Alles was man über Bitcoin wissen muss

Some very important points that most people do not understand about Bitcoin

Point 1)
Most people do not understand that you can't send money over internet, but only information. Bitcoin is the first digital settlement layer.
When I send a picture to someone on Facebook messenger, I don't actually send a picture. I send information about the pictures structure, and the picture gets restructured on the client side (the cellphone) of the user I send it to. Copy of the information is being sent, not the picture itself. So you can't send money over internet, it is not possible, only information.
If I have a bank account at some bank, and I send $50 dollars to another person in the same bank by using the banks website, then a transaction happens between two people within the same infrastructure, which is the banks back-end system and database. So the banks system just subtracts $50 dollars from one person and adds $50 dollars to another person. But no money has moved, only information has been edited. But if I send money to someone that uses another Bank, then this bank has its own infrastructure which is independent of the first. So Bank1 tells Bank2 that they have a user that wants to send money to a user of the other bank. So Bank1 subtracts $50 from User1, and Bank2 adds $50 to User2, but now Bank1 owes Bank2 $50, why? Because you can't send money over internet. So they have to settle the difference between them with some kind of a settlement system, (cash, gold or a third party like a central bank). This difference can be the result of many transactions between many users and can be millions of dollars of worth, the settlement can be done periodically for example every 6 months.
With Bitcoin, because of how the system works, it is almost as if you can send value over internet for the first time, even though you don't really send value, you still send information, but since the infrastructure is global, it is like the first example, it is as if the world has (one large bank infrastructure), that is fully automated and which no one controls.
This alone makes Bitcoin extremely valuable, because it is a trust less digital settlement layer which is extremely secure and not dependent on one particular nation or organisation.
Point 2)
There can never be more than 21 million Bitcoin. This is very hard for people to grasp. Because what do you mean there can never be more than 21 million bitcoin? It sounds like a game, such a scam... People do not understand that Bitcoin is not normal software. In normal software the developers can change the code as they want and publish the code when they want. They do not understand that Bitcoin is a software that is not like a normal software. You can't actually change the number even if the number is programmed in. Which of-course most people will deny, because it makes no sense for most people. They do not understand that even though it is theoretically possible to change it, it is practically almost impossible. It is theoretically possible for me to convince half of Sweden to burn half of their money, but practically impossible. Just because something is theoretically possible, doesn't mean that it will happen within a time frame, or even in your lifetime. In order for the 21 million supply to change, most people in the Bitcoin community needs to agree on it, which is practically impossible. Miners have to change to the new protocol and so on. Not going to happen.
When gold treasures were lost in the past, someone else could find them. Gold practically never completely disappears, it is a chemical element. With Bitcoin, once it is lost it is practically lost forever (put aside quantum computing for now and other theoretical unforeseeable events). 21 million is only the upper theoretical limit. Bitcoin will be more and more scarce as time goes by. Gold is not like this. Gold has an inflation rate of 1,5% every year. The reason it is constant is because even if the stock gets bigger, the flow into the stock also gets bigger because of better mining capabilities, so you can look at it as constant inflation of 1.5% every year. With Bitcoin, not only do the stock to flow ratio go up every halvening, and the flow into bitcoin not only decreases with time, but almost goes into negative because of lost coins every year. This is completely insane and people do not understand this. If you combine this almost deflationary nature of Bitcoin with extreme bullish market sentiment then you will realize that no one knows what is going to happen in the future because wrapping your head around all this and to come to a conclusion about the Bitcoin price will make you sound absolutely delusional to most people.
Point 3)
People think that $100,000 bitcoin is wishful thinking and that there is not enough money in the world for Bitcoin to be worth millions of dollars. Which I can assure you is false. Bitcoin can even be worth $50 million dollars per coin, which would make 2 satoshi 1 dollar. Even if one Bitcoin transaction would cost 10 000 Satoshi. You might say, that's not possible, whats the point if one transaction is so expensive. Again, you don't need to actually do a transfer of money, as in the first example of point 1, virtual transactions on bank level can happen, or on Coinbase. You can send 100 satoshi to someone and pay 1 satoshi in fee "on the bank level", not on chain, banks or exchanges then will settle the difference as they want. At least with Bitcoin you have the option to be you own bank, even if that will cost you more, you still have the option. This is already happening in front of your eyes. Banks like Dutch ING, Deutsche bank, are already working on custody services for cryptocurrencies. And even exchanges want to operate as banks and exchanges like Coinbase are working to get license for this. This is already happening and it is the correct move forwards, a mix between the legacy banking system and cryptocurrencies. You can already spend your Bitcoin with Coinbase Visa Card or similar services. Most people are too lazy and stupid to operate like us with their own wallets, it is a fact well known.
In terms of the price, money inflow is not the same as market cap. Take for instance the following simple scenario. I own 100% of the shares of my own company and I decide to sell 10% of the company for 1 million USD, which will value my whole company at 10 million USD, so 1 million flow into my company leads to 10x market cap of 10 million USD. For Bitcoin to have 21 trillion market cap, Bitcoin does not need 21 trillion of money inflow. Bitcoin price is dependent on market sentiment, if the market sentiment is such that very few people want to sell their coins because the price keeps going up then you might have 100x market cap of the money inflow. So 1 billion USD in money inflow translates to 100 billion USD in market cap. The multiplier can be 10x, 2x or 50x, all depends on market sentiment and time period. So an inflow of 10 trillion USD in 10 years might lead to 100 trillion USD market cap of BTC and 5 million USD per Bitcoin.
