Everyone Calls Bitcoin Investment Trust An ETF, But It's ...
Everyone Calls Bitcoin Investment Trust An ETF, But It's ...
Bitcoin ETFs: What They Are and How to Invest (in 2020 ...
Bitcoin channel ETF.com
Is a Bitcoin ETF a Good Investment? - Yahoo Finance
'You don't necessarily need the bitcoin ETF ... - Yahoo
r/Bitcoin recap - April 2018
Hi Bitcoiners! I’m back with the sixteenth monthly Bitcoin news recap. It's easy for news and developments to get drowned out by price talk, so each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in Bitcoin over the past month. Lots of gems this time around! You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com A recap of Bitcoin in April 2018
JPMorgan suppresses gold & silver prices to prop up the USDollar - via "naked short selling" of GLD & SLV ETFs. Now AXA (which owns $94 million of JPMorgan stock) may be trying to suppress Bitcoin price - via tiny blocks. But AXA will fail - because the market will always "maximize coinholder value"
TL;DR As a bitcoin user (miner, hodler, investor) you have all the power - simply due to the nature of markets and open-source software. Core/Blockstream, and their owners at AXA, can try to manipulate the market and the software for a while, by paying off devs who prefer tiny blocks, or censoring the news, or conducting endless meetings - but in the end, you know that they have no real control over you, because endless meetings are bullshit, and code and markets are everything. Bitcoin volume, adoption, blocksize and price have been rising steadily for the past 7 years. And they will continue to do so - with or without the cooperation of Core/Blockstream and the Chinese miners - because just like publicly held corporations always tend to "maximize shareholder value, publicly held cryptocurrencies always tend to "maximize coinholder value". How much of a position does AXA have in JPMorgan? AXA currently holds about $94 million in JPMorgan stock. http://zolmax.com/investing/axa-has-94718000-position-in-jpmorgan-chase-co-jpm/794122.html https://archive.is/HExxH Admittedly this is not a whole lot, when you consider that the total of JPMorgan's outstanding shares is currently around USD 3.657 billion. But still it does provide a suggestive indication of how these big financial firms are all in bed with each other. Plus the leaders of these big financial firms also tend to hang out which each other professionally and socially, and are motivated to protect the overall system of "the legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" which allows them to rule the world. How does JPMorgan use paper GLD and SLV ETFs to suppress the price of physical gold and silver? As many people know, whistleblower Andrew Maguire exposed the massive criminal scandal where JPMorgan has been fraudulently manipulating gold and silver prices for years. JPMorgan does this via the SLV and GLD ETFs (Exchange Traded Funds). The reason they do it is in order to artificially suppress the price of gold and silver using "naked short-selling": https://duckduckgo.com/?q=andrew+maguire+gata+jpmorgan+nake+short&t=hd&ia=videos How exactly does JPMorgan manage to commit this kind of massive fraud? It's easy! There's actually about 100x more "phantom" or fake silver and gold in existence (in the form of "paper" certificates - SLV and GLD ETFs) - versus actual "physical" gold and silver that you can take delivery on and hold in your hand. That means that if everyone holding fake/paper SLV & GLD ETF certificates were to suddenly demand "physical delivery" at the same moment, then only 1% of those people would receive actual physical silver and gold - and the rest would get the "equivalent" in dollars. This is all well-known, and clearly spelled out in the fine print of the GLD and SLV ETF contracts. (This is similar to "fractional reserve" where almost no banks have enough actual money to cover all deposits. This means that if everyone showed up at the bank on the same day and demanded their money, the bank would go bankrupt.) So, in order to fraudulently suppress the price of gold and silver (and, in turn, prevent the USDollar from crashing), JPMorgan functions as a kind of "bear whale", dumping "phantom" gold and silver on the market in the form of worthless "paper" SLV and GLD ETF certificates, "whenever the need arises" - ie, whenever the US Dollar price starts to drop "too much", and/or whenever the gold and silver prices start to rise "too much". (This is similar to the "plunge protection team" liquidity providers, who are well-known for preventing stock market crashes, by throwing around their endlessly printed supply of "fantasy fiat", buying up stocks to artificially prevent their prices from crashing. This endless money-printing and market manipulation actually destroys one of the main purposes of capitalism - which is to facilitate "price discovery" in order to reward successful companies and punish unsuccessful ones, to make sure that they actually deliver the goods and services that people need in the real world.) Is there an ELI5 example of how "naked short selling" works in the real world? Yes there is! The following example was originally developed by Overstock CEO Patrick Byrne - who, as many people know, is very passionate about using Bitcoin not only as cash, but also to settle stock trades - because his company Overstock got burned when Wall Street illegally attacked it using naked short selling:
