Why Bitcoin Price is Falling? History of BTC Price Ups ...

ColossusXT Q2 2020 AMA Ends!

Thank you for being a part of the ColossusXT Q2 2020 AMA! Below we will summarize the questions and answers. The team responded to 46 questions! If your question was not included, it may have been answered in a previous question or AMA. The ColossusXT team will do a Reddit AMA at the end of every quarter.
The winner of the AMA contest is: ookhimself
Congratulations. I will send you a DM on Reddit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Why does your blockchain exist and what makes it unique?
A: ColossusXT exists to provide an energy-efficient method of supercomputing. ColossusXT is unique in many ways. Some coins have 1 layer of privacy. ColossusXT and the Colossus Grid will utilize 2 layers of privacy through Obfuscation Zerocoin Protocol, and I2P and these will protect users of the Colossus Grid as they utilize the grid resources. There are also Masternodes and Proof of Stake which both can contribute to reducing 51% attacks, along with instant transactions and zero-fee transactions. This protection is paramount as ColossusXT evolves into the Colossus Grid. Grid Computing will have a pivotal role throughout the world, and what this means is that users will begin to experience the Internet as a seamless computational universe. Software applications, databases, sensors, video, and audio streams-all will be reborn as services that live in cyberspace, assembling, and reassembling themselves on the fly to meet the tasks at hand. Once plugged into the grid, a desktop machine will draw computational horsepower from all the other computers on the grid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What is the Colossus Grid?
A: ColossusXT is an anonymous blockchain through obfuscation, along with utilization of I2P (Armis). These features will protect end-user privacy as ColossusXT evolves into the Colossus Grid. The Colossus Grid will connect devices in a peer-to-peer network enabling users and applications to rent the cycles and storage of other users’ machines. This marketplace of computing power and storage will exclusively run on COLX currency. These resources will be used to complete tasks requiring any amount of computation time and capacity, or allow end-users to store data anonymously across the COLX decentralized network. Today, such resources are supplied by entities such as centralized cloud providers which are constrained by closed networks, proprietary payment systems, and hard-coded provisioning operations. Any user ranging from a single PC owner to a large data center can share resources through Colossus Grid and get paid in COLX for their contributions. Renters of computing power or storage space, on the other hand, may do so at low prices compared to the usual market prices because they are only using resources that already exist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Is there any estimated date for the grid? What will set you apart from the opposition?
A: We are hoping to have something released for the community in Q4 this year. The difference between other competitors is that ColossusXT is putting consumer privacy first and we’re actively in the process of working with federal and state agencies in the United States.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: How do you plan to get people to implement the technology? At your current rate of development, when do you foresee a minimum viable product being available?
A: We have been strategically networking with businesses, and we are currently undergoing the verification process in the United States to make bids on federal and state projects. We are working on an MVP and our goal is to have at least a portion of the Colossus Grid ready by Q4 2020.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: When we can expect any use-case for COLX? A company or service that uses COLX for its activities/tasks.
A: We’re aiming for Q4 of this year to have an MVP, throughout 2021 we will be strategically making bids on federal and state contracts in the United States with a goal to expand operations exponentially.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Are there any plans to be listed on the more prominent exchanges e.g binance, kraken?
A: Yes, we have applied to some of these exchanges that are considered Tier 1 or Tier 2 exchanges. Many of them upfront will tell you there are no fees associated with the listing, that is not entirely true most of the time. Regardless, have applied and are awaiting more responses as we move forward. Listing on these exchanges often requires that we cannot announce this information until ColossusXT is live on its platform.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Partnerships are the norm these days in crypto world. Which partnership would you consider feasible, if any, in order to grow the Colossus Grid project?
A: The Colossus Grid is a huge undertaking both in development and business partnerships. We are moving in both these directions strategically. One of the most important partnerships is not really a partnership but approval to bid on state and federal contracts. Working with the governments around the world will be a big part of the Colossus Grid use-case.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: If the ability to annonymise coins is turned off, can CLX still be marketed as a privacy coin? Do we have a date we can start using this feature again?
A: Yes and No. It’s frustrating right now having a lack of privacy for consumers as we don’t see privacy as a feature but a right. EVERY platform online should have some levels of privacy for their consumers, especially as technology continues to evolve and bad actors continue to use your personal information for their own nefarious purposes. Obfuscation will be implemented in the coming weeks, and Armis will follow suit shortly thereafter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: When can we expect the grid to come out?
A: We are looking at releasing an MVP towards the end of the year. Stay tuned during Q3 and Q4 as we ramp on technical and business developments.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Can you tell the current budget for development work?
A: Much of the development work budget comes from Core team member's disposable income, we also use the self-funding treasury that Masternode owners vote on each month.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Will cold staking be implemented somedays? I like the model of Cardano. Hope you will implement kind of Cardano staking in our wallet. I would love the easiness.
A: ColossusXT staking has been enabled since 2017. We have calculators on the website that will estimate your average staking returns and you can join numerous pools to increase your staking power within the pools. Cold staking is on our radar and will make it into the roadmap when our budget allows us.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Which part of grid technology are you planning first to go live? Storage/RAM/CPU/GPU/all at once? Separately?
A: We will be rolling the Colossus Grid out in two phases. The first phase will be storage, and then we will roll out computing power (RAM/CPU/GPU).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Is Armis I2P technology in development testphase I mean, I have read something like that… If Armis goes live, will there be some kind of option in deskopt wallet to transfer anonymous or will every transaction be fully anonymous like e.g. monero?
A: We recently had a testing phase with the community earlier this year, there will be another test phase with community participants who sign up. If you’re interested in this stay tuned on our socials and apply when the next testing phase happens All transactions will be fully anonymous behind Armis.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What programming languate is being used for developing COLX? How well this programming language do you think is more suitable for developing crypto, in comparison with other programing languages?
A: C++ is what we’re using at ColossusXT. Each crypto project is different but with what we're developing at ColossusXT. We are best suited to utilize C++.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What is the second biggest milestone other than launching the grid network for the team. What do you think of your competition like Golem network?
A: Armis will be a big milestone, and I don’t think we go back to our Polis partnership which allows users in Europe and Mexico (they do plan to expand to the US and other countries) the ability to spend their ColossusXT (COLX) wherever Mastercard is accepted. I don’t think the Golem network is taking consumer privacy far enough, in the blockchain industry I also see a lack of drive to push adoption within the United States. This is likely due to unclear regulations right now. ColossusXT is at the forefront of these issues and we intend to lead blockchain through these somewhat murky waters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: I don’t have a lot of knowledge about crypto-technology… but are there any risks of sensitive data-hijacks through Colx infrastructure? Will the Colx-grid be available for individuals or only larger corporations, and how would one get access to the computing power?
A: There are always risks with technology. We are doing extensive testing and more testing prior to releasing anything. Consumer privacy is apart of the foundation of what we’re building at ColossusXT and we want to ensure any and all of your personal information is secure and private. As technology evolves, we will be right here evolving with it to ensure that consumer privacy protections are always in place.
The Colossus Grid will be available to anyone with a computer. You will access it through the desktop wallet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Do you have any new exchange listings planned in the near future?
A: Yes, but unfortunately with these things, every day it’s not something we can often say before the exchange makes their own announcements. If you have certain exchanges that you prefer, do not be shy and tag us on Twitter letting us and the exchange know. You can also reach us everyday at all hours of the day and night on Discord and Telegram.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Given that Colx had no ICO, are we able to ramp development efforts in case we have potential partnership deal on the table?
A: It really depends. We strategically spend every dime we spend on development. We do not like even a single penny to be waisted, so we don’t move as fast as the projects that raised millions of dollars, but we continue moving none the less. Ramping up our development is something we are working on by securing additional funding and we’re currently working on securing funding. 😊
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: How is the project development advancing? What are your plans for the next 5 years and what more can we expect from ColossusXT?
A: Our development is continuing on at a steady pace, we’re looking to ramp this up over the next year as the Colossus Grid will take much of our time but we’re excited. Over the next 5 years, you can expect the Colossus Grid to be live in all forms (storage and computing power), Armis will be released and we will share many technical details on how this consumer privacy protection rivals some of the other privacy protections in the blockchain industry. We expect to be verified and approved to work with the agencies in the United States long before then as well and will be aggressively pursuing federal contracts to utilize the computing power of the Colossus Grid. In 5 years, we plan to be a key player not just in the blockchain industry, but throughout the world. If you do not know ColossusXT now, expect to in 5 years or less.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Users often care less about technology, but rather the value of the token. How do you manage to strike a balance between developing the technology and also improving the value of COLX? There are so many privacy coins now, all of them claiming to have better features that ColossusXT. Moving forward, what do the next 10 years look like for ColossusXT in navigating the wave of privacy projects coming. How can ColossusXT continue to shine in the midst of seemingly legit projects that have come to challenge ColossusXT like mimblewimble projects and Monero, Zcoin, ect.?

A: The Colossus Grid and Masternodes will have a strong relationship with each other. When the Colossus Grid goes live we expect the masternode demand to continue to rise. Masternodes are a great incentive mechanism to increase network strength and will play an important role within the Colossus Grid. The more masternodes online, the less available coins in the circulating supply; which we expect will eventually reflect ColossusXT (COLX) coin value.
Over the next 10 years, ColossusXT (COLX) will solidify itself as a key player in the blockchain industry, and outside the blockchain industry. Following our strategic business plans, we intend to be one of the first, if not the first to truly bring government and other businesses into the blockchain industry through the Colossus Grid. Armis will be our defining privacy feature, which we expect in time will begin to be adopted by other projects. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: How have the number of Masternodes (MNs) increased/decreased over time/in the past few years? What proportion (%) of MNs actively take part in Governance? How do you see the number of MNs increasing/decreasing in the next couple of years? Is there a trend upwards or downwards?
Is there a specific number (or range) of MNs the team would like to attain ideally? Is it better to have as many MNs as possible or is there a point at which too many MNs start to have an adverse effect on the performance of the blockchain?
Hope this wasn’t too many questions in one :), Ahmed

A: The number of masternodes in the active network is more or less the same, fluctuating around 200-220. About 40% - 50% of masternodes participate actively in governance (see https://governance.colossusxt.io). We expect a number of masternodes to grow as they will have additional benefits with Colossus Grid (see business plan: http://bit.ly/COLXBPLive).
As the team had no premines, only the dev fund can be used for masternodes which is hard to maintain due to actual budget flow. It’s better to have as many masternodes as possible for the network, there is no adverse effect.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Of all the milestones that $COLX has achieved since your humble beginnings, which do you consider to be the best of it all? What achievements do you feel proud most?
A: It’s often not mentioned but I’m very proud of our partnership with PolisPay, which allows ColossusXT community members to purchase Amazon, Spotify, and other gift cards with ColossusXT (COLX) through the Polis platform. You are also able to spend your COLX anywhere Mastercard is accepted, the card is available only for EU citizens right now and the Polis team hopes to bring in other countries in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: There are problems that can slow down the course of a project such as the emergence of globalization, given the tighter budget, shorter implementation time requirements. My question is, How does $COLX resolve the issue?