Bitcoin value have no roof, the price might actually just keep going up and up and up and up and up. We have never had something that is absolutely scarce, and global, and seen as an alternative form of money, when the rest of the world keeps bubbling up. There is no limit on the BTC price because the whole world works with a bubbly system, and the way Bitcoin is price discovered, is a guaranteed insane BTC price in the future. Even $100 million USD per Bitcoin in 50 years before I am dead is possible.
Point 4)
Fiat does not need to die, and Bitcoin does not need to take over in order for Bitcoin to have "ridiculous price". No financial crisis is needed. Actually what you want is things to just continue as they have done in the last 10 years. No too extreme events. Just "small events" here and there. You can't change human nature, it is inevitable. Bitcoin is so ingrained into our world that there is no way back. There will be people with whole Bitcoin, and people without. Just like people with gold and stock investments and real estate, and people without those things. No insane events, this is all normal.
Point 5)
Bitcoin has won as the financial cryptocurrency. No flippening will happen. The only flippening will be with gold and fiat currencies. If I wanted to, I could have developed a system like PayPal in 1 month time, and it would be able to do 5000 transactions per second because I would use MySQL and SSD, but no one would use my service because they would not trust me because they have no idea who I am and what my service is, and there is no one to send money too, so the network is not there. Bitcoin has won because security and network effect is way more important than transactions per second. Transactions per second will be dealt with on bank level, exchange level, or layer 2 solutions. This is already clear to me. Bitcoin has won.
Point 6)
In order to understand Bitcoin and what will happen in the future, you have to be able to see things that are not in front of you. You can't compare Bitcoin to Tulip mania, or even Gold. Because something like Bitcoin has never existed before and you have to think about it's properties and try to understand it with human nature and with how the world works and how everything keeps increasing, and Bitcoin is the thing that does not increase in supply. You will eventually accept the unnatural thought of Bitcoin never stopping going up in value, which is something that is hard to come to terms with, because it feels unnatural, "and it could not possibly be so".
Point 7)
The Gini coefficient of Bitcoin is not a big deal. I used to think that it was unfair that some people had 1,000 BTC, 10,000 BTC, or even 50,000 BTC. And I was afraid that they might dump their coins into the market and crash it. I have now realised that these people are smart people and they think like me, and they won't just dump their whole BTC holding on the market as that might be a very bad move for them. It is like when a majority holder of a company, like Jeff Bezos and Amazon, understands that he can't sell all of his shares in one go as that would effect Amazon stock value too much and would not be smart. It is best to sell when the price goes up, but then when they sell the BTC will just be eaten up by other people, and they will be at a loss in the longer term. And the other thing is that perhaps there is no other smart place to put that fiat money, Bitcoin might just be the best place to keep those amounts of money. Someone with a very large holding has two options. He can either sell his BTC, in which case the price would go down but the Bitcoin would be spread out between potentially thousands of new users, or he might decide to never sell. If he decides to never sell, it is as if those Bitcoins are lost forever and that is good for the Bitcoin price and Bitcoin in general. If he decides to sell then Bitcoin will be divided more equally among many users which is also a good thing for Bitcoin because that increases the network effect, and after he sells he no longer has the power to drive the price down, but now he sits on a very large fiat holding, he might even buy back at a higher price and drive the price higher. I know that if I had 10,000 BTC, I would sell 1,000 BTC and buy a house and a car and whatever I wanted, and sell another 1,000 BTC to diversify into some other assets. And keep 8,000 BTC because I don't know of anywhere else to put that kind of money into good work. I believe in Bitcoin so as an investor it makes sense to keep it here. I probably would never sell because I would never need anything else after the initial 1,000 BTC sell.
Bitcoin is like a black hole that sucks in the Earths monetary resources over time. Most people that bought really early and were smart enough to hold all the way to these prices will only sell what they need to sell and keep the rest in BTC. Some of them might want to speculate and try to time the ATH, only to buy back in with most of the fiat they sold. Which means that even if money goes out of the market, it only goes out of the market temporarily, only to get back in at hopefully lower prices. And so the market grows, and grows and grows over time.
Point 8)
Bitcoin has intrinsic value. When people like Peter Schiff say that gold has intrinsic value because gold can be used in electronics and aviation and therefore gold has value but Bitcoin has no value because it has no intrinsic value, you have to take a pause and do some critical thinking. Can you imagine 16th century pirates looking to find a gold treasure worth an insane amount because they knew gold had value because of electronics and aviation? This is clearly absurd. Gold has been used as money for thousands of years and electronics and aviation was not even a thing 150 years ago. Gold has value because it is globally scarce. Bitcoin is absolutely verifiable scarce. Bitcoin has intrinsic value because of it's monetary policy and because you can carry millions of dollars of value by remembering only 24 words in your head, and carry that value wherever you want and no one can stop you, that is intrinsic value.
People had a hard time understanding that a website like Facebook could be worth billions of dollars, because it was not physical, it was "just a website". Even a website like Google search is not physical and still it has immense value. It is valuable information and it provides a good service, and that has value, it does not have to be physical and tangible.
submitted by 21btc to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