Here's how naked short-selling works: Imagine you travel to a small foreign island on vacation. Instead of going to an exchange office in your hotel to turn your dollars into Island Rubles, the country instead gives you a small printing press and makes you a deal: Print as many Island Rubles as you like, then on the way out of the country you can settle your account. So you take your printing press, print out gigantic quantities of Rubles and start buying goods and services. Before long, the cash you’ve churned out floods the market, and the currency's value plummets. Do this long enough and you'll crack the currency entirely; the loaf of bread that cost the equivalent of one American dollar the day you arrived now costs less than a cent. With prices completely depressed, you keep printing money and buy everything of value - homes, cars, priceless works of art. You then load it all into a cargo ship and head home. On the way out of the country, you have to settle your account with the currency office. But the Island Rubles you printed are now worthless, so it takes just a handful of U.S. dollars to settle your debt. Arriving home with your cargo ship, you sell all the island riches you bought at a discount and make a fortune.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/wall-streets-naked-swindle-20100405 Why isn't anybody stopping JPMorgan from using "naked short selling" to fraudulently suppress gold and silver prices? Because "certain people" benefit! Of course, this "naked short selling" (selling a "phantom" asset which doesn't actually exist in order to suppress the price of the "real" asset) is actually illegal - but JPMorgan is allowed to get away with it, because suppressing the gold and silver price helps prop up the United States and world's major "fantasy fiat" financial institutions - which would be bankrupt without this kind of "artificial life support." How does suppressing the gold and silver price help governments and banks? If gold and silver (and Bitcoin!) rose to their actual "fair market value", then the US dollar (and most other national "fiat" currencies) would crash - and many major financial institutions would be exposed as bankrupt. Also, many "derivatives contracts" would default - and only a tiny percentage of defaults would destroy most major financial companies' balance sheets. (For example, see Deutsche Bank - which is may become "the next Lehman", due to having around around $80 trillion in dangerous derivatives exposure.) So, major financial firms like JPMorgan are highly motivated to prevent a "real" (honest) market from existing for "counterparty-free" assets such as physical gold and silver (and Bitcoin!) So, JPMorgan fraudulently manipulate the precious-metals market, by flooding it with 100x more "phantom" "silver" and "gold" in the form of worthless GLD and SLV ETF certificates. Basically, JPMorgan is doing the "dirty work" to keep the US government and its "too-big-to-fail" banks and other financial institutions afloat, on "artificial life support". Otherwise, without this GLD & SLV ETF "naked short selling" involving market manipulation and fraud, the US government - and most major US financial institutions, as well as many major overseas financial institutions, and most central banks - would all be exposed as bankrupt, once traders and investors discovered the real price of gold and silver. So, what does this have to do with AXA and Bitcoin? Just like JPMorgan wants to suppress the price of gold and silver to prop up the USDollar, it is reasonable to assume that AXA and other major financial players probably also want to suppress the price of Bitcoin for the same reasons - in order to postpone the inevitable day when the so-called "assets" on their balance sheets (denominated in US Dollars and other "fantasy fiat" currencies, as well as derivatives) are exposed as being worthless. Actually, only the motives are the same, while the means would be quite different - ie, certain governments or banks might want to suppress the Bitcoin price - but they wouldn't be able to use "naked short selling" to do it. As we know, this is because with Bitcoin, people can now simply demand "cryptographic proof" of how many bitcoins are really out there - instead of just "trusting" some auditor claiming there is so much gold and silver in a vault - or "trusting" that a gold bar isn't actually filled with worthless tungsten (which happens to have about the same "molecular weight" as gold, so these kinds of counterfeit gold bars have been a serious problem). (And, by the way: hopefully it should also be impossible to do "fractional reserve" using "level 2" sidechains such as the Lightning Network - although that still remains to be seen. =) So, even though it should not be possible to flood the market with "phantom" Bitcoins (since people can always demand "cryptographic proof of reserves"), AXA could instead use a totally different tactic to suppress the price: by suppressing Bitcoin trading volume - explained further