etc.)
  • Another faction (SegWit) wants a new rule where all transactions would be considered “anyone-can-spend”, plus a new rule added to the system to do a different verification process regarding who can actually spend them.
It’s all fine for this social / political / off-chain “rule-deciding” process to be taking place now - wherever it happens to take place - eg, on Reddit, on Slack, in various dev mailing lists, perhaps at meetings at Blockstream, perhaps in secret gathering places such as the notorious “Dragons Den” - and also now to some extent it has been starting to take place at other social / political venues - eg other online forums devoted to discussing other clients (BU, Classic, etc.).
But any rules which are decided “off-chain” like this aren’t really “rules” yet. They can only become “rules” if the majority of “intelligently profit-seeking hashpower” actually mines a block which satisfies these “rules”.
‘Approach (2)’ is the major breakthrough invented by Satoshi - his solution to the Byzantine General Problem, supporting decentralized formation of consensus among parties who do not trust each other.
This breakthrough was also so counter-intuitive that very, very few people even understood it when Satoshi first proposed it in the whitepaper, and in the accompanying C++ code.
In particular, as amazing as it may sound, there are many Core / Blockstream devs who do not actually understand the subtle stuff here about how Bitcoin really works.
Why are people always so angry at Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr?
I’m going to step on some people’s toes by making provocative and even somewhat unkind statements - I do apologize, but I also do believe I am describing real and unfortunate problems which are critically important to address and resolve.
People who do not have a very clear understanding of how political and social processes - and markets and economics - actually work might have a hard time understanding this mechanism invented by Satoshi.
Yes this (unfortunately) means guys like Greg Maxwell and Adam Back.
They both know cryptography - and Greg knows C++ - but these two guys in particular apparently do not have a very good understanding of how political and social processes - and markets and economics - actually work.
They understand how (given a pre-existing set of rules) a particular implementation can reflect / express those “rules”.
But they never have shown any understanding for the “bigger” process whereby those “rules” got selected in the first place.
Indeed, in their arrogance and hubris, they assume that they are the ones who define those rules (in a non-decentralized, non-permissionless, non-trustless manner - ie, in a totally anti-Bitcoin manner).
I know this may sound like an insult - and I have certainly hurled it as an insult on many occasions in this forum over the years - out of frustration at the fact that these two guys have set themselves up as leaders for this system - so they are effectively attempting to sabotaging Bitcoin.
But in addition to being an “insult”, it also happens to be a fact. (So maybe we can just call it an “insulting fact”.)
I did not originally (several years ago) hurl this as an “insult”. I only started to raise my voice and get angry when (and many other people) I had to repeat this fundamental (but admittedly subtle) aspect of Bitcoin over and over again for years - because guys like Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr - who don’t actually understand how Bitcoin actually works - kept telling people like me that we were “wrong” (when in fact Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr are wrong - at least on this subtle and crucial point about when and where and how the “rules” of Bitcoin get decided).
Anyone can read the whitepaper. And if you do, you will notice this amazing thing. The “rules” are not pre-defined by any authority.
The “rules” are actually “post-defined” as a by-product of the process of hashing, which is based on the fact that the majority of miners are always “intelligently profit-seeking”.
Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr erroneously “assume” that they are the ones who decide the rules.
But this is not how Satoshi designed Bitcoin.
And this - in a nutshell, is the main reason why people are so angry at Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr.
And it’s also, the reason why Bitcoin’s market share has been declining, now dropping below 60% of total cryptocurrency market cap - due in large part to the fact that, for the past few years, Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr have been running around telling everyone that they get to define the rules - when all the really intelligent people involved in Bitcoin know that this is not the case: the hashpower defines the rules, as manifested by Proof-of-Work!
Of course, if we want to be “charitable”, then we cannot really “blame” them for being wrong about this subtle but fundamental about where the “rules” of Bitcoin actually come from.
The sad but likely truth is that people who spend most of their waking hours thinking about things like C++ and cryptography may have a certain kind of “mindset” which makes them suffer from “blind spots” when it comes to understanding how political and social processes - and markets and economics - actually work.