r/Bitcoin recap - July 2019

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the 31st monthly Bitcoin news recap.
For those unfamiliar, 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.
You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in July 2019
Adoption
Development
Security
Mining
Business
Education
Regulation & Politics
Archeology (Financial Incumbents)
Price & Trading
Fun & Other
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

IOTA and Tangle discussion/info, scam or not?

In the past weeks I heard a lot pros and cons about IOTA, many of them I believe were not true (I'll explain better). I would like to start a serious discussion about IOTA and help people to get into it. Before that I'll contribute with what I know, most things that I will say will have a source link providing some base content.
 
The pros and cons that I heard a lot is listed below, I'll discuss the items marked with *.
Pros
Cons
 

Scalability

Many users claim that the network infinitely scales, that with more transactions on the network the faster it gets. This is not entirely true, that's why we are seeing the network getting congested (pending transactions) at the moment (12/2017).
The network is composed by full-nodes (stores all transactions), each full-node is capable of sending transactions direct to the tangle. An arbitrary user can set a light-node (do not store all transactions, therefore a reduced size), but as it does not stores all transactions and can't decide if there are conflicting transactions (and other stuff) it needs to connect to a full-node (bitifinex node for example) and then request for the full-node to send a transaction to the tangle. The full-node acts like a bridge for a light-node user, the quantity of transactions at the same time that a full-node can push to the tangle is limited by its brandwidth.
What happens at the moment is that there are few full-nodes, but more important than that is: the majority of users are connected to the same full-node basically. The full-node which is being used can't handle all the requested transactions by the light-nodes because of its brandwidth. If you are a light-node user and is experiencing slow transactions you need to manually select other node to get a better performance. Also, you need to verify that the minimum weight magnitude (difficulty of the Hashcash Proof of Work) is set to 14 at least.
The network seems to be fine and it scales, but the steps an user has to make/know are not friendly-user at all. It's necessary to understand that the technology envolved is relative new and still in early development. Do not buy iota if you haven't read about the technology, there is a high chance of you losing your tokens because of various reasons and it will be your own fault. You can learn more about how IOTA works here.
There are some upcoming solutions that will bring the user-experience to a new level, The UCL Wallet (expected to be released at this month, will talk about that soon and how it will help the network) and the Nelson CarrIOTA (this week) besides the official implementations to come in december.
 

Centralization

We all know that currently (2017) IOTA depends on the coordinator because the network is still in its infancy and because of that it is considered centralized by the majority of users.
The coordinator are several full-nodes scattered across the world run by the IOTA foundation. It creates periodic Milestones (zero value transactions which reference valid transactions) which are validated by the entire network. The coordinator sets the general direction for the tangle growth. Every node verifies that the coordinator is not breaking consensus rules by creating iotas out of thin air or approving double-spendings, nodes only tells other nodes about transactions that are valid, if the Coordinator starts issuing bad Milestones, nodes will reject them.
The coordinator is optional since summer 2017, you can choose not implement it in your full-node, any talented programmer could replace Coo logic in IRI with Random Walk Monte Carlo logic and go without its milestones right now. A new kind of distributed coordinator is about to come and then, for the last, its completely removal. You can read more about the coordinator here and here.