below. Does AXA does actually have the motives to be suppressing the Bitcoin price - right now? Yes, they do! As described above, the only thing which gives giant banking and finance companies like JPMorgan and AXA the appearance of solvency is massive accounting fraud and market manipulation. They use the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" (ie, debt-backed "currency", endlessly printed out of thin air) - and the never-ending carrousel of the worldwide derivatives casino, currently worth around 1.2 quadrillion dollars - to "paper over" their losses, and to prevent anyone from discovering that most major insurance firms like AXA - and most major banks - would already be considered bankrupt, if you counted only their real assets. (This is known as "mark-to-market" - which they hate to do. They much prefer to do "mark-to-model" which some people call "mark-to-fantasy" - ie, fraudulent accounting based on "phantom" assets" and rampant market manipulation.) So, it is public knowledge that nearly all "too-big-to-fail" financial companies like AXA (and JPMorgan) would be considered bankrupt if their fraudulent accounting practices were exposed - which rely on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" and the "never-ending carrousel of the derivatives casino" to maintain the façade of solvency:
If Bitcoin becomes a major currency, then tens of trillions of dollars on the "legacy ledger of fantasy fiat" will evaporate, destroying AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderbergers. This is the real reason why AXA bought Blockstream: to artificially suppress Bitcoin volume and price with 1MB blocks.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4r2pw5/if_bitcoin_becomes_a_major_currency_then_tens_of/ Does AXA actually have the means to to be suppressing the Bitcoin price... right now? Yes, they do! For example, AXA could decide to support economically ignorant devs like Greg Maxwell (CTO of Blockstream), Adam Back (CEO of Blockstream), and the other Core devs who support Blockstream's "roadmap" based on tiny blocks. Wait - isn't AXA already doing precisely that? Yes, they are! As we all know, AXA has invested tens of millions of dollars in Blockstream, and Blockstream is indeed fighting tooth and nail against bigger blocks for Bitcoin.
Blockstream is now controlled by the Bilderberg Group - seriously! AXA Strategic Ventures, co-lead investor for Blockstream's $55 million financing round, is the investment arm of French insurance giant AXA Group - whose CEO Henri de Castries has been chairman of the Bilderberg Group since 2012.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/47zfzt/blockstream_is_now_controlled_by_the_bilderberg/ So, how would artificially tiny blocks artificially suppress the Bitcoin price? This is pretty much based on common sense - plus it's also been formalized and roughly quantified in concepts involving networking and economics, such as "Metcalfe's Law". Metcalfe's Law says pretty much what you'd expect it to say - ie: the more people that use a system, the more valuable that system is. More precisely: the value of a system is proportional to the square of the number of users in that system - which also makes sense, since when there are N users in a system, the number of connections between them is N*(N - 1)2 which is "on the order of" N squared. In fact, Metcalfe's Law has been shown to hold for various types of networks and markets - including faxes, internet, national currencies, etc. Does Metcalfe's Law apply to Bitcoin? Yes, it does! The past 7 years of data also indicates - as predicted - that Metcalfe's Law also does indeed apply to Bitcoin as well. Graphs show that during the 5 years before Blockstream got involved with trying to artificially suppress the Bitcoin price via their policy of artificially tiny blocks, Bitcoin prices were roughly in proportion to the square of the (actual) Bitcoin blocksizes.
Bitcoin has its own E = mc2 law: Market capitalization is proportional to the square of the number of transactions. But, since the number of transactions is proportional to the (actual) blocksize, then Blockstream's artificial blocksize limit is creating an artificial market capitalization limit!
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4dfb3bitcoin_has_its_own_e_mc2_law_market/ During all those years, actual blocksizes were still low enough to not bump into the artificial "ceiling" of the artificial 1 MB "max blocksize" limit - which, remember, was only there as a temporary anti-spam measure, so it was deliberately set to be much higher than any actual blocksize, and everyone knew that this limit would be removed well before actual blocksizes started getting close to that 1 MB "max blocksize" limit. But now that Bitcoin volume can't go up due to hitting the artificial "max blocksize" 1 MB limit (unless perhaps some people do bigger-value transactions), Bitcoin price also can't go up either:
Bitcoin's market price is trying to rally, but it is currently constrained by Core/Blockstream's artificial blocksize limit. Chinese miners can only win big by following the market - not by following Core/Blockstream. The market will always win - either with or without the Chinese miners.