Sorry if this sounds harsh - but at this point, after all the damage inflicted on Bitcoin by Adam and Greg and Luke-Jr (now with Bitcoin’s market share below 60% of total cryptocurrency market cap), a certain amount of “tough love” diagnosis (or even anger, or insults, or name-calling) is certainly justified - in order for Bitcoin to survive.
And the only way that Bitcoin can survive is if we reject the attempts by guys like Adam and Greg and Luke-Jr to pre-define Bitcoin’s rules for us.
The only way Bitcoin can survive is if we remember that the rules are defined by the majority of the miners, who are “intelligently profit-seeking”.
What is at stake here is nothing less than the economic future (and perhaps even the very survival) of humanity. We cannot allow a tiny group of arrogant devs (who apparently lack certain social / economic skills) to destroy Satoshi’s vital invention by forcing “their” rules onto the network.
This is why it would be nice if Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr would do some deep inner reflection, to understand that they do not decide the “rules” for Bitcoin.
The “rules” are decided by Proof-of-Work - not by Adam and Greg and Luke-Jr.
So, the only phase of this whole process which actually “matters” (in the novel system devised by Satoshi) is the moment where all this debate actually gets manifested during a ten-minute period where several “candidate blocks” are all simultaneously competing to be appended to the tip of the growing blockchain.
And then, only one of these new “candidate” blocks ends up getting a larger amount of Proof-of-Work on top of it (as other, succeeding “candidate” blocks gets added) - and then (and this is the really brilliant part of Satoshi’s invention), the “economic incentive” aspect of Satoshi’s brilliant invention starts to act - combined with the “stochastic” aspect - which is just fancy mathematical terminology for saying that “as more and more blocks get piled on to the chain, it becomes vanishingly improbable for those deeply buried blocks to ever get ‘un-confirmed’ via a chain re-org.”
Sidebar:
These two parts - the “economic incentives” stuff involving the valuable economic token, and the “stochastic” stuff where blocks “buried deeper” in the chain will almost certainly not be “un-conformed” by a chain re-org - were hard for guys like Greg and Adam to understand in the early years.
Remember, in the early years, when these two “brilliant” guys first heard about Bitcoin:
  • Greg Maxwell “mathematically proved” that Bitcoin couldn’t work.
  • And Adam Back ignored emails from Satoshi explaining the system, and didn’t get involved until the price of Bitcoin was over $1000.
  • Meanwhile, many other people (who are actually smarter than Greg and Adam about economics and consensus) simply read the whitepaper, understood all this subtle stuff about “(re-)deciding rules every 10 minutes using hashpower” - and they started mining (or buying).
So Greg and Adam are not among the smartest people people when it comes to understanding how Bitcoin really works.
This shows that people with a more “mathematical” or “computer science” mindset can’t always grasp the other, non-mathematical, non-computer-science-based aspects of Satoshi’s invention: ie, the “economic incentive” aspect, where miners are “economically incentivized” not only to compete in the hash race to get their block appended to the chain, but also “economically incentivized” to only attempt to append blocks which don’t use any “crazy rules” (eg, the majority of miners will not attempt to append a block which would violate the 21 million coin issuance limit).
Most importantly this means that the “rule” which says “let’s not violate the 21 million coin issuance limit” also is not handed down from some higher authority, such as Satoshi, or Greg or Adam or Luke-Jr, or Blockstream.
Instead, this rule is decided, and re-decided - and enforced, and re-enforced - essentially put up for a vote, and put up for a re-vote - every ten minutes in Bitcoin.
And - mirabile dictu - in every single one of those every-ten-minutes insta-votes, the majority of the miners vote to “do the right thing” - not because they’re “honest” - but because they’re “intelligently profit-seeking” - ie, they don’t want to destroy the value of the bitcoin that they’re mining.
If Adam and Greg really understood that no single person decides the “rules”, then they wouldn’t try to force their own rules on Bitcoin. Instead, they’d sit back like the rest of us do, and let the majority of mining hashpower decide (and re-decide, and re-decide) the “rules” - every 10 minutes - which is how Bitcoin works - with no need for any enlightened (ie, non-decentralized, non-permissionless, non-trustless) “intervention” from “well-meaning” “authorities” like Adam and Greg.
We don’t need to presume malice on their part. But we do need to confront the massive damage which Adam and Greg have started to inflict on Bitcoin.
As seen in Greg’s quote at the beginning of this OP (where he proudly proclaims that he has been “maintaining [Bitcoin] for the last six years”), Greg thinks he’s an “expert” (and he might even feel that he is “benign” - ie, he “only wants the best for Bitcoin”).