Mining-Blockchain-based Cryptocurrencies

These are blockchain-based cryptocurrencies (Bitcoin) that has miners to guarantee its security. Satoshi Nakamoto states several times in the Bitcoin whitepaper that "The system is secure as long as honest nodes collectively control more CPU power than any cooperating group of attacker nodes". We can see in Blockchain.info that nowadays half of the total hashpower in Bitcoin is controlled by 3 companies (maybe only 1 in the future?). Users must trust that these companies will behave honestly and will not use its 50%> hashpower to attack the network eventually. With all that said it's reasonable to consider the IOTA network more decentralized (even with the coordinator) than any mining-blockchain-based cryptocurrency
You can see a comparison between DAG cryptocurrencies here
 

IOTA partnerships

Some partnerships of IOTA foundation with big companies were well known even when they were not officialy published. Some few examples of confirmed partnerships are listed below, others cofirmed partnerships can be seem in the link Partnerships with big companies at the pros section.
So what's up with all alarming in social media about IOTA Foundation faking partnerships with big companies like Microsoft and Cisco?
At Nov. 28th IOTA Foundation announced the Data Marketplace with 30+ companies participating. Basically it's a place for any entity sell data (huge applications, therefore many companies interested), at time of writing (11/12/2017) there is no API for common users, only companies in touch with IOTA Foundation can test it.
A quote from Omkar Naik (Microsoft worker) depicted on the Data Marketplace blog post gave an idea that Microsoft was in a direct partnership with IOTA. Several news websites started writing headlines "Microsoft and IOTA launches" (The same news site claimed latter that IOTA lied about partnership with Microsoft) when instead Microsoft was just one of the many participants of the Data Marketplace. Even though it's not a direct partnership, IOTA and Microsoft are in close touch as seen in IOTA Microsoft and Bosch meetup december 12th, Microsoft IOTA meetup in Paris 14th and Microsoft Azure adds 5 new Blockchain partners (may 2016). If you join the IOTA Slack channel you'll find out that there are many others big companies in close touch with IOTA like BMW, Tesla and other companies. This means that right now there are devs of IOTA working directly with scientists of these companies to help them integrate IOTA on their developments even though there is no direct partnership published, I'll talk more about the use cases soon.
We are excited to partner with IOTA foundation and proud to be associated with its new data marketplace initiative... - Omkar Naik
 

IOTA's use cases

Every cryptocurrency is capable of being a way to exchange goods, you pay for something using the coin token and receive the product. Some of them are more popular or have faster transactions or anonymity while others offers better scalablity or user-friendness. But none of them (except IOTA) are capable of transactioning information with no costs (fee-less transactions), in an securely form (MAM) and being sure that the network will not be harmed when it gets more adopted (scales). These characteristics open the gates for several real world applications, you probably might have heard of Big Data and how data is so important nowadays.
Data sets grow rapidly - in part because they are increasingly gathered by cheap and numerous information-sensing Internet of things devices such as mobile devices, aerial (remote sensing), software logs, cameras, microphones, radio-frequency identification (RFID) readers and wireless sensor networks.
 
It’s just the beginning of the data period. Data is going to be so important for human life in the future. So we are now just starting. We are a big data company, but compared to tomorrow, we are nothing. - Jack Ma (Alibaba)
There are enormous quantities of wasted data, often over 99% is lost to the void, that could potentially contain extremely valuable information if allowed to flow freely in data streams that create an open and decentralized data lake that is accessible to any compensating party. Some of the biggest corporations of the world are purely digital like Google, Facebook and Amazon. Data/information market will be huge in the future and that's why there so many companies interested in what IOTA can offer.
There are several real world use cases being developed at the moment, many of them if successful will revolutionize the world. You can check below a list of some of them.
Extra
These are just few examples, there are a lot more ongoing and to explore.
 

IOTA Wallet (v2.5.4 below)

For those who have read a lot about IOTA and know how it works the wallet is fine, but that's not the case for most users. Issues an user might face if decide to use the current wallet:
Problems that could be easily avoided with a better understand of the network/wallet or with a better wallet that could handle these issues. As I explained before, some problems during the "congestion" of the network could be simply resolved if stuff were more user-friendly, this causes many users storing their iotas on exchanges which is not safe either.
The upcoming (dec 2017) UCL Wallet will solve most of these problems. It will switch between nodes automatically and auto-reattach transactions for example (besides other things). You can have full a overview of it here and here. Also, the upcoming Nelson CarrIOTA will help on automatic peer discovery for users setup their nodes more easily.
 