The Fed/FOMC holds meetings to decide on money supply. Core/Blockstream & Chinese miners now hold meetings to decide on money velocity. Both are centralized decision-making. Both are the wrong approach.
So, on the expiration date of the HK stalling / non-scaling non-agreement, Viacoin scammer u/btcdrak calls a meeting with no customer-facing businesses invited (just Chinese miners & Core/Blockstream), and no solutions/agreements allowed, and no transparency (just a transcript from u/kanzure). WTF!?
What is the purpose of this meeting? The "organizers" and other people involved - u/btcdrak and u/maaku7 - say that this is just a "friendly" meeting - and it is specifically forbidden for any "agreements" (or scaling solutions) to come out of this meeting. What good is a meeting if no agreements or solutions can some out of it? Good question! A meeting where solutions are explicitly prohibited is actually perfect for Blockstream's goals - because currently the status quo "max blocksize" is 1 MB, and they want to keep it that way. So, they want to leverage the "inertia" to maintain the status quo - while pretending to do something, and getting friendly with the miners (and possibly making them other "offers" or "inducements"). So this meeting is just another stalling tactic, like all the previous ones. Only now, after the community has seen this over and over, Blockstream has finally had to publicly admit that it is specifically forbidden for any "agreements" (or scaling solutions) to come out of this meeting - which makes it very obvious to everyone that this whole meeting is just an empty gesture. So, why is this never-ending shit-show still going on? Mainly due to inertia on the part of many users, and dishonesty on the part of Core/Blockstream devs. Currently there is a vocal group of 57 devs and wannabe devs who are associated with Core/Blockstream - who refuse to remove the obsolete, temporary anti-spam measure (or "kludge") which historically restricted Bitcoin throughput to a 1 MB "max blocksize". Somehow (via a combination of media manipulation, domain squatting, censorship, staged international Bitcoin stalling "scaling" meetings and congresses, fraudulent non-agreements, and other dishonest pressure tactics) they've managed to convince everyone that they can somehow dictate to everyone else how Bitcoin governance should be done.
vampireban wants you to believe that "a lot of people voted" and "there is consensus" for Core's "roadmap". But he really means only 57 people voted. And most of them aren't devs and/or don't understand markets. Satoshi designed Bitcoin for the economic majority to vote - not just 57 people.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4ecx69/uvampireban_wants_you_to_believe_that_a_lot_of/ Meanwhile, pretty much everyone else in Bitcoin - ie, everyone who's not involved with Blockstream - knows that Bitcoin can and should have bigger blocks by now, to enable increased adoption, volume, and price, as shown by the following points: (1) Most miners, and investors, and Satoshi himself, all expected Bitcoin to have much bigger blocks by now - but these facts are censored on most of the media controlled by Core/Blockstream-associated devs and their friends:
Satoshi Nakamoto, October 04, 2010, 07:48:40 PM "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit / It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete."
theymos 1/31/2013: "I strongly disagree with the idea that changing the max block size is a violation of the 'Bitcoin currency guarantees'. Satoshi said that the max block size could be increased, and the max block size is never mentioned in any of the standard descriptions of the Bitcoin system"
Greg Maxwell used to have intelligent, nuanced opinions about "max blocksize", until he started getting paid by AXA, whose CEO is head of the Bilderberg Group - the legacy financial elite which Bitcoin aims to disintermediate. Greg always refuses to address this massive conflict of interest. Why?
The most upvoted thread right now on r\bitcoin (part 4 of 5 on Xthin), is default-sorted to show the most downvoted comments first. This shows that r\bitcoin is anti-democratic, anti-Reddit - and anti-Bitcoin.
Be patient about Classic. It's already a "success" - in the sense that it has been tested, released, and deployed, with 1/6 nodes already accepting 2MB+ blocks. Now it can quietly wait in the wings, ready to be called into action on a moment's notice. And it probably will be - in 2016 (or 2017).