So Greg might feel comfortable dictating the “rules” of Bitcoin to other people - even though this would end up being fatal - ie it would kill Bitcoin if we allow Greg to impose his rules on us like this.
Bitcoin does not work based on “benign” dictators or authorities defining our rules for us.
Bitcoin works based on the majority of mining hashpower being “intelligently profit-seeking”.
This is why Adam and Greg must be stopped (or at least ignored). And the only way we can stop (or ignore) them is with our hashpower.
This has been a long and messy process - a political and social debate that has lasted years, and which has involved many shenanigans.
In the end, if Bitcoin actually works, new and better rules will be adopted. (Otherwise, it will be surpassed by some alt which does adopt new and better rules.)
And they will be adopted by the process which Satoshi specified: at the precise moment when the majority of mining hashpower (which is always “intelligently profit-seeking”) adds a new block to the chain which happens to satisfy a new set of rules - eg, a block that’s 1.1 MB.
We don’t know when a block like this will get added to the chain. But when it does happen, it will be because the majority of mining hashpower (which is always “intelligently profit-seeking”) decided to do so.
Which means that Bitcoin will continue to function, and everyone’s investment will continue to be preserved (in probably dramatically increased at that point, as people flood back into Bitcoin from the alts =).
Back to the actual process of appending a block to the chain:
Each of these competing “candidate blocks” carries with it a “coinbase reward” (currently 12.5 Bitcoins) - and all the miners, who are “intelligently profit-seeking” (see the OP cited previously quoting some very insightful posts by u/ForkiusMaximus), quickly form consensus to recognize the “candidate block” which is accumulating the most Proof-of-Work on top of it as the “accepted” block, while “orphaning” the other “candidate blocks” which were also competing to be added to the chain.
So the tip of the chain looks during any given 10-minute period is actually “fuzzy” or non-deterministic. Many of us may simply think in terms of “the chain”. But the tip of the chain - where multiple “candidate blocks” are still competing to get added to the chain - the tip of the chain is non-deterministic or “fuzzy”, since it is actually plural and not singular, while various “candidate blocks” are still “fighting it out” to become “the” block that actually gets added to the chain.
Here is where the “stochastic” aspect of the situation comes into effect - because any particular “ordering” of the tip of the chain (whereby the miners have selected only one of the “tips” being appended to the blockchain as being the “accepted” one) could still of course undergo a “re-org”.
We use the word “stochastic” to describe the fact that the chances of such a re-org actually happening rapidly become smaller and smaller, as each successive new “candidate block” gets appended on top of the the chain-tip which ended up getting the majority of the hashing power... so that after about 6 blocks, we can say that (in this “stochastic” process), the probability of a block already “six blocks deep” getting kicked out in a re-org is vanishingly small.
And voilà - distributed consensus about the ordering of blocks has been achieved, in a decentralized and permissionless and trust-free environment, brilliantly solving the Byzantine Generals Problem - truly a historic breakthrough.
So Bitcoin is based on multiple components
There’s lots of things going on here.
  • There’s a decentralized system.
  • There’s the hashing - based, yes, on the hashcash system developed by Adam - and previously by other researchers as well - and also based on the cryptographic signatures.
  • But the more interesting (albeit subtle) parts of the system are the economic and game theory / social aspects - ie, the token having value, and the “stochastic” aspect where a block gets buried deeper and deeper in the chain - and the majority of miners being “intelligently profit-seeking” so they will compete to have their block included in the chain, but they also won’t “cheat” by awarding themselves more coins, or by trying to not recognize some other miner’s “winning” or “accepted” block - because in the end, they want the system to keep going - and they want the tokens maintain their economic value.
This system, as invented by Satoshi, does not involve a notion of “validity” based on some pre-existing “rules” which are (already) manifested / incorporated / coded in some software (by some unspecified political / social process) - because that would be the old systems which Nakamoto Consensus was designed to replace.
The notion of “validity” in Bitcoin as Satoshi designed it is not based on any “pre-defined” rules.
It never could be - because then we’d need a way to “pre-define” those rules.
The notion of “validity” in Bitcoin is based on “post-defined” rules.
This means that the “rules” can only be observed “after the fact” - based on whatever blocks “ended up” getting buried a-few-confirmation-deep-into-the-chain, as a result of the majority of miners being “intelligently profit-seeking” as they decide, and re-decide, and re-decide - every 10 minutes - on “what block to append next”.