IOTA Vulnerability issue

On sept 7th 2017 a team from MIT reported a cryptographic issue on the hash function Curl. You can see the full response of IOTA members below.
Funds were never in danger as such scenarios depicted on the Neha's blogpost were not pratically possible and the arguments used on the blogpost had'nt fundamentals, all the history you can check by yourself on the responses. Later it was discovered that the whole Neha Narula's team were envolved in other concurrent cryptocurrency projects
Currently IOTA uses the relatively hardware intensive NIST standard SHA-3/Keccak for crucial operations for maximal security. Curl is continuously being audited by more cryptographers and security experts. Recenlty IOTA Foundation hired Cybercrypt, the world leading lightweight cryptography and security company from Denmark to take the Curl cryptography to its next maturation phase.
 
It took me a couple of days to gather the informations presented, I wanted it to make easier for people who want to get into it. It might probably have some mistakes so please correct me if I said something wrong. Here are some useful links for the community.
This is my IOTA donation address, in case someone wants to donate I will be very thankful. I truly believe in this project's potential.
I9YGQVMWDYZBLHGKMTLBTAFBIQHGLYGSAGLJEZIV9OKWZSHIYRDSDPQQLTIEQEUSYZWUGGFHGQJLVYKOBWAYPTTGCX
 
This is a donation address, if you want to do the same you might pay attention to some important details:
  • Create a seed for only donation purposes.
  • Generate a address and publish it for everyone.
  • If you spend any iota you must attach a new address to the tangle and refresh your donation address published before to everyone.
  • If someone sends iota to your previous donation address after you have spent from it you will probably lose the funds that were sent to that specific address.
  • You can visualize how addresses work in IOTA here and here.
This happens because IOTA uses Winternitz one-time signature to become quantum resistent. Every time you spend iota from a address, part of the private key of that specific address is revealed. This makes easier for attackers to steal that address balance. Attackers can search if an address has been reused on the tangle explorer and try to brute force the private key since they already know part of it.
submitted by mvictordbz to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

r/Bitcoin recap - November 2018

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the 23rd monthly Bitcoin news recap.
For those unfamiliar, 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.
You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in November 2018
Adoption
Development
Security
Mining
Business
Research
Education
Regulation & Politics
Archeology (Financial Incumbents)
Price & Trading
Fun & Other
Congratulations Bitcoin on about to be 1 Million subscribers! See you next month!
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

January 2017 - r/bitcoin recap

At the start of this month I made a post about the first week in bitcoin.
People seemed to like it, so I figured I'd do it for the whole month. I stop by here daily anyways.
For each day I basically picked out what seemed to be the most interesting news.
Let me know if you think I missed something. If people liked it, I can do it again next month.
A recap of January 2017 in bitcoin
Note: Scalability was discussed on literally every day, hence why it wasn't included in the list.
Thank you to everyone who is contributing to this exciting space!
Friendly reminder for February: Regardless of what size someone prefers their blocks or whether they like their cutlery hard or soft, don't be hostile to them. Insulting people is a bad way to convince them you're right. Let's focus on constructive, civilized discussion.
Edit: After a lot of positive feedback, I will definitely continue to do this. I'll add an archive on my site so nothing gets lost and I can add more links so the post doesn't get auto-moderated out each time.
Additionally, some people have asked to tip me. Whatever you were planning to send me, please donate it to Wikipedia instead!
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

In case you missed it: Major Crypto and Blockchain News from the week ending 12/14/2018

Developments in Financial Services

Regulatory Environment

General News


submitted by QuantalyticsResearch to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Agustín Carstens, General Manager of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS, the central bank of central banks) on Cryptocurrencies today