I think the Berlin Wall Principle will end up applying to Blockstream as well: (1) The Berlin Wall took longer than everyone expected to come tumbling down. (2) When it did finally come tumbling down, it happened faster than anyone expected (ie, in a matter of days) - and everyone was shocked.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4kxtq4/i_think_the_berlin_wall_principle_will_end_up/ So what is the actual point of this weekend's meeting between Core/Blockstream and the Chinese Miners? It's mainly just for show, and ultimately a meaningless distraction - the result of desperation and dishonesty on the part of Core/Blockstream. As mentioned above, real upgrades to Bitcoin like Bitcoin Classic and Bitcoin Unlimited have already been implemented and tested and are already running on the Bitcoin network - and the overall Bitcoin itself can and probably will switch over to them, regardless of any meaningless "meetings" and delaying tactics. Is it inevitable for Bitcoin to move to bigger blocks? Yes, for three reasons: (1) As mentioned above, studies show that the underlying hardware and bandwidth will already easily support actual blocksizes of 2 MB, and probably 4 MB - and everyone actually agrees on this point, including die-hard supporters of tiny blocks such as Blockstream CTO Gregory Maxwell u/nullc, and r\bitcoin censor moderator u/theymos. (2) The essential thing about a publicly held company is that it always seeks to maximize shareholder value - and, in a similar fashion, a publicly held cryptocurrency also always seeks to maximize "coinholder" value. (3) Even if Core/Blockstream continues to refuse to budge, the cat is already out of the bag - they can't put the toothpaste of open-source code back into the tube. Some people might sell their bitcoins for other cryptocurrencies which have better scaling - but a better solution would probably be to wait for a "spinoff" to happen. A "spinoff" is a special kind of "hard fork" where the existing ledger is preserved, so your coins remain spendable on both forks, and you can trade your coins on markets, depending on which fork you prefer. Further information on "spinoff technology" can be found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=563972.0 https://duckduckgo.com/?q=site%3Abitco.in%2Fforum+spinoff&ia=web An excellent discussion of the economic advantages of using a "spinoff" to keep the original ledger (and merely upgrade the ledger-appending software), can be found here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=678866.0 And today, based on new information learned from Ethereum's recent successful "hardfork split", people are already starting to talk about the specific details involved in implementing a "spinoff" or "hardfork split" for Bitcoin to support bigger blocks - eg, changing the PoW, getting exchanges to support trading on both sides of the fork, upgrading wallets, preventing replay attacks, etc:
We now know the miners aren't going to do anything. We now know that a minority fork can survive. Why are we not forking right now?
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/4vieve/we_now_know_the_miners_arent_going_to_do_anything/ So - whether it's via a hardfork upgrade, or a hardfork split or "spinoff" - it is probably inevitable that Bitcoin will eventually move to bigger blocks (within the underlying hardware and bandwidth constraints of course - which would currently support 2-4 MB blocksizes). Why are bigger blocks inevitable for Bitcoin? Because that's how markets always have and always will behave - and there's nothing that Blockstream/Core or AXA can do to stop this - no matter how many pointless stalling scaling meetings they conduct, and no matter how many non-agreements they sign and then break. Conclusion Endless centralized meetings and dishonest agreements are irrelevant. The only thing that matters is decentralized markets and open-source code. Users and markets decide on what code to install, and what size blocks to accept. Bitcoin adoption, volume - and price - will continue to grow, with or without the cooperation of the dishonest devs from Core/Blockstream, or misguided miners - or banksters at "fantasy fiat" financial firms like JPMorgan or AXA.