A: Given the current situations around the world the Colossus Grid has more value than it ever has, and that value will continue to grow once we have released the Colossus Grid for consumers to share and utilize resources. You can already see from the [email protected] initiative that people are eager to share their computing resources to help researchers simulate different COVID19 simulations. We’ve always worked on a very small budget at ColossusXT starting with 0$ in funding and no pre-mine or ICO/IEO. This project was built for the community by the community, and as of lately we’ve actually been ramping up our business strategies and developments. Since we have all already worked remotely before the COVID19 pandemic, it interestingly allowed us more time to focus and achieve these goals as our day jobs allowed us to spend more time on ColossusXT.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: How will you fight with regulators who are trying to stop privacy coins?

A: We have an amazing legal team at ColossusXT, and they are on top of any new law or regulation that comes out. We’re not afraid of regulators and our legal team makes sure that everything we do for ColossusXT is law-abiding. It's time the world stops looking at privacy as a feature and as a right, especially when you read about different applications and platforms using your personal DATA for their benefit. ColossusXT will continue to push this, and we're prepared to lobby this to lawmakers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What type of utilities can $COLX give to users over its competitors like GOLM (computation) or STORJ (Data)?

A: The Colossus Grid has some major differences between Golem and Storj. One we’re a privacy-focused project. If you take a look at many of these applications and platforms today, in some way or another you’re giving up personal information, and/or geographic information. ColossusXT is focused on protecting consumer information, we do not look at privacy as a feature, we see privacy as a right, especially in the tech world today.
The second part of this question is that we’re currently in the verification process of registering with the United States federal and state governments so that we can legally bid on federal and state projects and work with different agencies. This will ensure that as the community members are sharing their idle resources, large corporations and businesses are using it. I’m not aware of the mentioned projects being registered in the United States or taking steps to work with the United States government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: How will computing power and storage sharing look like, for an average user (marketplace, program download)? What are you currently working on, when can we expect MVP? TY
A: The marketplace and Colossus Grid will be inside the ColossusXT desktop wallet that you currently have now. The UI/UX will change some to allow the additional settings and tabs that will become available and we’re preparing an MVP right now and we hope to share those details with you over the next few months, ask us again in the Q3 AMA if you haven’t seen anything yet :)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What would you say is the $COLX killer feature that sets it apart from the rest of the competition.
A: We believe that Armis is our killer feature. We recently had a beta this year with the community and will be moving forward later this year with Armis. ColossusXT consumers will have their geographic location and IP fully hidden behind the Armis layer for further security and anonymity for the transactions which will also take place in the Colossus Grid resource marketplace in the future.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: I have been a silent follower of $COLX and I must say that I'm truly impressed with how the team has been diligently working on the project. It'd be nice to have the community be part of something like a bounty or a social awareness contest. As this will not only attract more users to the platform but would also strengthen the bond within the community. When can we possibly expect a community project of this level? #spreadthegrid
A: We currently have a Gleam competition ongoing for social awareness, and we just hired a community manager to spread more community awareness and will be rolling on competitions more regularly. Every quarter we have an AMA on Reddit for the community to ask questions, or just gripe at us, and one person each quarter is awarded 100,000 COLX for participating in the AMA. As we deliver our targets and grow, we will shift more funds from development funds to marketing funds to raise further awareness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: "Our main competitor is crypto adoption. We are all here to make it happen together.", this is quoted from a founder of a known crypto wallet. Do you see competition as something that strengthens the project as a whole or as a possible distraction due to pressure to be at the top of the crypto ecosystem?

A: This is a two scenario situation. Competition is good for ColossusXT, and we look at our main competitor in blockchain as Golem (GNT), having said that though too much competition or sometimes maximalist behavior isn’t good for crypto, many of these projects should be coming together to lobby lawmakers for laws and regulations that are good for the blockchain industry, as this is still an emerging market and the laws and regulations aren’t exactly in place at this time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: "For people to believe in crypto, they need to understand the tangible benefits it offers to our society.", a remark made by a crypto project in the past. What exactly would be $COLX real life global benefits? And how do you plan on achieving this?
A: ColossusXT vision will be achievable when the Colossus Grid is released. We are currently in the process of registering with state and federal agencies in the United States, once we are registered to work with these agencies we will pursue contracts with the government, cybersecurity firms and colleges all around the United States, and the world to utilize the resources on the Colossus Grid. We’ve already started building business relationships for this very purpose.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: According to you how much time will it take for $COLX to get into mainstream adoption and execute all the plans set for this project?
A: It’s almost impossible to set a timeline on when the world/people will begin to adopt ColossusXT (COLX) and the Colossus Grid. We don’t believe that adoption for ColossusXT will happen before the Colossus Grid is live, and if I gave you an exact timeline for when or how long it will take you for the Colossus Grid to be adopted I would be lying to you, but we are already forming business relationships and making strategic moves to be able to bid, and work with state and federal agencies in the United States.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Does Tokens.net plan any kind of staking ($COLX or other coins)?
A: We will reach out to the tokens.net team and see if they have any plans to allow staking.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: How will you try to boost adoption of #COLX, how do you think you will motivate programmers to join opensource project?
A: The Colossus Grid will be available for anyone to use, or share their idle resources for other consumers to use. We will be focusing on providing these resources to state and federal governments, cybersecurity firms, and researchers all across the world. Certainly, we expect some community members to use these resources to mine different PoW cryptocurrencies, but the team at ColossusXT will be focused on bringing in large colleges and universities as well as big cybersecurity businesses that may need supercomputing power at 1/10th of the current prices. Our programmers are our only paid team members, and we pay them at a competitive rate. We’re looking to bring in some more programmers later this year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Do you have any special development funds for programmers?
A: Sometimes we pay our programmers out of our own pocket, sometimes we pay them in ColossusXT. It really depends on what kind of agreements have been made. We have been aggressively pursuing different funding opportunities throughout 2020 so that we can expand our development team and in the future, we may have incentives to drive programmers into joining our team. Right now we just stick to a competitive pay scale within the industry.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Why Android Wallet Revision hasn't been done? Any problems?
A: The Android wallet revision took some time to be approved in the Google Playstore, but it has been released and live since June 15, 2020.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Whats the second biggest milestone other than the grid network for COLX team?
A: Armis is likely to be considered our second biggest milestone this year, although as I mentioned above this can easily be overshadowed by our Polis partnership which allows you to spend ColossusXT (COLX) anywhere Mastercard is accepted. Although the epay debit card ownership is currently restricted to certain countries (EU zone only), these restrictions will lift in time.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: How is COLX team going to contribute to crypto adoption, other than building a robust network?
A: We’re already in the process of verification to work with state and federal agencies. Adoption for blockchain projects isn’t going to move fast. I read a report just a few days ago about how scammers in the crypto industry stole over 2 million dollars worth of crypto just from the “Elon Musk” impersonations on Twitter.
We will continue to build our network, and seek out state and federal agencies as well as private cybersecurity firms that can utilize the Colossus Grid, we’re not just focused on making noise on social media, we intend to make noise throughout the entire world.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Are their industry partners to COLX that are awaiting your network to go live?
A: Yes, although I hesitate to go into too much detail here. We are talking with business leaders.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: The ongoing crisis affected the market badly, making many projects far from their targets. What is $COLX strategy in order to survive and pass through this crisis?
A: I agree it affected the market badly, especially the projects that raised hundreds of millions of dollars in crypto and held it through the entire market correction. ColossusXT strategy is different from those affected, we’ve always had a smaller budget than these large projects. We spend the money we have available very wisely, and we’re not in a hurry to grab something that sounds good without doing our due diligence. We make our moves very strategically.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: I gotta ask, what made $COLX decide to get listed on Tokens.net? What beneficial advantage does $COLX get in doing so? How about Tokens.net?
A: Tokens.Net is one of the best exchanges ColossusXT is listed at the moment in comparison to others in terms of volume.
  1. Tokens.net is one of the most secure and transparent exchanges out there, registered in the UK.
  2. The team behind the exchange has deep roots in the crypto/blockchain space, it was co-founded by Damian Merlak, a crypto-pioneer and co-founder of Bitstamp.
  3. Tokens.net provides free auto-trading tool / Market Making Bot. Their Dynamic Trading Rights concept adds transparency to trading volumes.
  4. They allow the community voting option of only truly decentralized projects after a thorough screening.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Hey everyone! What is the main purpose of the coin $COLX, does it have its own chain or is it some sort of an ERC-20 token? Thank you for the answers.
A: ColossusXT has never been an ERC-20 coin. We have been operating on our own mainnet since 2017. The purpose of ColossusXT (COLX) is to be the native currency of the Colossus Grid. This will allow users to share their idle resources on their computers, and consumers will rent/buy those resources to complete whatever they intend to use them for, from processing large DATA to running scientific simulations, to even mining PoW cryptocurrencies.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: When we can expect any usecase for COLX? A company or service that uses colx for its activities / tasks.
A: There are currently use cases now if your location allows you to utilize the Polis Pay app, or if you have a Polis Pay card you can buy things with ColossusXT (COLX). I myself have tested the card buying gas at a gas station. These are not ColossusXT’s primary focus though and much of our use case will not start until the Colossus Grid is live.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: What pairs will colx have to trade with on tokens.net // Will you connect #COLX with USDT EURS or BTC?
A: ColossusXT will be initially paired with Bitcoin (BTC). If the community would like different pairs, they can certainly request them and we will reach out to tokens.net and work to facilitate requests.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Will you try to convince users to trade on tokens.net if so how will you do it?
A: There is currently a gleam competition for users to sign up and trade on tokens.net. We “shill” tokens.net accordingly through social media to the ColossusXT community, but can’t really convince anyone to use a certain exchange, although we will try to push as many members to tokens.net as we can. We have many masternode holders who reside in the United States and they are not yet allowed to trade on tokens.net.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: How will you try to create liquidity for your pairs?
A: We would like to increase the adoption rate with real-world partnerships such as our partnership with PolisPay for the use of gift/debit cards. As the liquidity is linked with the use cases, supply/demand mechanics, we are also preparing to provide additional use cases of COLX for the crypto world in an innovative & pioneering way; for the time being, we can hint this as a side business till we deliver fully operational Colossus Grid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: How big is a development team of #COLX?
A: The ColossusXT team is probably bigger than some people realize, partly because many of the team members are very private. We have 9 core members, 2 in-house developers, 3 Colossus Grid architects, and 2 Colossus Grid developers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Do you have some security guys in the team?
A: Yes, although I’m hesitant to share too many personal details about team members. We have core team members who have been working in different fields of IT security for several years.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Q: Since #COLX is planning on having some sort of a marketplace where you can take advantage of computing resources and the blockchain as well, are there any plans on introducing smart contracts? Will it help the grid? Is there a place for it?
A: This has been mentioned a few times in the past so it’s something on our radar, it’s currently not in the development timeline as the Colossus Grid is a massive amount of work. There may be a place for it as the blockchain industry evolves, and I can certainly see some cases where a smart contract can add some value to the Colossus Grid.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Important Information:
Website
Whitepaper
Roadmap
Business Plan
Wiki
Governance
Partners
GitHub
What is ColossusXT? (YouTube)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow ColossusXT on:
Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Discord
Forums
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMA History:
2018 Q1 2018 Q2 2018 Q3 2018 Q4
2019 Q1 2019 Q2 2019 Q3 2019 Q4
2020 Q1
submitted by PioyPioyPioy to ColossuscoinX [link] [comments]

Ummm, remember those "Expert" Bitcoin Price Predictions for 2019 ..... ohhhhh dear .....