I'd like to hear your thoughts on his lecture held today at the Goethe University in Frankfurt, Germany.
Read the full transcript here or via pdf link. https://www.bis.org/speeches/sp180206.pdf
1/10 Money in the digital age: what role for central banks? Lecture by Agustín Carstens General Manager, Bank for International Settlements House of Finance, Goethe University Frankfurt, 6 February 2018
Introduction Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for that kind introduction, Jens. I am very happy to be here at this prestigious university and to be part of this impressive lecture series sponsored by Sustainable Architecture for Finance in Europe (SAFE), the Center for Financial Studies (CFS) and the Deutsche Bundesbank. I would also like to thank Professor Brigitte Haar for being such a generous host today. It is an honour to discuss money at an event organised by the Bundesbank, which has been a beacon of stability since its foundation some 60 years ago. As Jens can attest, being a central banker is a fascinating job. In fact, it is a privilege. During the last decade it has been anything but quiet in the central banking world. We have been confronted with extraordinary circumstances that have required extraordinary policy responses. In such an environment, it has been of the utmost importance to share experiences and lessons learnt among central banks, creating a body of knowledge that will be there for the future. One of the reasons that central bank Governors from all over the world gather in Basel every two months is precisely to discuss issues at the front and centre of the policy debate. Following the Great Financial Crisis, many hours have been spent discussing the design and implications of, for example, unconventional monetary policies such as quantitative easing and negative interest rates. Lately, we have seen a bit of a shift, to issues at the very heart of central banking. This shift is driven by developments at the cutting edge of technology. While it has been bubbling under the surface for years, the meteoric rise of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies has led us to revisit some fundamental questions that touch on the origin and raison d’être for central banks: • What is money? • What constitutes good money, and where do cryptocurrencies fit in? • And, finally, what role should central banks play? The thrust of my lecture will be that, at the end of the day, money is an indispensable social convention backed by an accountable institution within the State that enjoys public trust. Many things have served as money, but experience suggests that something widely accepted, reliably provided and stable in its command over goods and services works best. Experience has also shown that to be credible, money requires institutional backup, which is best provided by a central bank. While central banks’ actions and services will evolve with technological developments, the rise of cryptocurrencies only highlights the important role central banks have played, and continue to play, as stewards of public trust. Private digital tokens posing as currencies, such as bitcoin and other crypto-assets that have mushroomed of late, must not endanger this trust in the fundamental value and nature of money.
What is money? “What is money?” is obviously a key question for any central banker, and one on which economists have spent much ink. The answer depends on how deep and philosophical one wants to be. Being at a university, especially one named after Goethe, I think I can err on the side of being philosophical. Conventional wisdom tells you that “money is what money does”.1 That is, money is a unit of account, a means of payment and a store of value. But telling you what something does does not really tell you what it is. And it certainly does not tell you why we need or have money, how it comes about and what the preconditions are for it to exist. In terms of the “need” for money, you may learn that money is a way to get around the general lack of double coincidence of wants. That is, it is rare that I have what you want and you have what I want at the same time. As barter is definitely not an efficient way of organising an economy, money is demanded as a tool to facilitate exchange. What about the other side of the coin, so to speak? How does money come about? Again, conventional wisdom may tell you that central banks provide money, ie cash (coins and notes), and commercial banks supply deposits. But this answer is often not fully satisfactory, as it does not tell why and how banks should be the one to “create” money. If you venture into more substantive analyses on monetary economics, things get more complex. One theory, which proposes that “money is memory”, amounts to arguing that a “superledger” can facilitate exchange just like money. This argument says a ledger is a way of keeping track of not only who has what but also who owes, and is owed, what. I will come back to this later. Moving beyond this line of thought, other scholarly and historical analyses provide answers that are more philosophical. These often amount to “money is a convention” – one party accepts it as payment in the expectation that others will also do so.2 Money is an IOU, but a special one because everyone in the economy trusts that it will be accepted by others in exchange for goods and services. One might say money is a “we all owe you”. Many things have served as money in this way. Figure 1 gives some examples: Yap stones, gold coins, cigarettes in war times, $100,000 bills, wissel (Wechsel), ie bills of exchange or bearer notes, such as those issued by the Bank of Amsterdam in the first half of the 17th century. It includes an example from my own country, Aztec hoe (or axe) money, a form of (unstamped) money made of copper used in central Mexico and parts of Central America. 1 See J Hicks, Critical essays in monetary theory, 1979. 2 See D Lewis, Convention: a philosophical study, 1969.