05-02 20:44 - 'r/Bitcoin recap - April 2018' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/SamWouters removed from /r/Bitcoin within 1923-1933min
''' Hi Bitcoiners! I’m back with the sixteenth monthly Bitcoin news recap. It's easy for news and developments to get drowned out by price talk, so each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in Bitcoin over the past month. Lots of gems this time around! You can see recaps of the previous months on [Bitcoinsnippets.com]1 A recap of Bitcoin in April 2018
01: [People unsurprisingly spend the day making April fools jokes about Bitcoin]2
02: [A list of all words used to generate 24-word bitcoin seeds with 1072 combinations]3
03: [The 0.4.1 beta version of Lightning Network implementation Lnd is released]4
04: [Mark Karpeles, ex-CEO of Mt. Gox does an AMA]5 & [Eclair’s Lightning Network wallet is released for mainnet on Android]6
05: [Satoshi Nakamoto chose this date as his birthday as a reference to gold confiscation from US citizens]7
06: [Electrum is adding support for the Lightning Network]8 & [Nick Szabo on some of the basic concepts of a blockchain 14 years before bitcoin’s release]9 & [The SEC allows Bitcoin ETF proposals again]10 & [Elizabeth Stark, CEO of Lightning Labs on Yahoo Finance]11
07: [People argue over an infographic on technology adoption]12
08: [Twitter suspends the @Bitcoin account after it kept tweeting against Bitcoin]13
09: [People discuss the value of Technical Analysis for cryptocurrency markets]14 & [Someone gets a 1 satoshi tip using the Lightning Network]15
10: [People discuss whether Bitcoin is nuanced enough]16 & [Canadian banks ban cryptocurrency purchases resulting in skyrocketing volumes on P2P exchanges]17
11: [BitMEX research on Proof-of-Stake viability]18 & [HalongMining is a 10nm ASIC fabricated by Samsung semiconductors]19
12: [The biggest 1hr volume in the history of Bitcoin happens as the price rises $1000 in an hour]20
13: [Developers at Chain make Bulletproofs twice as fast]21 & [A community member shares content, tools and advice on cryptocurrency and taxes]22 & [Yahoo Japan buys a 40% stake in cryptocurrency exchange BitARG]23
14: [Bitcoin is declared legal under Islamic law]24
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? (354 points, 116 comments)
"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 (176 points, 114 comments)
"You have to understand that Core and their supporters eg Theymos WANT a hardfork to be as messy as possible. This entire time they've been doing their utmost to work AGAINST consensus, and it will continue until they are simply removed from the community like the cancer they are." ~ u/singularity87 (170 points, 28 comments)
3 excellent articles highlighting some of the major problems with SegWit: (1) "Core Segwit – Thinking of upgrading? You need to read this!" by WallStreetTechnologist (2) "SegWit is not great" by Deadalnix (3) "How Software Gets Bloated: From Telephony to Bitcoin" by Emin Gün Sirer (146 points, 59 comments)
Now that BU is overtaking SW, r\bitcoin is in meltdown. The 2nd top post over there (sorted by "worst first" ie "controversial") is full of the most ignorant, confused, brainwashed comments ever seen on r\bitcoin - starting with the erroneous title: "The problem with forking and creating two coins." (142 points, 57 comments)
enough with the blockstream core propaganda : changing the blocksize IS the MORE CAUTIOUS and SAFER approach . if it was done sooner , we would have avoived entirely these unprecedented clycles of network clogging that have caused much frustrations in a lot of actors (173 points, 15 comments)
Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. (566 points, 87 comments)
So, Alice is causing a problem. Alice is then trying to sell you a solution for that problem. Alice now tell that if you are not buying into her solution, you are the cause of the problem. Replace Alice with Greg & Adam.. (139 points, 28 comments)
SegWit+limited on-chain scaling: brought to you by the people that couldn't believe Bitcoin was actually a sound concept. (92 points, 47 comments)
Reality check: today's minor bug caused the bitcoin.com pool to miss out on a $12000 block reward, and was fixed within hours. Core's 1MB blocksize limit has cost the users of bitcoin >$100k per day for the past several months. (270 points, 173 comments)
Top post on /bitcoin about high transaction fees. 709 comments. Every time you click "load more comments," there is nothing there. How many posts are being censored? The manipulation of free discussion by /bitcoin moderators needs to end yesterday. (229 points, 91 comments)
Fantasy land: Thinking that a hard fork will be disastrous to the price, yet thinking that a future average fee of > $1 and average wait times of > 1 day won't be disastrous to the price. (209 points, 70 comments)
"Segwit is a permanent solution to refuse any blocksize increase in the future and move the txs and fees to the LN hubs. The chinese miners are not as stupid as the blockstream core devaluators want them to be." shock_the_stream (150 points, 83 comments)