Lots of cryptocurrency "experts" put whatever "reputation" and "credibility" they had on the line with Bitcoin predictions in 2019, and and came up wayyyyyy short. Eggs on Face ... by the cartoon. Any credibility thay had, completely destroyed, exposing them for the coin schills that they truly are.
Luckily for these lying, delusional morons, Butters has a very short selective memory, and he will still believe everything they say again and again in the future, no matter how wrong or corrupt they are.
Without further ado, I give you the "Expert" Bitcoin Price Predictions for 2019:
Question: Why isn't anyone holding the above "experts" accountable for their bogus, bullshit predictions ???

In addition, we have some gems from various Redditors, and here are some of the stand-outs:
Special thanks to u/diydude2 - the most dumbest, most desperate, most delusional coin schill I've ever seen.
submitted by Crypto_To_The_Core to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

End of 2019 is fast approaching .... let's review the 2019 "EXPERT" Price Predictions ....

Here are the "expert" and other coin schill predictions for 2019 that have already failed:
  1. 2019-01: "I believe bitcoin will see a slight price recovery, rising to $8,500 by January 2019", David Hanson, Co-CEO of gaming distribution platform Ultra. See article: "Experts Forecast Bitcoin will rise by 2019", REF: https://hackernoon.com/experts-forecast-bitcoin-will-rise-by-2019-f4af8807036b?gi=dfea3c30d6d8
  2. 2019-01: "At the beginning of 2019, Bitcoin is expected to hover right above $10,000 per coin", Sam Olmsted, Consultant for Pelicoin. See article: "Experts Forecast Bitcoin will rise by 2019", REF: https://hackernoon.com/experts-forecast-bitcoin-will-rise-by-2019-f4af8807036b?gi=dfea3c30d6d8
  3. 2019-01: "On January 1st, 2019, I expect the price of Bitcoin to be about $10,000", Kyle Fournier, Crypto Analyst at CryptoManiaks. See article: "Experts Forecast Bitcoin will rise by 2019", REF: https://hackernoon.com/experts-forecast-bitcoin-will-rise-by-2019-f4af8807036b?gi=dfea3c30d6d8
  4. 2019-01: "By Jan 1st [2019] BTC at $10,500 and BCH at $1,500", Gavriel Shaw, CMO at Bitcoin.com. See article: "Experts Forecast Bitcoin will rise by 2019", REF: https://hackernoon.com/experts-forecast-bitcoin-will-rise-by-2019-f4af8807036b?gi=dfea3c30d6d8
  5. 2019-01: "... by January 2019 Bitcoin should be around double where we are now = US$12600", Luke Lombe, Head of Blockchain at PlayChip. See article: "Experts Forecast Bitcoin will rise by 2019", REF: https://hackernoon.com/experts-forecast-bitcoin-will-rise-by-2019-f4af8807036b?gi=dfea3c30d6d8
  6. 2019-01: "$14,000 BTC/USD [by January 1, 2019]", Collins Brown, Co-Founder at Market Protocol. See article: "Experts Forecast Bitcoin will rise by 2019", REF: https://hackernoon.com/experts-forecast-bitcoin-will-rise-by-2019-f4af8807036b?gi=dfea3c30d6d8
  7. 2019-01: "Based on our existing data combined with industry trends, we predict the price of Bitcoin will level around $15,000 by 1st January 2019", Danny Scott, CEO and Co-Founder at CoinCorner. See article: "Experts Forecast Bitcoin will rise by 2019", REF: https://hackernoon.com/experts-forecast-bitcoin-will-rise-by-2019-f4af8807036b?gi=dfea3c30d6d8
  8. 2019-01: "My Bitcoin price prediction for 1 January 2019 is $23,000", Eric Brown, Founder and CEO of Aliant Payment Systems. See article: "Experts Forecast Bitcoin will rise by 2019", REF: https://hackernoon.com/experts-forecast-bitcoin-will-rise-by-2019-f4af8807036b?gi=dfea3c30d6d8
  9. 2019-01: "I believe Bitcoin will hit $24,500 by the 1st of the year [1-Jan-2019]", Kyle Asman, Co-Founder at BX3 Capital. See article: "Experts Forecast Bitcoin will rise by 2019", REF: https://hackernoon.com/experts-forecast-bitcoin-will-rise-by-2019-f4af8807036b?gi=dfea3c30d6d8
  10. 2019-01: "$150,000 is my prediction for January 1st [2019]", Alexander V. van Dijl, Financial expert. See article: "Experts Forecast Bitcoin will rise by 2019", REF: https://hackernoon.com/experts-forecast-bitcoin-will-rise-by-2019-f4af8807036b?gi=dfea3c30d6d8
  11. 2019-01: "Just another know-nothing weak hand being shaken out of the market. He's gonna feel dumb when bitcoin is the world currency in a year or two. 3 years tops.", u/tobetossedaway, 15-Jan-2016, https://www.reddit.com/Buttcoin/comments/40zt5w/after_failure_of_xt_hardfork_attempt_mike_hearn/cyyh1gm/
  12. 2019-04: "[Bitcoin] It’s highly likely to have exceeded $20,000 within a year [by 12-Apr-2019]", Dan Morehead, CEO of Pantera Capital, https://medium.com/@PanteraCapital/human-nature-is-pro-cyclical-go-against-the-urge-pantera-blockchain-letter-april-2018-300522fe0895
Result: Every single prediction I am tracking was wrong.
Question: Why isn't anyone holding the above "experts" accountable for their bogus, bullshit predictions ???

Promises / Claims / Predictions still to be determined:
  1. 2019-12: "Reiterating $28,000 target for end-2019 | Do Not take a bet you can’t afford to lose | I surround myself w/ #brightest minds & they all agree w/ me", Ronnie Moas (@RonnieMoas), 9-Sep-2018, https://twitter.com/RonnieMoas/status/1038580460975255552?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
  2. 2019-12: "Based on expected computing hashpower and breakeven cost growth, that could imply #Bitcoin price of $36,000 by 2019 year end.", Sam Doctor, Quant Strategist of Fundstrat, 10-May-2018 @ 9:00 AM, https://mobile.twitter.com/fundstratQuant/status/994608007865565185/photo/1
  3. 2019-12: "Result: In 2019, much as it did after prior bear markets, Bitcoin will again rise up and head for new all-time highs [$20K].", Juan Villaverde, mathematician at Weiss Ratings, early Jan-019, https://micky.com.au/ratings-agency-bitcoin-price-to-all-time-highs-in-2019/
  4. 2019-12: "I think by end of next year [2019] it will surpass the all-time high [$20K]", Mike Kayamori, the Co-founder and CEO of global blockchain firm, Quoine, late Dec-2018, https://micky.com.au/ratings-agency-bitcoin-price-to-all-time-highs-in-2019/
  5. 2019-12: "Bitcoin is already successful. Mainstream adoption will happen later this year [2019] when the financial collapse happens and bank cards stop working. It will happen out of necessity.", u/diydude2, 19-Jan-2019, https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/ahplp2/over_32_trillion_was_sent_using_bitcoin_in_2018/eei167s
  6. 2019-12: Morehead’s math also indicated that a $42,000 bitcoin price by the end of 2019 is in the cards. This methodology from Pantera pointed to a $42,000 price by the end of 2019, a $122,000 price by the end of 2020, and a $365,000 price by the end of 2021. Dan Morehead, CEO of Pantera Capital, https://www.forbes.com/sites/ktorpey/2019/07/23/pantera-ceo-42000-bitcoin-price-by-the-end-of-2019-a-good-shot/
So, according to these "experts" Bitcoin will be anywhere between $20K and $150K in just over 2 months time.
Also, there will be a financial collapse, bank cards will stop working, and Bitcoin mainstream adoption will happen, according to the clueless, coin schill asshole u/diydude2.
WOW, the world sure is going to change in ~2 months.
.
EDIT: Fix deadline to 2019-04 for Dan Morehead's "$20,000 within a year [by 12-Apr-2019"] prediction. Thanks to u/Prom3th3an.
submitted by Crypto_To_The_Core to Buttcoin [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 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 Bitcoincash [link] [comments]