As shockingly counter-intuitive as it may seem, there are no “pre-defined” rules in Bitcoin.
There are only “post-defined” rules - which can only be observed “after the fact” - by examining which block “ended up” getting added by hashpower.
It’s very weird to try to wrap your head around a system where the “rules” are defined “after the fact”.
So how do the rules get “changed” - for example when we eventually really do want something like a bigger blocksize?
This is how it works:
While the next block is about to be appended to the chain (ie, while several of blocks are still competing for this honor), these various competing blocks might actually reflect various rules (eg, at a moment when an “upgrade” is being “deployed”).
We won’t know which rules were “The Rules”TM until after only one of those blocks has been buried a few blocks deep in a chain (eg 6 confirmations),
Then we can say that this is the (branch of) the chain having the most Proof-of-Work.
Sidebar:
Of course, Satoshi’s explanation was much more succinct than this OP - and he even provided an executable version!
And other people may also offer their own “informal” explanations of this same system.
I hope that these explanations might help more people (including Greg?) gain a deeper understanding of Satoshi’s invention.
The only thing we have to guide us (regarding the “rules” of Bitcoin) is the hashpower of the majority of “intelligently profit-seeking miners”.
In particular, we cannot turn to any of the following wannabe “authorities” when trying to figure out what “the rules” of Bitcoin are:
  • u/nullc Greg Maxwell CTO of Blockstream,
  • u/adam3us Adam Back CEO of Blockstream
At some level, Greg and Adam still don’t understand Satoshi’s brilliant design for Bitcoin, where the hashpower decides (and re-decides) the rules every ten minutes.
This may due to the observation by Sinclair Lewis that “A man cannot understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it” - ie, because Greg and Adam are getting millions of dollars in fiat by companies such as AXA - who might not want guys Adam and Greg to understand Satoshi’s invention.
Conclusion
Satoshi’s brilliant solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem of Decentralized Permissionless Trust-Free Consensus-Forming is based on Proof-of-Work.
This involves multiple blocks competing to be added to the “tip” of a blockchain and then everyone forming consensus around the “branch” of the chain which has the most Proof-of-Work.
This is based on a “stochastic” process where a block which is 1, 2, 3... etc. levels deep becomes “more and more” confirmed - ie, “less and less” likely to be orphaned - because it would be “harder and harder” to switch (re-org) to another “branch” of the chain now that that block has got so many other blocks appended after it.
The “rules” in Bitcoin are “post-defined” - based Proof-of-Work.
Proof-of-Work is not, technically, based on pre-defined “rules”.
This is really subtle! It’s hard for some people to wrap their head around the concepts that:
  • There are no (pre-defined) rules.
  • During any given 10-minute period, there are often multiple “tips” to the chain.
  • The “rules” are “post-defined” - after one of those tips has the most hashpower piled on top of it.
  • But this is how Bitcoin really works!
In Bitcoin, the “rules” are “post-defined” and not “pre-defined”.
The rules can only be observed after a block has become “buried” a few confirmations deep into the chain.
And during certain (generally rare) 10-minute periods, it may even be the case that the various competing “candidate blocks” satisfy different rule-sets (eg, when a new rule-set is being deployed).
Only after hashpower has added a block - ie, retrospectively - are we able to look back and see what “the rules” are.
Yes this stands everything on its head.
But this is the only way we can get a system which is decentralized and permissionless and trustless.
Because if Proof-of-Work doesn’t decide the rules, then we’re back to the “bad old days” where Greg, or Blockstream, or some other “centralized trusted authority” decides the rules.
So, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, Proof-of-Work decides the rules (and not the other way around).
This stuff is subtle - and I hope better explanations continue to be provided.
My way of working through it all has been to write up posts like this - while also reading posts by important people who really understand this subtle stuff - eg, guys like u/ForkiusMaximus and u/Capt_Roger_Murdock.
Meanwhile Satoshi’s explanation (the whitepaper) - and the code - are one of the most important accomplishments in the history of humanity.
Hopefully as time goes on, more people (including Greg and Adam!) will be start to be able to understand this amazing system invented by Satoshi - where the majority of miners are always “intelligently profit-seeking”, and they “vote with their hashpower” to decide (and re-decide, and re-decide - every ten minutes) - in a decentralized, permissionless, trustless manner - on the “rules” for appending the next block to the chain.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