Common to most of these examples is that the nominal value of the items that have served at one time as money is unrelated to their intrinsic value. Indeed, as we know very well in the case of fiat money, the intrinsic value of most of its representations is zero. History shows that money as a convention needs to have a basis of trust, supported by some form of institutional arrangement.3 As Curzio Giannini puts it: “The evolution of monetary institutions appears to be above all the fruit of a continuous dialogue between economic and political spheres, with each taking turns to create monetary innovations … and to safeguard the common interest against abuse stemming from partisan interests.”4 Money can come in different institutional forms and colours. How to organise them? The paper by Bech and Garratt in last September’s BIS Quarterly Review presented the money flower as a way of organising monies in today’s environment.5 It acknowledges that money can take on rather different forms and be supplied in various ways. The money flower Allow me to explain, noting that we do not sell seeds to this money flower! 3 Fiat means “by law“. So, in principle, it should be said that money exists by convention or by law. But if trust in money does not prevail, the legal mandate that conveys value to money becomes meaningless. 4 C Giannini, The age of central banks, 2011. 5 M Bech and R Garratt, “Central bank cryptocurrencies”, BIS Quarterly Review, September 2017, pp 55–70.
The money flower highlights four key properties on the supply side of money: the issuer, the form, the degree of accessibility and the transfer mechanism. • The issuer can be either the central bank or “other”. “Other” includes nobody, that is, a particular type of money that is not the liability of anyone. • In terms of the form it takes, money is either electronic or physical. • Accessibility refers to how widely the type of money is available. It can either be wide or limited. • Transfer mechanism can either be a central intermediary or peer-to-peer, meaning transactions occur directly between the payer and the payee without the need for a central intermediary. Let us look at where some common types of money fit into the flower, starting with cash (or bank notes) as we know it today. Cash is issued by the central bank, is not electronic, is available to everyone and is peer-to-peer. I do not need a trusted third party such as Jens to help me pay each of you 10 euros. Let us try another one: bank deposits. They are not the liability of the central bank, mostly electronic, and in most countries available to most people, but clearly not peer-to-peer. Transferring resources from a bank deposit requires the involvement of at least your own bank, perhaps the central bank and the recipient’s bank. Think here not only of commercial bank deposits but also bills, eg non-interest bearing (bearer) certificates, issued privately, as in the case of the Bank of Amsterdam mentioned earlier. Local or regional currencies are the ones that can be spent in a particular geographical location at participating organisations. They tend to be physical. The túmin, for example, was a local currency circulating (illegally) for some time around 2010 exclusively in the Mexican municipality of Espinal. What does digitalisation mean for the flower? Digitalisation is nothing new: financial services and most forms of money have been largely digital for many years. Much of the ongoing transformation is just adding a mobile version for many services, which means that the device becomes a virtual extension of the institution. As such, there is not a new model. The money flower then also easily accommodates these forms.
That is also the case for the digital, account-based forms of money that central banks traditionally have made available to commercial banks and, in some instances, to certain other financial or public institutions (ie bank reserves). It would also be the case if the central bank were to issue digital money to the wider public for general purposes. Each central bank will have to make its own decision on whether issuing digital money is desirable, after considering factors such as the structure of the financial system and underlying preferences for privacy. The central bank community is actively analysing this issue. A potentially important and leapfrogging digital-related development, however, is distributed ledger technology (DLT), the basis for Bitcoin. Many think DLT could transform financial service provision, maybe first wholesale, then possibly retail. For example, it could enhance settlement efficiency involving securities and derivatives transactions. A few central banks have conducted experiments in this area, for example the Bank of Canada, the Bundesbank, the Monetary Authority of Singapore and the Bank of England.6 Yet doubts remain regarding the maturity of DLT and the size of associated efficiency gains relative to existing technologies. Moreover, their robustness, including to cyber-risk, is still to be fully understood and ascertained. Still, there are potential benefits, and I expect that central banks will remain engaged on this topic.7 For now, DLT is largely used to “create” bitcoin and other digital currencies. Such cryptocurrencies can be placed easily in the money flower. Nobody issues them, they are not physical and they are peer-to-peer. But beyond that, how should one think about them? What constitutes good money? Just because we are able to find a place for bitcoin in our money flower does not mean we should consider it as “good” money. As I mentioned before, trust is the fundamental tenet that underpins credible currencies, and this trust has to be earned and supported. There are many lessons from history and institutional economics on the earning of trust that we can use as we move further into digitalisation.8 Over the ages, many forms of private money have come and gone. It is fair to say that the same has happened with various experiments with public money (that is, money issued by a public entity that is not the central bank). While some lasted longer than others, most have invariably given way to some form of central bank money. The main reason for their disappearance is that the “incentives to cheat” are simply too high. Let me give three historical examples: one in Germany, another in the United States and the last one in Mexico. In Germany, the Thirty Years War (1618–48), involving small German states of the Holy Roman Empire and neighbouring regional powers, was associated with one of the most severe economic crises ever recorded, with rampant hyperinflation – just as happened three centuries later during the Weimar Republic – and the breakdown of trade and economic activity. The crisis became known as the Kipper- und Wipperzeit (the clipping and culling times), after the practice of clipping coins (shaving metal from their circumference) and sorting good coins from bad. This morning, we are launching a BIS Working Paper, by Professor Isabel Schnabel and BIS Economic Adviser Hyun Song Shin, which further details and explains this experience, as background to my speech. 6 See Bech and Garratt, op cit. 7 See Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures, Distributed ledger technology in payment, clearing and settlement: an analytical framework, February 2017. 8 See D North, Institutions, institutional change and economic performance, 1990.