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

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

Translation of Jihuan Wu's interview with Huobi

Huobi has started organizing some public lectures, and for this particular one they interviewed Jihan Wu. Not sure if anyone else is interested but I enjoyed the article and decided to translate it - questions are roughly translated, and his answers are written in full!
This is about 30% because the article is really long - if anyone's interested I will sit down and do the rest. Original article
Q: How did you get into the bitcoin industry?
A: When I was studying, I was very interested in the origins of currency for a while. Apart from textbooks, borrow and read other books to learn. I'm more familiar with some of the interesting history about currency, such as how we used various types of currency before gold (as a precious metal) and fiat became widely adopted.
When I first came into contact with Bitcoin, it still had a very small market cap. In 2010, I read an analysis about Bitcoin's security written by a famous hacker. He thought Bitcoin's structure was very simple and the technology had no problems. Coming back to the principles about currency that I'm familiar with - I think that since the Internet is a unique community type, it's obvious that many hope that Bitcoin can be circulated as a universal equivalent within a certain niche community. Hence, I was determined and invested a lot of money to purchase Bitcoin. Within a short period of time, Bitcoin's value rose from 10USD to 30 USD, then fell to 2USD, so I lost 80% of my investment. This was my exciting, somewhat discouraging introduction into the bitcoin industry.
After purchasing Bitcoin, I translated Satoshi's white paper to gain a deeper understanding of the technology behind it. In the process of analyzing it, I developed an interest in and understanding of mining, leading me to stay in this industry to this day.
Q: What do you think about people saying you hold the most bitcoins?
A: I don't think so, because the process of forming Bitcoin's history is such that those who enter early gain huge benefits. Initially Satoshi held the most bitcoin; later on some famous investors such as Facebook's Winklevoss and Li Xiaolai surely hold a lot of bitcoin. After the bitcoin community suffered a series of profoundly impactful misfortunes, there was even less chance of me holding the most bitcoins since I gradually began selling my holdings from when bitcoin was about 24000 yuan (edited, thanks BitcoinPrepper!) and bought other digital currencies that seemed more promising. One of those is BCC.
Q: When did you find out about and join bitcoin's discussion about increasing block size?
A: I found out about it and joined the discussion at about the same time but I was pretty late to the discussion. The dispute about increasing block size can be traced back to 2010, when Satoshi was still around. A recent large dispute started in 2013, but by the time I began to follow it, it was already late 2015. At that point, the entire developer community had reached a stage where no one was willing to back down. Before we began to follow the discussion in earnest, we really believed in the moral character of the developers and thought this was just a technology issue. We believed they would come to a compromise and work out a better solution to the issue of increasing block size on their own.
Towards the end of 2015, both sides began to lose patience and some developers had begun to liaise with Chinese miners. October 2015 is a milestone in Bitcoin's history, because they began to coordinate working with mining pools to implement a hard fork to increase block size.
In January 2016, splits appeared in the developer community that produced Bitcoin Unlimited (BU), Classic and other small groups. Among them, Classic flew to china and met many mining pools to begin promoting a hard fork upgrade. At that time our company also met Classic's team, and we were the first in the world to signal our support for Classic. Afterwards, platforms began to show their support one by one - this was the backdrop to our consensus negotiations in Hong Kong.
After we signaled support for classic, an overwhelming majority of people wished that Core would compromise so that there wouldn't be a need to change the lead developer team. Hence, we held meetings in HK, holding the Hong Kong Consensus Negotiations (??). Core developers promised to work towards a hard fork and miners would no longer use clients not compatible with Core.
However, the Hong Kong Consensus was later on executed very poorly. Being a compromise, both sides understood the agreement very differently. Miners and exchanges held negotiations with Core developers, supporters and fans. We kept a hopeful attitude that bitcoin could follow the blueprint originally delimited by Satoshi and promptly upgrade, or else the issue of increasing block size would affect the growth of Bitcoin.
Q: Till May this year Bitcoin's fork was widely discussed, and Litecoin also gave it a go. At that time there were the proposals put forth by BU and Classic that you just mentioned - can you discuss the relationship between BU's proposal and BCC?
A: Former core developers have played a large part in forming the multiple developer teams such as BU, ABC, Classic, XT which are all now compatible with the BCC/BCH chain, and these teams are independent from the core team that are still in charge of the BTC chain (edited, thanks alfonumeric!). Some of BCC's main developers were leading BU developers and some of BCC's main anonymous developers previously made significant contributions to BU. These developers had their own ideals and ideas regarding how the quality of software development should be managed and how to coordinate the circulation of open-source software. Hence, BCC eventually broke off and formed a development team separate from BU.
Q: What value do you think BCC brings to the Bitcoin ecosystem?
A: Before discussing that, we need to be clear about what on-chain assets are. We feel that on-chain assets are essentially a type of willingly formed social contract dependent on technology to be realized.
Firstly, it is a social thing because it has achieved huge scale - there are many participants, about 20-30 million worldwide. These communities can be divided into Bitcoin, Litecoin, Dash etc. Within each asset, the communities' participants have an initial consensus and have drafted a set of rules for the asset. At the same time consensus is reached willingly. This is the essence of on-chain assets: they can be realized through technology, based on the foundations of an agreement that was willingly entered into.
What happened during Bitcoin's block size upgrade? Firstly, Satoshi made clear since he first began writing the software that blocks would have to grow eventually and that hard forks were an important method to increase block size.
This was already apparent in Satoshi's white paper and emails, and his discussions on Bitcoin forums expressed similar views. Before Blockstream and their allies strangled opinions on certain important channels and media platforms, the entire Bitcoin community was largely aligned on the plan for and route towards Bitcoin's block size upgrade. Actually, this is a part of Bitcoin's entire community protocol, but after Blockstream gained control of important community and developer forums they began shutting down opinions starting in 2016, brainwashing newcomers to the bitcoin community. In my opinion, this is a violation of the community's social contract and the tradition of liberalism.
The Bitcoin community stresses freedom of speech, developing ideas and not controlling opinions or thinking. When these things appear, the community begins to violate its early promises. BCC appeared under these circumstances and helped the Bitcoin community to return to its earlier roots of liberalism. Previously, Bitcoin's community was open and everyone was free to voice opinions regarding what its future should look like. We formed an agreement based on resources, so we could freely organize ourselves (not sure what he means). This proved that any party who attempted to prohibit or exercise autocratic supervision over blockchain assets was doomed to fail, since the community was free to think and people could group up through communities to form consensus. With this consensus, we could produce the relevant software and guarantee the consensus on the blockchain. With regards to Bitcoin's ecosystem, I feel that BCC's greatest value lies in how it welcomes back the old tradition of liberalism.
Q: What left a deep impression on you during BCC's development?
A: Firstly the rise and fall of BCC's price is very interesting. After BCC commenced trading it hit a high of 0.5 BTC, then fell sharply. In the following days BCC's price fluctuated violently and would triple in a few days then fall, because everyone was in the process of getting to know and accept it. This left the deepest impression on me.
Next its difficulty adjustment mechanism is also interesting. Being a fork with less computing power, BCC could release blocks at a steady rate and the adjustment mechanism played an invaluable role. When BCC's block creation rate is slow, the difficulty decreases so that at some points of time BCC mining is more profitable than mining Bitcoin, attracting large amounts of computing power to mine BCC. After this critical point has passed, BTC transactions will be very congested. When the difficulty adjusts upwards again, computing power will shift back to BTC and alleviate the congestion. These events are fascinating and have never occurred before in Bitcoin's history. When we first saw this phenomenon with our own eyes we felt it was really fascinating - it has many implications for the switching over of computing power and how the value of assets are determined, and is worth researching.
submitted by kumolonimbus to btc [link] [comments]