"Bitcoin, but with better privacy - that’s how Zcash can be described in a simplified manner." - eToro’s Beginner Guide to Zcash

submitted by melte_d to zec [link] [comments]

"Bitcoin are sent via the LN literally in a p2p manner though. Standard on-chain transactions are not p2p. Bitcoin &..." [-10]

submitted by NegativeWithGoldBot to NegativeWithGold [link] [comments]

StableDEX team will provide multiple alternatives for users on how to store their assets in a stable manner. #StableDex #Blockchain #Ethereum #Bitcoin #IEO #Tokensale #cryptocurrency https://stabledex.io/

StableDEX team will provide multiple alternatives for users on how to store their assets in a stable manner. #StableDex #Blockchain #Ethereum #Bitcoin #IEO #Tokensale #cryptocurrency https://stabledex.io/ submitted by lanrecool to CryptoICONews [link] [comments]

I believe Bitcoin Core/Blockstream is now attempting to infiltrate Bitcoin Cash in the same manner that they did with Bitcoin Segwit. They are suddenly befriending Bitcoin Cash. Only in that way can they destroy from within. Do not be fooled.

All of the below happened within the past 24 hours:
 
1. BitcoinCobra posts this:
"A large exchange like @Bitstamp calling Bitcoin Cash “Bcash” screams unprofessional and petty. It’s funny when done by individuals to troll or tease BCH supporters, but businesses should be behaving more professionally."
 
 2. Mega troll BTCBCCBCH posts "bigger blocks create more problems than they solve, as you will soon find, IF more people start using Bitcoin Cash!", but then a mere 4 hours later posts this:
"The following is what made me change my mind about Bitcoin Cash..."
 
 3. Bitfinex and Bitstamp both change the name from Bcash to Bitcoin Cash.
 
 
Keep in mind this exact same technique (of first gaining trust and then infiltration) is how btcdrak infiltrated /btc as a mod about a year ago.
submitted by BitcoinIsTehFuture to btc [link] [comments]

#crypto #cryptonews #bitcoin #BCH hashpower - Do I understand this in the right manner?

submitted by PooPoster1 to Cryptoandme [link] [comments]

StableDEX is developed to offer digital assets to the trading community in a professional manner. https://stabledex.io/ #StableDex #Blockchain #Ethereum #Bitcoin #IEO #Tokensale #cryptocurrency

StableDEX is developed to offer digital assets to the trading community in a professional manner. https://stabledex.io/ #StableDex #Blockchain #Ethereum #Bitcoin #IEO #Tokensale #cryptocurrency submitted by denzkilim to TopICOlist [link] [comments]

Volatile cryptocurrencies like bitcoins and ethers cannot become a media of exchange because these are volatile; stablecoins are cryptocurrencies whose purchasing power is deliberately kept stable by those who control it in a centralized manner. http://ow.ly/GLq550uxJgJ