In response to the "unbiased" ELI5 of Core vs BU and this gem: "Core values trustlessness and decentralization above all. Bitcoin Unlimited values low fees for on-chain transactions above all else." (130 points, 45 comments)
Core's own reasoning doesn't add up: If segwit requires 95% of last 2016 blocks to activate, and their fear of using a hardfork instead of a softfork is "splitting the network", then how does a hardfork with a 95% trigger even come close to potentially splitting the network? (96 points, 130 comments)
I'm more concerned that bitcoin can't change than whether or not we scale in the near future by SF or HF (26 points, 9 comments)
"The best available research right now suggested an upper bound of 4MB. This figure was considering only a subset of concerns, in particular it ignored economic impacts, long term sustainability, and impacts on synchronization time.." nullc (20 points, 4 comments)
At any point in time mining pools could have increased the block reward through forking and yet they haven't. Why? Because it is obvious that the community wouldn't like that and correspondingly the price would plummet (14 points, 14 comments)
Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons. by parban333 (566 points, 87 comments)
The debate is not "SHOULD THE BLOCKSIZE BE 1MB VERSUS 1.7MB?". The debate is: "WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE?" (1) Should an obsolete temporary anti-spam hack freeze blocks at 1MB? (2) Should a centralized dev team soft-fork the blocksize to 1.7MB? (3) OR SHOULD THE MARKET DECIDE THE BLOCKSIZE? by ydtm (354 points, 116 comments)
151 points: nicebtc's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
123 points: 1DrK44np3gMKuvcGeFVv's comment in "One miner loses $12k from BU bug, some Core devs scream. Users pay millions in excessive tx fees over the last year "meh, not a priority"
117 points: cryptovessel's comment in nullc disputes that Satoshi Nakamoto left Gavin in control of Bitcoin, asks for citation, then disappears after such citation is clearly provided. greg maxwell is blatantly a toxic troll and an enemy of Satoshi's Bitcoin.
117 points: seweso's comment in Roger Ver banned for doxing after posting the same thread Prohashing was banned for.
113 points: BitcoinIsTehFuture's comment in Dear Theymos, you divided the Bitcoin community. Not Roger, not Gavin, not Mike. It was you. And dear Blockstream and Core team, you helped, not calling out the abhorrent censorship, the unforgivable manipulation, unbecoming of supposed cypherpunks. Or of any decent, civil persons.
106 points: MagmaHindenburg's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
98 points: lon102guy's comment in bitcoin.com loses 13.2BTC trying to fork the network: Untested and buggy BU creates an oversized block, Many BU node banned, the HF fails • /Bitcoin
The ETF proposed by Cameron and Tyler Winklevoss (yes, the same set of twins who claimed Mark Zuckerberg stole their idea for Facebook and sued him over it) would have traded on the Bats Global ... A Bitcoin Product Is About To Launch — But Don't Call It An ETF Bitcoin Price Jumps As Stock Market Dive Fuels Demand For 'Digital Gold' Bitcoin Prices Rally While Facebook Libra Cryptocurrency ... Bitcoin, the global, peer-to-peer cryptocurrency, forced its way onto investment radars by going up almost 10 times its U.S. dollar price in 2013 and then falling more than 70% in the following ... A Bitcoin ETF, such as the one proposed by the Winklevoss twins, would have the digital currency bitcoin as an underlying asset. That means that by purchasing a bitcoin ETF, an investor would be indirectly purchasing bitcoin, as he or she would be holding the bitcoin ETF in a portfolio as opposed to the actual digital currency itself. However, as the ETF would closely track the price of ... The challenges ahead for Yahoo's CEO. And has the yellow metal turned a corner?
The FUTURE Of Bitcoin & The SEC's ETF Decision! - This Is ...
Abra founder and CEO Bill Barhydt talks about the attention that the proposed bitcoin exchange-traded funds or bitcoin ETFs are getting. - Bitcoin ETF 'virtually certain" says finance expert Ric Edelman on CNBC - A new proposed exchange-traded fund (ETF) would invest in bitcoin futures – though only as part of a larger set of ... Josh Sigurdson talks with author and economic analyst John Sneisen about the most recent SEC decision on Bitcoin as they deny the proposed Winkelvoss ETF. In... Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency news for today. Crypto Winter continues forward. Tune in 10:30 am CST every day to learn about Bitcoin, Altcoins and Crypto market news. Become an INSIDER to gain ... What is a Bitcoin ETF? Will BTC moon if CBOE ETF is approved by SEC? ... Friday May 29 Yahoo Finance Yahoo Finance 713 watching. Live now ; Bitcoin & Ethereum ETFs Explained For Dummies ...