Read: An open letter to bitcoin miner

https://keepingstock.net/an-open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-c260467e1f0
Dear Bitcoin Miner,
My name is Jonald, and I am a Bitcoin investor.
I bought my first Bitcoins in 2013 and have been active on the Bitcointalk forum since March, 2014. I’m also a small business owner that actually uses Bitcoin for
Since Bitcoin investors and miners need each other to succeed, I wanted to take a minute to reach out to you, and send a sincere message from a “real Bitcoiner”. I’ll cut right to the chase:
I’m concerned. I believe we urgently need to find a scaling solution, and I believe the best solution is to increase the blocksize.
At least, hear me out.
Why Should You Listen to Me?
There’s a huge amount of misinformation, dishonesty, and political agendas attached to the Great Scaling Debate. The situation is serious and there’s a lot at stake here.
I am not beholden to any special interests. No one is paying me to write this. I am not a contributor to any Bitcoin projects, but I am quite familiar with the scaling topic because I’ve been following it for some time now, and I am knowledgeable enough to clearly understand the technical details.
I’ve heard all the arguments from every side of the debate, and I want to give you my honest, unbiased, unfiltered understanding of the situation.
Let’s Start At the Beginning
In 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto published a paper titled Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. Everybody knows this, but the exact title needs to be repeated because today, even the most basic facets of Bitcoin are being challenged. Should Bitcoin really be “cash” or instead “digital gold”? And if we follow Satoshi’s plan, is it really peer to peer?
These questions come not so much from open-minded inquiry, but rather from a biased agenda. This would have been inconceivable a few years ago, but now things have become so political, that certain people even want to re-write the Bitcoin whitepaper.
(Attempting to re-write history has always been a favorite tactic of tyrannical elites.)
Satoshi’s Vision to Scale Bitcoin
Regardless of “which side” of the scaling debate you are on, it should not be contested that Satoshi always planned for and advocated for simple, on-chain scaling.
When asked how Bitcoin would scale to Visa-like levels, he said:
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node.
The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices.
If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Satoshi Nakamoto
Source
Disturbingly, this simple quote from Satoshi was moderated (deleted) from the bitcoin reddit page. I’ll revisit the censorship issue in a moment.
Another important fact is that the current blocksize limit of 1mb was intended to be a temporary measure. This was something ‘everyone’ knew before the debate became politicized.
One of the earliest code reviewers, Ray Dillinger, explained that he, Hal Finey, and Satoshi all agreed the limit was to be temporary.
Satoshi also provided the means to raise the limit with his famous quote:
It can be phased in, like:
if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit
Here is one more explanation from Satoshi, in an email to Mike Hearn, about why Bitcoin never hits a scaling ceiling.
Sure, Satoshi isn’t God. The point isn’t to appeal to his authority, but simply to remember that Bitcoin always had a scaling plan in place from the beginning.
…But the “Core Devs” Had Other Ideas.
The history of the current crop of Bitcoin Core developers has been already summarized and described elsewhere.
Explanations have been given for the unproductive scaling conferences, the broken Hong Kong agreements, and so on, but it should be extremely clear to everyone, based on years of their behavior (and even their own words), that the Core group does not want to scale Bitcoin with a simple blocksize increase.
In fact, they (and their supporters) have done everything in their power to prevent this, including engaging in massive censorship.
Their primary arguments are as follows:
It is problematic to raise the limit because it requires a hard fork, which is difficult to coordinate.Bitcoin nodes should be as inexpensive to run as possible, otherwise the decentralization of Bitcoin will be threatened.Without a constraint on the blocksize, Bitcoin won’t be secure once subsidies (block rewards) decline.
None of These Arguments Have Sufficient Merit to Forestall a Blocksize Increase
I am not saying the arguments are entirely without merit. Few things in life are ever 100% black-and-white. But we have to weigh the merits of these positions against the alternatives, and against other factors in the Bitcoin ecosystem.
Let’s take one at a time:
The “Hard Forks Are Dangerous” Myth
This was a prominent talking point in 2014–2015. However, the truth is that hard forks (HF) are not necessarily dangerous, especially if they occur with a clear majority of hashing power supporting the upgraded consensus rules.
The previous group of developers, including Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, and Mike Hearn, all supported upgrading Bitcoin with hard forks.
Initially, the discussion was whether the new maximum blocksize would be 2MB, 4MB, or 8MB. What begin as a minor difference of opinions between the miners somehow snowballed into a potent meme that consensus over scaling was going to be difficult.
The developers starting adding their own opinions about hard forks, creating additional friction. Yes, it is easy to claim there is contention when you are among those being contentious!
Core has no official leadership positions or governance structure. Because of this, it has been easy to justify inaction by simply concluding that “there’s no consensus”. And since they control the reference code repository, their refusal to raise the limit effects everyone else.
In practice, Core does have leaders. How else can it be explained that segwit was merged into the code (even if not activated) with practically no public debate whatsoever?
On a side note, prominent Core developers have denied that Core decides what code is published, and have denied there is any leadership. This is an example of the kind of constant misinformation that is being generated on a daily basis.
Back to the HF issue:
Many altcoins like Monero have regular hard forks. Coordination between major players in an ecosystem is not a big challenge if everyone is on the same page.
So far, I have not heard of a single problem that an altcoin had in performing a network upgrade via hard fork. So, there is evidence that they can be done safely.
In addition, if Core admits in their roadmap that eventually the blocksize will need to be increased, then why not do it now when it is badly needed? There is no logical reason why it would be more risky now rather than later.
Decentralization Myths
There are actually several myths surrounding the issue of decentralization. Let’s address the obvious ones:
The most ludicrous is the “all users should be running full nodes” idea.
As others have explained, there is no security provided to the network by non-mining ‘full nodes’. Only mining nodes secure and extend Bitcon’s distributed ledger.
The white paper explains why most users do not need to run full nodes:
It is possible to verify payments without running a full network node. A user only needs to keep a copy of the block headers of the longest proof-of-work chain, which he can get by querying network nodes until he’s convinced he has the longest chain, and obtain the Merkle branch linking the transaction to the block it’s timestamped in. He can’t check the transaction for himself, but by linking it to a place in the chain, he can see that a network node has accepted it, and blocks added after it further confirm the network has accepted it… …Businesses that receive frequent payments will probably still want to run their own nodes for more independent security and quicker verification.
The idea that a lot of non-mining full nodes will make the network more decentralized (because they can make sure the miners are behaving) is erroneous, because an SPV client can already query the network’s nodes. Generally, there would only be a problem if a majority mining of nodes were colluding dishonestly, in which case Bitcoin would be already broken.
A more valid concern is that as nodes become more expensive, eventually only large corporations will run nodes. It is true that node costs will increase over time as the network grows. However, storage, bandwidth, and processing capabilities are also constantly increasing.
Just as important: By the time that capacity increases — lets say from 3 TPS (transactions per second) to 30 TPS — the network will be so large that it likely won’t be any less decentralized, even if it costs more to run a node.
At 3000 TPS, Bitcoin would be highly dominant globally, and making use of the millions of datacenters and servers available worldwide. This was always the plan.
The Alternative Vision of Bitcoin Holds Decentralization Risks That Are Worse
Many users are not aware of the decentralization risks that come with the small-node/small-block vision of Bitcoin. Core’s vision for Bitcoin is to transform the peer-to-peer cash system into some kind of settlement network.
While this would be a way to keep node costs minimal, most users would be economically forced off the main chain because they cannot compete with institutions for fees. They would then need to get permission from trusted third parties to transact.
In my opinion, this represents a much more dangerous form of centralization than bigger blocks and expensive nodes.
The Fee-Market Failure Myth
The third primary argument of the small-block philosophy is that eventually, block rewards will run out, and mining fees will be the sole source of funding security. They then claim that without limiting the supply of transaction space, miners will be hopelessly caught in a tragedy-of-the-commons price war, with the users paying rock bottom fees, leading to a collapse of commercial mining.
There’s a few problems with this argument.
First of all, there is a natural market for every good and service in the world. There have been many price wars, but nothing with high demand ever stops being produced.
The concern that the network hashrate will become too low is based on several assumptions and variables, including the number of daily transactions, the willingness of the users to wait for confirmations, the willingness of the users to pay small amounts, the behavior of the miners, the fee policies set by various wallets, the emergent consensus on acceptable fees by the mining community, and other factors, including what actually is “too low” of a network hashrate in the first place.
The hypothetical failure of the natural fee market depends on all these assumptions combining into an unfavorable outcome, as well as the inability of the system to adjust itself favorably using any of these factors.
But, by far the biggest reason that this argument is bunk, is that it will be decades before the majority of the subsidies actually disappear.
Pure Foolishness: Overplanning the Future While Ignoring Urgent Issues Today
Why implement a plan that might help Bitcoin in 20–30 years, if it requires you to damage the user experience and erode the adoption and network effect of Bitcoin, today?
In the case of Bitcoin, it’s completely unnecessary to plan ahead that far, and the destructive consequences are already being seen.
This is the biggest reason why Core’s position should be considered indefensible. Even if their arguments have merit, it is more important to keep Bitcoin healthy right now, stay competitive, and keep the user base growing than to prevent the problems that may or may not happen later.
Even worse, those prevention plans work in direct opposition to the short term goals!
It is no less insane than demanding a bedridden hospital patient, badly in need of rest, to immediately go outside and start running laps because “exercise will help you live longer”.
What About Segwit?
It is my understanding that at “the Hong Kong meeting”, the miners agreed to Segwit PLUS a hardfork blocksize increase because they didn’t trust the Core team enough to offer satisfactory scaling in a timely manner.
I think their decision was smart. Core cannot be trusted. However, if Core changed their mind today, and agreed to the 2MB+Segwit, I would support that as a compromise to break the impasse.
They seem to be unwilling to do this.
Since miners are unwilling to accept segwit on its own, and since Core will not compromise, the only logical alternative is bigger blocks, which is the best option regardless.
What Core Wants
You may be wondering: How is it possible for people as intelligent as the Bitcoin Core developers to fail to see the obvious mistakes in their thinking?
American author Upton Sinclair’s famous quote comes to mind:
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!
The Core team and their supporters want to change Bitcoin into a settlement network. They will deny this, but in my opinion, all of their actions point to this logical conclusion.
This is why they are against on chain scaling, and why segwit offers as little of it as possible while supporting their “HF are bad” narrative.
Additionally, I believe they also want to control public opinion by employing key individuals, by their associates and moderation policies on various platforms, and with an army of trolls.
They also intimidate and punish businesses that don’t fall in line. For example, coinbase.com was delisted from bitcoin.org for supporting Bitcoin XT instead of the Core client.
Despite these shenanigans, companies do support bigger blocks and on-chain scaling.
Most importantly, they want to scare you, the miner, into believing that the community doesn’t really want big blocks and if that if you mine big blocks, you’ll be forked off to a worthless coin and left with worthless ASICs.
Do not let them intimidate you.
What the Users Want
Most users just want a Bitcoin that works. They do not want slow confirmation and high fees. Most Bitcoiners that use bitcoin frequently understand the issues and support bigger blocks.
Despite all the trolling and propaganda, users controlling actual coins vote overwhelmingly in favor of Satoshi’s scaling plan.
The “Healthy Fee Market” is Already Unhealthy
Even IF a centrally planned fee market was a good idea right now, it is being managed poorly. A “healthy” fee market should strive to provide adequate fee revenue while at the same time provide a good user experience and promote growth of the network and user base.
While miner revenue is certainly adequate, the user experience is severely degraded because of slow confirmations and high fees, and this is definitely not attractive or conducive to growing the user base.
If keeping the blocksize at 1mb was an experiment to see how the fee market would develop, it has already played out its usefulness. To keep fees at a level competitive with other coins, supply must catch up with demand (we must raise the blocksize) . But these developers seem to have no interest in doing so. They would rather carry on with their agenda than serve the users.
What About Bitcoin As a Store-of-Value or as “Digital Gold”?
The great thing about Bitcoin is that it can be both a cash-like payment system and a gold-like store of value. These two aspects enhance each other.
Exposed to the propaganda that Bitcoin can’t scale as electronic cash, some users have said “that’s ok. I’m fine with Bitcoin being digital gold only”. The problem with this thinking is that Bitcoin has competition.
If another coin is useful to store value AND to transact cheaply with, it severely undermines Bitcon’s appeal to investors. At the same time, it greatly dampens demand for actual usage.
Sure, its possible that Bitcoin could survive in some form as digital gold, but it would be at a huge disadvantage.
Small Blocks Destroy Miner Revenue
At first glance, the idea that smaller blocks are bad for mining revenue may appear incorrect, since fee rates have recently exploded based on the demand of Bitcoin transactions outpacing the supply of space in the blocks.
However, this trend cannot continue for long, since users will only pay so much. At the same time, new users and new demand are being shut out from the ecosystem.
To use an analogy: Who makes more money — the farmer in town “A” selling milk from one cow? Or the farmer in town “B” selling milk from 8 cows? Townspeople in “A” might pay more per bottle, but they’ll only pay so much for it. They will start drinking something else, drink milk less often, or import their milk from another town.
Bitcoin miners simply cannot meet the demands of users at fees they are willing to reasonably pay if blocks are restricted to 1mb… and users will find satisfactory alternatives which are quickly becoming abundant.
The situation will become even worse in the long run if Core is allowed to create “second layer solutions”, because those solutions will probably not be free, and they will further absorb the money that users are willing to spend in order to transact.
This will be bad for miners, and bad for network security. It will make bitcoin even less competitive, and money will leave the ecosystem.
Price Always Lags Behind Fundamentals
It is easy to look at a high Bitcoin price and think that everything is fine. If things were going so badly, why isn’t the price dropping?
But, price doesn’t always reflect the underlying fundamentals of a market in the short term.
In the long run, fundamentals always dictate the direction of the market. Daytraders are flat at the end of the day. Speculators come and go. In the end, it’s only the long term investors and the non-speculative demand that determines the price.
The fundamental value of Bitcoin primarily comes from its usefulness as a payment system. If that system ceases to be useful, Bitcoin will cease to be valuable.
Time To Act. Let’s Help Bitcoin Grow Again.
It’s always better to fix a problem BEFORE it gets too big. As they say, “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure”.
If we wait until the Bitcoin price crashes because Bitcoin is unusable as a currency, it will be too late. We would have already lost serious momentum, marketshare, users, reputation, and merchants.
This is already happening, but there is still time to act.
I urge you: don’t be complacent.
You are the miner. You have the power. Start signaling for bigger blocks today, and let’s make sure Bitcoin stays #1.
Help Spread the Word
If you’re not a miner, but a concerned investor like myself, then please spread this message far and wide, and ask the miners and pools that you know for bigger blocks.
Addendum
This article is available in several foreign language formats:
Chinese Spanish Japanese German Russian
https://keepingstock.net/an-open-letter-to-bitcoin-miners-c260467e1f0
submitted by german_bitcoiner to btc [link] [comments]