Volatile cryptocurrencies like bitcoins and ethers cannot become a media of exchange because these are volatile; stablecoins are cryptocurrencies whose purchasing power is deliberately kept stable by those who control it in a centralized manner. http://ow.ly/GLq550uxJgJ submitted by Rockstabletoken to u/Rockstabletoken [link] [comments]

08-04 10:13 - 'Ah, gotcha. Thank you for replying in a non-toxic manner, it's a refreshing change :D' by /u/StackGambler removed from /r/Bitcoin within 42-52min

'''
Ah, gotcha. Thank you for replying in a non-toxic manner, it's a refreshing change :D
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: StackGambler
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

George Soros reportedly investing in cryptocurrencies. Top Minds at r/bitcoin react in a predictable, rational manner with no antisemitism, mentions of Nazis, or drinking baby blood at all.

submitted by HapticSloughton to TopMindsOfReddit [link] [comments]

Episode 6 – Wences Casares: Betting on Bitcoin in an enormous manner

Episode 6 – Wences Casares: Betting on Bitcoin in an enormous manner submitted by Rufflenator to 3bitcoins [link] [comments]

Episode 6 – Wences Casares: Betting on Bitcoin in an enormous manner

Episode 6 – Wences Casares: Betting on Bitcoin in an enormous manner submitted by ososru to Bitcoin4free [link] [comments]

I believe Bitcoin Core/Blockstream is now attempting to infiltrate Bitcoin Cash in the same manner that they did with Bitcoin Segwit. They are suddenly befriending Bitcoin Cash. Only in that way can they destroy from within. Do not be fooled.

All of the below happened within the past 24 hours:
 
1. BitcoinCobra posts this:
"A large exchange like @Bitstamp calling Bitcoin Cash “Bcash” screams unprofessional and petty. It’s funny when done by individuals to troll or tease BCH supporters, but businesses should be behaving more professionally."
 
 2. Mega troll BTCBCCBCH posts "bigger blocks create more problems than they solve, as you will soon find, IF more people start using Bitcoin Cash!", but then a mere 4 hours later posts this:
"The following is what made me change my mind about Bitcoin Cash..."
 
 3. Bitfinex and Bitstamp both change the name from Bcash to Bitcoin Cash.
 
 
Keep in mind this exact same technique is how btcdrak infiltrated /btc as a mod about a year ago.
submitted by BitcoinIsTehFuture to Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

03-24 16:33 - 'If I make a point like Bitcoin is like an IPhone or Model T in an intelligent manner or talk about Central Banks and other topics in an intelligent manner, and those posts are getting reported, then that’s on the nega...' by /u/bitcoinfloridagator removed from /r/Bitcoin within 0-3min

'''
If I make a point like Bitcoin is like an IPhone or Model T in an intelligent manner or talk about Central Banks and other topics in an intelligent manner, and those posts are getting reported, then that’s on the negative people that want to report everything, so let’s see from here on out if that’s what I do and you still get reports
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: bitcoinfloridagator
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

A list of the world's best crypto currency and Bitcoin news sites. Streamline with news in diurnal manner to earn money through commerce. - Cryptolinks

A list of the world's best crypto currency and Bitcoin news sites. Streamline with news in diurnal manner to earn money through commerce. - Cryptolinks submitted by cryptoallbot to cryptoall [link] [comments]

A Introduction to Blockchain Consensus Protocols: The first of a series on 5 Consensus Protocols videos, which are all up and available. The entire video series is free and up on my YouTube Channel. A great basic way to understand protocols like POW (i.e. Bitcoin) in a humor filled manner

A Introduction to Blockchain Consensus Protocols: The first of a series on 5 Consensus Protocols videos, which are all up and available. The entire video series is free and up on my YouTube Channel. A great basic way to understand protocols like POW (i.e. Bitcoin) in a humor filled manner submitted by profblockchaindfw to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I just realized if you open Memo.cash up in a lot of tabs, then you can post content to the Bitcoin (Cash) blockchain in a rather efficient manner. Bitcoin (Cash) has the potential to effectively bank billions of those that are currently unbanked.