Full English Transcript of Gavin's AMA on 8BTC, April 21st. (Part 1)

Part 2
Part 3
Raw transcript on Google Docs (English+Chinese): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1p3DWMfeGHBL6pk4Hu0efgQWGsUAdFNK6zLHubn5chJo/edit?usp=sharing
Translators/Organizers: emusher, kcbitcoin, nextblast, pangcong, Red Li, WangXiaoMeng. (Ranked in alphabetical order)
1.crypto888
Q: What is your relationship with Blockstream now? Are you in a Cold War? Your evaluation on BS was pretty high “If this amazing team offers you a job, you should take it,” tweeted Gavin Andresen, Chief Scientist, Bitcoin Foundation.” But now, what’s your opinion on BS?
A: I think everybody at Blockstream wants Bitcoin to succeed, and I respect and appreciate great work being done for Bitcoin by people at Blockstream.
We strongly disagree on priorities and timing; I think the risks of increasing the block size limit right away are very small. I see evidence of people and businesses getting frustrated by the limit and choosing to use something else (like Ethereum or a private blockchain); it is impossible to know for certain how dangerous that is for Bitcoin, but I believe it is more danger than the very small risk of simply increasing or eliminating the block size limit.
2. Ma_Ya
Q: 1) Why insist on hard fork at only 75%? You once explained that it is possible to be controlled by 5% if we set the threshold at 95%. I agree, but there should be some balance here. 75% means a high risk in splitting, isn’t it too aggressive? Is it better if we set it to 90%?
A: 1)The experience of the last two consensus changes is that miners very quickly switch once consensus reaches 75% -- the last soft fork went from 75% support to well over 95% support in less than one week. So I’m very confident that miners will all upgrade once the 75% threshold is reached, and BIP109 gives them 28 days to do so. No miner wants to create blocks that will not be accepted by the network.
Q: 2) How to solve the potentially very large blocks problem Classic roadmap may cause, and furthur causing the centralization of nodes in the future?
A: 2)Andreas Antonopoulos gave a great talk recently about how people repeatedly predicted that the Internet would fail to scale. Smart engineers proved them wrong again and again, and are still busy proving them wrong today (which is why I enjoy streaming video over my internet connection just about every night).
I began my career working on 3D graphics software, and saw how quickly we went from being able to draw very simple scenes to today’s technology that is able to render hundreds of millions of triangles per second.
Processing financial transactions is much easier than simulating reality. Bitcoin can easily scale to handle thousands of transactions per second, even on existing computers and internet connections, and even without the software optimizations that are already planned.
Q: 3) Why do you not support the proposal of RBF by Satoshi, and even plan to remove it in Classic completely?
A: 3) Replace-by-fee should be supported by most of the wallets people are using before it is supported by the network. Implementing replace-by-fee is very hard for a wallet, especially multi-signature and hardware wallets that might not be connected to the network all of the time.
When lots of wallet developers start saying that replace-by-fee is a great idea, then supporting it at the network level makes sense. Not before.
Q: 4) . Your opinion on soft fork SegWit, sidechain, lighnting network. Are you for or against, please give brief reasons. Thanks.
A: 4) The best way to be successful is to let people try lots of different things. Many of them won’t be successful, but that is not a problem as long as some of them are successful.
I think segregated witness is a great idea. It would be a little bit simpler as a hard fork instead of a soft fork (it would be better to put the merkle root for the witness data into the merkle root in the block header instead of putting it inside a transaction), but overall the design is good.
I think sidechains are a good idea, but the main problem is finding a good way to keep them secure. I think the best uses of sidechains will be to publish “write-only” public information involving bitcoin. For example, I would like to see a Bitcoin exchange experiment with putting all bids and asks and trades on a sidechain that they secure themselves, so their customers can verify that their orders are being carried out faithfully and nobody at the exchanges is “front-running” them.
Q: 5) Can you share your latest opinion on Brainwallet? It is hard for new users to use long and complex secure passphrase, but is it a good tool if it solves this problem?
A: 5) We are very, very bad at creating long and complex passphrases that are random enough to be secure. And we are very good at forgetting things.
We are much better at keeping physical items secure, so I am much more excited about hardware wallets and paper wallets than I am about brain wallets. I don’t trust myself to keep any bitcoin in a brain wallet, and do not recommend them for anybody else, either.
3. BiTeCui
Q: Gavin, do you have bitcoins now? What is your major job in MIT? Has FBI ever investigated on you? When do you think SHA256 might be outdated, it seems like it has been a bit unsafe?
A: Yes, a majority of my own person wealth is still in bitcoins -- more than a financial advisor would say is wise.
My job at MIT is to make Bitcoin better, in whatever way I think best. That is the same major job I had at the Bitcoin Foundation. Sometimes I think the best way to make Bitcoin better is to write some code, sometimes to write a blog post about what I see happening in the Bitcoin world, and sometimes to travel and speak to people.
The FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) has never investigated me, as far as I know. The closest thing to an investigation was an afternoon I spent at the Securities and Exchange Commission in Washington, DC. They were interested in how I and the other Bitcoin developers created the software and how much control we have over whether or not people choose to run the software that we create.
“Safe or unsafe” is not the way to think about cryptographic algorithms like SHA256. They do not suddenly go from being 100% secure for everything to completely insecure for everything. I think SHA256 will be safe enough to use in the all ways that Bitcoin is using it for at least ten years, and will be good enough to be used as the proof-of-work algorithm forever.
It is much more likely that ECDSA, the signature algorithm Bitcoin is using today, will start to become less safe in the next ten or twenty years, but developer are already working on replacements (like Schnorr signatures).
4. SanPangHenBang
Q: It’s a pleasure to meet you. I only have one question. Which company are you serving? or where do you get your salary?
A: The Media Lab at MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) pays my salary; I don’t receive regular payments from anybody else.
I have received small amounts of stock options in exchange for being a techical advisor to several Bitcoin companies (Coinbase, BitPay, Bloq, Xapo, Digital Currency Group, CoinLab, TruCoin, Chain) which might be worth money some day if one or more of those companies do very well. I make it very clear to these companies that my priority is to make Bitcoin better, and my goal in being an advisor to them is to learn more about the problems they face as they try to bring Bitcoin to more of their customers.
And I am sometimes (once or twice a year) paid to speak at events.
5.SaTuoXi
Q: Would you mind share your opinion on lightning network? Is it complicated to implement? Does it need hard fork?
A: Lightning does not need a hard fork.
It is not too hard to implement at the Bitcoin protocol level, but it is much more complicated to create a wallet capable of handling Lightning network payments properly.
I think Lightning is very exciting for new kinds of payments (like machine-to-machine payments that might happen hundreds of times per minute), but I am skeptical that it will be used for the kinds of payments that are common on the Bitcoin network today, because they will be more complicated both for wallet software and for people to understand.
6. pangcong
Q: 1) There has been a lot of conferences related to blocksize limit. The two took place in HongKong in Decemeber of 2015 and Feberary of 2016 are the most important ones. Despite much opposition, it is undeniable that these two meetings basically determines the current status of Bitcoin. However, as the one of the original founders of Bitcoin, why did you choose to not attend these meetings? If you have ever attended and opposed gmax’s Core roadmap (SegWit Priority) in one of the meetings, we may be in a better situation now, and the 2M hard fork might have already begun. Can you explain your absence in the two meetings? Do you think the results of both meetings are orchestrated by blockstream?
A: 1) I attended the first scaling conference in Montreal in September of 2015, and had hoped that a compromise had been reached.
A few weeks after that conference, it was clear to me that whatever compromise had been reached was not going to happen, so it seemed pointless to travel all the way to Hong Kong in December for more discussion when all of the issues had been discussed repeatedly since February of 2015.
The February 2016 Hong Kong meeting I could not attend because I was invited only a short time before it happened and I had already planned a vacation with my family and grandparents.
I think all of those conferences were orchestrated mainly by people who do not think raising the block size limit is a high priority, and who want to see what problems happen as we run into the limit.
Q: 2) We have already known that gmax tries to limit the block size so as to get investment for his company. However, it is obvious that overthrowing Core is hard in the short term. What if Core continues to dominate the development of Bitcoin? Is it possible that blockstream core will never raise the blocksize limit because of their company interests?
A: 2) I don’t think investment for his company is Greg’s motivation-- I think he honestly believes that a solution like lightning is better technically.
He may be right, but I think it would be better if he considered that he might also be wrong, and allowed other solutions to be tried at the same time.
Blockstream is a funny company, with very strong-willed people that have different opinions. It is possible they will never come to an agreement on how to raise the blocksize limit.
7. HeiYanZhu
Q: I would like to ask your opinion on the current situation. It’s been two years, but a simple 2MB hard fork could not even be done. In Bitcoin land, two years are incredibly long. Isn’t this enough to believe this whole thing is a conspiracy?
A: I don’t think it is a conspiracy, I think it is an honest difference of opinion on what is most important to do first, and a difference in opinion on risks and benefits of doing different things.
Q: How can a multi-billion network with millions of users and investors be choked by a handful of people? How can this be called decentrilized and open-source software anymore? It is so hard to get a simple 2MB hard fork, but SegWig and Lighting Network with thousands of lines of code change can be pushed through so fast. Is this normal? It is what you do to define if you are a good man, not what you say.
A: I still believe good engineers will work around whatever unnecessary barriers are put in their way-- but it might take longer, and the results will not be as elegant as I would prefer.
The risk is that people will not be patient and will switch to something else; the recent rapid rise in developer interest and price of Ethereum should be a warning.
Q: The problem now is that everybody knows Classic is better, however, Core team has controlled the mining pools using their powers and polical approaches. This made them controll the vast majority of the hashpower, no matter what others propose. In addition, Chinese miners have little communication with the community, and do not care about the developement of the system. Very few of them knows what is going on in the Bitcoin land. They almost handed over their own power to the mining pool, so as long as Core controls the pools, Core controls the whole Bitcoin, no matter how good your Classic is. Under this circumstance, what is your plan?
A: Encourage alternatives to Core. If they work better (if they are faster or do more) then Core will either be replaced or will have to become better itself. I am happy to see innovations happening in projects like Bitcoin Unlimited, for example. And just this week I see that Matt Corallo will be working on bringing an optmized protocol for relaying blocks into Core; perhaps that was the plan all along, or perhaps the “extreme thin blocks” work in Bitcoin Unlimited is making that a higher priority. In any case, competition is healthy.
Q: From this scaling debate, do you think there is a huge problem with Bitcoin development? Does there exsit development centrilization? Does this situation need improvment? For example, estabilish a fund from Bitcoin as a fundation. It can be used for hiring developers and maintainers, so that we can solve the development issue once and for all.
A: I think the Core project spends too much time thinking about small probability technical risks (like “rogue miners” who create hard-to-validate blocks or try to send invalid blocks to SPV wallets) and not enough time thinking about much larger non-technical risks.
And I think the Core project suffers from the common open source software problem of “developers developing for developers.” The projects that get worked on are the technically interesting projects-- exciting new features (like the lightning network), and not improving the basic old features (like improving network performance or doing more code review and testing).
I think the situation is improving, with businesses investing more in development (but perhaps not in the Core project, because the culture of that project has become much less focused on short-term business needs and more on long-term exciting new features).
I am skeptical that crowd-funding software development can work well; if I look at other successful open source software projects, they are usually funded by companies, not individuals.
8.jb9802
You are one of the most-repected person in Bitcoin world, I won’t miss the chance to ask some questions. First of all, I am a Classic supporter. I strongly believe that on-chain transcations should not be restrained artificially. Even if there are transcations that are willing to go through Lighting Network in the future, it should be because of a free market, not because of artificial restrication. Here are some of my questions:
Q: 1) For the past two years, you’ve been proposing to Core to scale Bitcoin. In the early days of the discussion, Core devs did agree that the blocksize should be raised. What do you think is the major reason for Core to stall scaling. Does there exist conflict of interest between Blockstream and scaling?
A: 1) There might be unconscious bias, but I think there is just a difference of opinion on priorities and timing.
Q: 2) One of the reason for the Chinese to refuse Classic is that Classic dev team is not technically capable enough for future Bitcoin development. I also noticed that Classic does have a less frequent code release compared to Core. In your opinion, is there any solution to these problems? Have you ever thought to invite capable Chinese programers to join Classic dev team?
A: 2) The great thing about open source software is if you don’t think the development team is good enough (or if you think they are working on the wrong things) you can take the software and hire a better team to improve it.
Classic is a simple 2MB patch on top of Core, so it is intentional that there are not a lot of releases of Classic.
The priority for Classic right now is to do things that make working on Classic better for developers than working on Core, with the goal of attracting more developers. You can expect to see some results in the next month or two.
I invite capable programmers from anywhere, including China, to help any of the teams working on open source Bitcoin software, whether that is Classic or Core or Unlimited or bitcore or btcd or ckpool or p2pool or bitcoinj.
Q: 3) Another reason for some of the Chinese not supporting Classic is that bigger blocks are more vulnerable to spam attacks. (However, I do think that smaller blocks are more vlunerable to spam attack, because smaller amount of money is needed to choke the blockchain.) What’s our opinion on this?
A: 3) The best response to a transaction spam attack is for the network to reject transactions that pay too little fees but to simply absorb any “spam” that is paying as much fees as regular transactions.
The goal for a transaction spammer is to disrupt the network; if there is room for extra transactions in blocks, then the network can just accept the spam (“thank you for the extra fees!”) and continue as if nothing out of the ordinary happened.
Nothing annoys a spammer more than a network that just absorbs the extra transactions with no harmful effects.
Q: 4) According to your understanding on lighting network and sidechains,if most Bitcoin transactions goes throught lighting network or sidechains, it possible that the fees paid on the these network cannot reach the main-chain miners, which leaves miners starving. If yes, how much percent do you think will be given to miners.
A: 4) I don’t know, it will depend on how often lightning network channels are opened and closed, and that depends on how people choose to use lightning.
Moving transactions off the main chain and on to the lightning network should mean less fees for miners, more for lightning network hubs. Hopefully it will also mean lower fees for users, which will make Bitcoin more popular, drive up the price, and make up for the lower transaction fees paid to miners.
Q: 5) The concept of lighting network and sidechains have been out of one or two years already, when do you think they will be fully deployed.
A: 5) Sidechains are already “fully deployed” (unless you mean the version of sidechains that doesn’t rely on some trusted gateways to move bitcoin on and off the sidechain, which won’t be fully deployed for at least a couple of years). I haven’t seen any reports of how successful they have been.
I think Lightning will take longer than people estimate. Seven months ago Adam Back said that the lightning network might be ready “as soon as six months from now” … but I would be surprised if there was a robust, ready-for-everybody-to-use lightning-capable wallet before 2018.
Q: 6)Regarding the hard fork, Core team has assumed that it will cause a chain-split. (Chinese miners are very intimitated by this assumption, I think this is the major reason why most of the Chinese mining pools are not switching to Classic). Do you think Bitcoin will have a chain-split?
A: 6) No, there will not be a chain split. I have not talked to a single mining pool operator, miner, exchange, or major bitcoin business who would be willing to mine a minority branch of the chain or accept bitcoins from a minority branch of the main chain.
Q: 7) From your point of view, do you think there is more Classic supporters or Core supporters in the U.S.?
A: 7) All of the online opinion pools that have been done show that a majority of people worldwide support raising the block size limit.
9. btcc123
Q: Which is more in line with the Satoshi’s original roadmap, Bitcoin Classic or Bitcoin Core? How to make mining pools support and adopt Bitcoin Classic?
A: Bitcoin Classic is more in line with Satoshi’s original roadmap.
We can’t make the mining pools do anything they don’t want to do, but they are run by smart people who will do what they think is best for their businesses and Bitcoin.
10.KuHaiBian
Q: Do you have any solution for mining centralization? What do you think about the hard fork of changing mining algorithms?
A: I have a lot of thoughts on mining centralization; it would probably take ten or twenty pages to write them all down.
I am much less worried about mining centralization than most of the other developers, because Satoshi designed Bitcoin so miners make the most profit when they do what is best for Bitcoin. I have also seen how quickly mining pools come and go; people were worried that the DeepBit mining pool would become too big, then it was GHash.io…
And if a centralized mining pool does become too big and does something bad, the simplest solution is for businesses or people to get together and create or fund a competitor. Some of the big Bitcoin exchanges have been seriously considering doing exactly that to support raising the block size limit, and that is exactly the way the system is supposed to work-- if you don’t like what the miners are doing, then compete with them!
I think changing the mining algorithm is a complicated solution to a simple problem, and is not necessary.
11. ChaLi
Q: Last time you came to China, you said you want to "make a different". I know that in USA the opposition political party often hold this concept, in order to prevent the other party being totally dominant. Bitcoin is born with a deep "make a different" nature inside. But in Chinese culture, it is often interpreted as split “just for the sake of splitting”, can you speak your mind on what is your meaning of "make a different"?
A: I started my career in Silicon Valley, where there is a lot of competition but also a lot of cooperation. The most successful companies find a way to be different than their competitors; it is not a coincidence that perhaps the most successful company in the world (Apple Computer) had the slogan “think different.”
As Bitcoin gets bigger (and I think we all agree we want Bitcoin to get bigger!) it is natural for it to split and specialize; we have already seen that happening, with lots of choices for different wallets, different exchanges, different mining chips, different mining pool software.
12. bluestar
Q: 1) The development of XT and Classic confirmed my thoughts that it is nearly impossible to use a new version of bitcoin to replace the current bitcoin Core controlled by Blockstream. I think we will have to live with the power of Blockstream for a sufficient long time. It means we will see the deployment of SegWit and Lighting network. If it really comes to that point, what will you do? Will you also leave like Mike Hearn?
A: 1) With the development of Blockchain, bitcoin will grow bigger and bigger without any doubts, And also there will be more and more companies related to the bitcoin network. When it comes to money, there will be a lot of fights between these companies. Is it possible to form some kind of committee to avoid harmful fights between these companies and also the situation that a single company controlling the direction of the bitcoin development? Is there any one doing this kind of job right now?
Q: 2) My final question would be, do you really think it is possible that we can have a decentralized currency? Learning from the history, it seems like every thing will become centralized as long as it involves human. Do you have any picture for a decentralized currency or even a society? Thanks.
A: 2) I think you might be surprised at what most people are running a year or three from now. Perhaps it will be a future version of Bitcoin Core, but I think there is a very good chance another project will be more successful.
I remember when “everybody” was running Internet Explorer or Firefox, and people thought Google was crazy to think that Chrome would ever be a popular web browser. It took four years for Chrome to become the most popular web browser.
In any case, I plan on working on Bitcoin related projects for at least another few years. Eventually it will become boring or I will decide I need to take a couple of years of and think about what I want to do next.
As for fights between companies: there are always fights between companies, in every technology. There are organizations like the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force) that try to create committees so engineers at companies can spend more time cooperating and less time fighting; I’m told by people who participate in IETF meetings that they are usually helpful and create useful standards more often than not.
Finally, yes, I do think we can have a “decentralized-enough” currency. A currency that might be controlled at particular times by a small set of people or companies, but that gives everybody else the ability to take control if those people or businesses misbehave.
13. satoshi
Hi Gavin, I have some questions:
Q: 1) I noticed there are some new names added to the classic team list. Most people here only know you and Jeff. Can you briefly introduce some others to the Chinese community?
A: 1)
Tom Zander has been acting as lead developer, and is an experienced C++ developer who worked previously on the Qt and Debian open source projects.
Pedro Pinheiro is on loan from Blockchain.info, and has mostly worked on continuous integration and testing for Classic.
Jon Rumion joined recently, and has been working on things that will make life for developers more pleasant (I don’t want to be more specific, I don’t want to announce things before they are finished in case they don’t work out).
Jeff has been very busy starting up Bloq, so he hasn’t been very active with Classic recently. I’ve also been very busy traveling (Barbados, Idaho, London and a very quick trip to Beijing) so haven’t been writing much code recently.
Q: 2) if bitcoin classic succeeded (>75% threshold), what role would you play in the team after the 2MB upgrade finished, as a leader, a code contributor, a consultant, or something else?
A: 2)Contributor and consultant-- I am trying not to be leader of any software project right now, I want to leave that to other people who are better at managing and scheduling and recruiting and all of the other things that need to be done to lead a software project.
Q: 3) if bitcoin classic end up failed to achieve mainstream adoption (<75% 2018), will you continue the endeavor of encouraging on-chain scaling and garden-style growth of bitcoin?
A: 3) Yes. If BIP109 does not happen, I will still be pushing to get a good on-chain solution to happen as soon as possible.
Q: 4) Have you encountered any threat in your life, because people would think you obviously have many bitcoins, like what happened to Hal Finney (RIP), or because some people have different ideas about what bitcoin's future should be?
A: 4) No, I don’t think I have received any death threats. It upsets me that other people have.
Somebody did threaten to release my and my wife’s social security numbers and other identity information if I did not pay them some bitcoins a couple of years ago. I didn’t pay, they did release our information, and that has been a little inconvenient at times.
Q: 5) Roger Ver (Bitcoin Jesus) said bitcoin would worth thousands of dollars. Do you have similar thoughts? If not, what is your opinion on bitcoin price in future?
A: 5) I learned long ago to give up trying to predict the price of stocks, currencies, or Bitcoin. I think the price of Bitcoin will be higher in ten years, but I might be wrong.
Q: 6) You've been to China. What's your impression about the country, people, and the culture here? Thank you!
A: 6) I had a very quick trip to Beijing a few weeks ago-- not nearly long enough to get a good impression of the country or the culture.
I had just enough time to walk around a little bit one morning, past the Forbidden City and walk around Tianmen Square. There are a LOT of people in China, I think the line to go into the Chairman Mao Memorial Hall was the longest I have ever seen!
Beijing reminded me a little bit of London, with an interesting mix of the very old with the very new. The next time I am in China I hope I can spend at least a few weeks and see much more of the country; I like to be in a place long enough so that I really can start to understand the people and cultures.
14. Pussinboots
Q: Dear Gavin, How could I contact you, we have an excellent team and good plans. please confirm your linkedin.
A: Best contact for me is [email protected] : but I get lots of email, please excuse me if your messages get lost in the flood.
15. satoshi
Q: Gavin, you've been both core and classic code contributor. Are there any major differences between the two teams, concerning code testing (quality control) and the release process of new versions?
A: Testing and release processes are the same; a release candidate is created and tested, and once sufficiently tested, a final release is created, cryptographically signed by several developers, and then made available for download.
The development process for Classic will be a little bit different, with a ‘develop’ branch where code will be pulled more quickly and then either fixed or reverted based on how testing goes. The goal is to create a more developer-friendly process, with pull requests either accepted or rejected fairly quickly.
16. tan90d
I am a bitcoin enthusiast and a coin holder. I thank you for your great contribution to bitcoin. Please allow me to state some of my views before asking:
  1. I'm on board with classic
  2. I support the vision to make bitcoin a powerful currency that could compete with Visa
  3. I support segwit, so I'll endorse whichever version of bitcoin implementation that upgrades to segwit, regardless of block size.
  4. I disagree with those who argue bitcoin main blockchain should be a settlement network with small blocks. My view is that on the main chain btc should function properly as a currency, as well as a network for settlement.
  5. I'm against the deployment of LN on top of small block sized blockchain. Rather, it should be built on a chain with bigger blocks.
  6. I also won’t agree with the deployment of many sidechains on top of small size block chain. Rather, those sidechains should be on chain with bigger blocks.
With that said, below are my questions:
Q: 1) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 1) If the block limit is not raised, then no, I don’t think transaction fees will be that high.
Q: 2) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, and after the 2020 halving which cuts block reward down to 6.125BTC, do you think the block transaction fee at that time will exceed 3BTC?
A: 2) Yes, the vision is lots of transactions, each paying a very small fee, adding up to a big total for the miners.
Q: 3) If bitcoin is developed following core's vision, do you think POW would fail in future, because the mining industry might be accounted too low value compared with that of the bitcoin total market, so that big miners could threaten btc market and gain profit by shorting?
*The questioner further explained his concern.
Currently, its about ~1.1 billion CNY worth of mining facilities protecting ~42 billion CNY worth (6.5 Billion USD) of bitcoin market. The ratio is ~3%. If bitcoin market cap continues to grow and we adopt layered development plan, the mining portion may decrease, pushing the ratio go even down to <1%, meaning we are using very small money protecting an huge expensive system. For example, in 2020 if bitcoin market cap is ~100 billion CNY, someone may attempt to spend ~1 billion CNY bribe/manipulate miners to attack the network, thus making a great fortune by shorting bitcoin and destroying the ecosystem.
A: 3) Very good question, I have asked that myself. I have asked people if they know if there have been other cases where people destroyed a company or a market to make money by shorting it -- as far as I know, that does not happen. Maybe because it is impossible to take a large short position and remain anonymous, so even if you were successful, you would be arrested for doing whatever you did to destroy the company or market (e.g. blow up a factory to destroy a company, or double-spend fraud to try to destroy Bitcoin).
Q: 4) If bitcoin is developed following classic's vision, will the blocks become too big that kill decentralization?
A: 4) No, if you look at how many transactions the typical Internet connection can support, and how many transactions even a smart phone can validate per second, we can support many more transactions today with the hardware and network connections we have now.
And hardware and network connections are getting faster all the time.
Q: 5) In theory, even if we scale bitcoin with just LN and sidechains, the main chain still needs blocks with size over 100M, in order to process the trading volume matching Visa's network. So does core have any on-chain scaling plan other than 2MB? Or Core does not plan to evolve bitcoin into something capable of challenging visa?
A: 5) Some of the Core developer talk about a “flexcap” solution to the block size limit, but there is no specific proposal.
I think it would be best to eliminate the limit all together. That sounds crazy, but the most successful Internet protocols have no hard upper limits (there is no hard limit to how large a web page may be, for example), and no protocol limit is true to Satoshi’s original design.
Q: 6) If (the majority of) hash rate managed to switch to Classic in 2018, will the bitcoin community witness the deployment of LN in two years (~2018)?
A: 6) The bottleneck with Lightning Network will be wallet support, not support down at the Bitcoin protocol level. So I don’t think the deployment schedule of LN will be affected much whether Classic is adopted or not.
Q: 7) If (majority) hash rate upgraded to blocks with segwit features in 2017 as specified in core's roadmap, would classic propose plans to work on top of that (blocks with segwit)? Or insist developing simplified segwit blocks as described in classic's roadmap?
A: 7) Classic will follow majority hash rate. It doesn’t make sense to do anything else.
Q: 8) If most hash rate is still on core's side before 2018, will you be disappointed with bitcoin, and announce that bitcoin has failed like what Mike did, and sell all your stashed coins at some acceptable price?
A: 8) No-- I have said that I think if the block size limit takes longer to resolve, that is bad for Bitcoin in the short term, but smart engineers will work around whatever road blocks you put in front of them. I see Bitcoin as a long-term project.
Q: 9) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 9) I think Blockstream might lose some employees, but otherwise I don’t think it will matter much. They are still producing interesting technology that might become a successful business.
Q: 10) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of Blockstream company?
A: 10) I don’t think Blockstream’s fate depends on whether or not BIP109 is adopted. It depends much more on whether or not they find customers willing to pay for the technology that they are developing.
Q: 11) If we have most hash rate still on core's side before 2018, what do you think will be the fate of companies that support classic, such as Coinbse, bitpay, and Blockchain.info?
A: 11) We have already seen companies like Kraken support alternative currencies (Kraken supports Litecoin and Ether); if there is no on-chain scaling solution accepted by the network, I think we will see more companies “hedging their bets” by supporting other currencies that have a simpler road map for supporting more transactions.
Q: 12) If we have most hash rate switched to classic's side before 2018, will that hinder the development of sidechain tech? What will happen to companies like Rockroot(Rootstock?) ?
A: 12) No, I think the best use of sidechains is for things that might be too risky for the main network (like Rootstock) or are narrowly focused on a small number of Bitcoin users. I don’t think hash rate supporting Classic will have any effect on that.
Q: 13) Between the two versions of bitcoin client, which one is more conducive to mining industry, classic or core?
A: 13) I have been working to make Classic better for the mining industry, but right now they are almost identical so it would be dishonest to say one is significantly better than the other.
17. Alfred
Q: Gavin, can you describe what was in your mind when you first learned bitcoin?
A: I was skeptical that it could actually work! I had to read everything I could about it, and then read the source code before I started to think that maybe it could actually be successful and was not a scam.
submitted by kcbitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Q&A: Social good, legality, and adoption - YouTube Do I Buy Cryptocurrencies in 2018? Bitcoin (BTC) Adoption Growing at Hyperbolic Rate, Half the World Set to Use Crypto in 7 Years GET PAID TO PUSH ADOPTION!! TEXAS MEETUP ANNOUNCEMENT!! BITCOIN/CRYPTOS TO THE MOON!!! $1K in Bitcoin in 2018 would be worth This Much in 2020