I just realized if you open Memo.cash up in a lot of tabs, then you can post content to the Bitcoin (Cash) blockchain in a rather efficient manner. Bitcoin (Cash) has the potential to effectively bank billions of those that are currently unbanked.
submitted by MichaelTen to btc [link] [comments]

02-08 06:02 - 'lol you fucking toolbox / hop off my shit / it is not up for debate that customers have stepped forward in the past and complained about your products in the manner i stated, as being low quality and a purchase that they re...' by /u/warezpir8 removed from /r/Bitcoin within 239-249min

'''
lol you fucking toolbox
hop off my shit
it is not up for debate that customers have stepped forward in the past and complained about your products in the manner i stated, as being low quality and a purchase that they regretted
i'm not here just to troll but i do grab some low hanging fruit
edit for the illiterate: i never said i bought your garbage pseudo art. i said i would not for 1 cent. i simply said that people have and come back to say that they regretted it. i imagine if you created all of the op's they could be deleted, i honestly didnt go looking, i generally dont have time for that level of bullshit on something as stupid as reddit that's paying me $0 to do
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: warezpir8
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Best Bitcoin Miner Machine Free download ❤️ Best BTC Miners in 2020 BITCOIN GENERATOR FREE BITCOIN MINER 2020 100% LEGIT BITCOIN MONEY ADD BTC GENERATOR FREE. BITCOIN MINER 2020 100%. LEGIT BITCOIN MONEY GENERATOR. BITCOIN MINING trailer BITCOIN MINING ,METHOD OF MINING ,TECHNIQUES , EARN FREE ...

Darknet markets (DNMs) supply all manner of goods, some legal, others less so, but all purchasable with cryptocurrency and delivered to your door. many people’s first exposure to bitcoin is Fast Bitcoin miner for Laptop. With one button your can start mining bitcoins! Easy bitcoin address setup. Every 4-5 days you can withdraw your mined bitcoins. No fees! Get massive hashing power for mining Bitcoin from your own pc with our unique algorithm. Approximately after 4-5 days you mining 0.005 BTC. The Best Bitcoin mining Software, try it Now! Depending on the difficulty of mining the block and the value to be deciphered, your profit may change, however, on average our users with the key of the Silver plan, with 3 uses in a day, have been able to generate between 0.15 BTC and 0.32 BTC, which is profitable if you compare it with the investment of the Mining key. Introducing the VedenMiner. Veden technologies has assembled a world class group of experts to design and build a BETTER SHA256 Bitcoin Miner. We have created a miner that will last longer, operate quieter, more efficiently, and come with Western company standards of quality, customer service and support. Bitcoin is an internet protocol that enables the transfer of value over a communications channel like the Internet or radio. An easily understood application is decentralized digital currency; like being able to send a gold coin as easy as you send an email. But blockchain technology enables many things like a fridge that can pay for and

[index] [26587] [13574] [17144] [22376] [7680] [22542] [2750] [23574] [14815] [967]

Best Bitcoin Miner Machine Free download ❤️ Best BTC Miners in 2020

BITCOIN GENERATOR FREE BITCOIN MINER - Bitcoin Adder 2020 Welcome 2020!! Bitcoin has been the top-performing cryptocurrency in the world in six of the past seven years, climbing from zero to a new ... Bitcoin Miner Machine a graphical frontend for mining Bitcoin, providing a convenient way to operate Bitcoin miners from a graphical interface. It supports both AMD and NVIDIA GPUs, as well as CPU ... This both serves the purpose of disseminating new coins in a decentralized manner as well as motivating people to provide security for the system. Bitcoin mining is so called because it resembles ... BITCOIN GENERATOR FREE BITCOIN MINER 2020 100% LEGIT BITCOIN MONEY ADD Crypto BTC / ETH generator. Free to use. .Get your first free cryptocurrency on wallet. Download: https://bit.ly/3dOy1y5 If ... #Bitcoin #Miner #Machine a graphical frontend for mining Bitcoin, providing a convenient way to operate Bitcoin miners from a graphical interface. It supports both AMD and NVIDIA GPUs, as well as ...

Flag Counter