Mike Hearn is a software developer who has worked on Bitcoin technologies for over five years. In 2014, he left his job at Google to focus on Bitcoin full time. And if you’ve followed Bitcoin over the years, then you also know this isn’t the first time the mourning bells are tolling. A ccording to the scorekeepers, the count is now up to 89. This one ... AT&T is among the top 10 Fortune 500 companies, having many customers all over the world, which increases the potential of BCH expanding its own user base and adoption rate. A higher adoption rate could mean more gains for BCH. Source: DIgitalcoin. Last month, BCH executed a soft fork on its software to include the Schnorr signature. The Bitcoin exchange rate is affected by many things, from the statements of famous businessmen to hacking cryptocurrency exchanges. Let’s talk about some important factors that affect Bitcoin exchange rate fluctuations. Major players. Unlike key fiat currencies, Bitcoin’s market capitalization is very small. $125 bln (the capitalization of BTC in May 2018) is almost eight times less than ... As you can see, Bitcoin supply decelerates over time until it hits 0 in 2140 . It is hard to know for sure, though. New blocks are added approximately every 10 minutes. The further out we try to predict when specific halvings will occur, the harder it is. Over 120 years, a lot can change, and so it may happen sooner or later, perhaps even by more than year. What Will the Block subsidy (reward ...

[index] [4586] [47478] [15104] [11688] [27835] [42561] [23985] [32068] [15971] [31063]

Bitcoin Q&A: Social good, legality, and adoption - YouTube

#Bitcoin (BTC) Adoption Growing at Hyperbolic Rate, Half the World Set to Use #Crypto in 7 Years Narrated by The #Cryptocurrency Portal on Tues. Feb. 25th, 2020 If you like this content, please ... Are there "social good" use cases for Bitcoin and open blockchains, like women's rights or escaping economic chaos? Is there a distinction between legality a... I just got back from Australia and WOW is the adoption there crazy! I go over my time there and adoption of BCH into the future. Tip me Bitcoin Cash and/or Spice token LIVE https://tipbitcoin.cash ... Please help me spread the crypto message by supporting my Bitcoin Ben meetups by joining my Patreon group. BITCOIN BEN TEXAS MEETUP TICKETS! SEE YOU GUYS THERE!! If you invested $1,000 in Bitcoin in 2018 ever wonder what it would be worth in 2020? What about if you invested $1,000 in Chainlink (CHC). #bitcoin #bitcoinnews #BTC.

#