While episodes of currency debasement have occurred throughout history, this one stands out for two reasons. First is the severity of the crisis and its rapid regional spread. Debasement proceeded at such a pace that public authorities quickly lost control of the downward spiral. Second is how the debasement was brought under control. This occurred through standardisation of wholesale payments by public deposit banks, for example the Bank of Hamburg and the Bank of Amsterdam. These were in many ways examples of the precursors of modern central banks. As the working paper argues, monetary order could be brought to an otherwise chaotic situation by providing reliable payment means through precursors to central bank money, which at the end means the use of a credible institutional arrangement. In the period in the United States known as the Free Banking Era, from 1837 to 1863, many banks sprang up that issued currency with no oversight of any kind by the federal government.10 These so-called free bank notes did not work very well as a medium of exchange. Given that there were so many banks of varying reputations issuing notes, they sold at different prices in different places, making transactions quite complicated. And as supervision was largely absent, banks had limited restraint in issuing notes and did not back them up sufficiently with specie (gold or silver), thereby debasing their values. This era of “wildcat banking” ended up being a long and costly period of banking instability in the history of the US, with banking panics and major disruptions to economic activity. It was, after some further hiccups, followed by the establishment of the Federal Reserve System in 1913. Let me present a final example, from Mexican monetary history. A little known fact is that Mexico had the first series of hyperinflations at the beginning of the 20th century. My country had a revolution from 1910 to 1921, in which no central government existed in an effective way, with many factions fighting and disputing different territories. A winning faction would arrive in a territory, print its own money and make void previously issued cash. So different bills issued by different factions coexisted, leading to chaos and hyperinflation. To give you an idea of the disorder, in 2015 four trunks full of bills were returned to Mexico after having been appropriated by the US Navy in 1914, when the US occupied the port city of Veracruz. In the trunks, the Bank of Mexico discovered dozens of types of bills that the central bank had not even known existed.11 At the end of the conflict, a new constitution was drafted, having as a central article one which gave the Bank of Mexico the appropriate institutional framework, designating it the exclusive issuer of currency in the country. Once this was in place, hyperinflation ceased, illustrating the importance of controlling fiscal dominance (which tends to be the result of the abuse of publicly issued money). Based on these experiences, most observers, and I suspect all of you here, would agree that laissez-faire is not a good approach in banking or in the issuance of money. Indeed, the paradigm of strict bank regulation and supervision and central banks overseeing the financial and monetary system that has emerged over the last century or so has proven to be the most effective way to avoid the instability and high economic costs associated with the proliferation of private and public monies. 9 I Schnabel and H S Shin, “Money and trust: lessons from the 1620s for money in the digital age”, BIS Working Papers, no 698, February 2018. 10 See G Dwyer, “Wildcat banking, banking panics, and free banking in the United States”, Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review, vol 81, nos 3–6, 1996; A Rolnick and W Weber, “New evidence of the free banking era”, The American Economic Review, vol 73, no 5, December 1983, pp 1080–91; and C Calomiris, “Banking crises yesterday and today”, Financial History Review, vol 17, no 1, 2010, pp 3–12. 11 See Bank of Mexico, “La SRE entregó al Banco de México un acervo de billetes de la época del porfiriato”, press release, 1 June 2015, www.banxico.org.mx/informacion-para-la-prensa/comunicados/billetes-y-monedas/billetes/%7B3A41E6F8-FBD8-2FA7-DA0B-66FCCE46430A%7D.pdf.
The unhappy experience with private forms of money raises deep questions about whether the proliferation of cryptocurrencies is desirable or sustainable. Even if the supply of one type of cryptocurrency is limited, the mushrooming of so many of them means that the total supply of all forms of cryptocurrency is unlimited. Added to this is the practice of “forking”, where an offshoot of an existing cryptocurrency can be conjured up from thin air. Given the experience with currency debasement that has peppered history, the proliferation of such private monies should give everyone pause for thought. I will return to this shortly. We have learned over the centuries that money as a social institution requires a solution to the problem of a lack of trust.12 The central banks that often emerged in the wake of the private and public money collapses may not have looked like the ones we have today, but they all had some institutional backing. The forms of this backing for their issuance of money have differed over time and by country.13 Commodity money has often been the start. History shows that gold and other precious metals stored in the vault with governance (and physical) safeguards can provide some assurance. Commodity money is not the only or necessarily sufficient mechanism. Often it also required a city-, state- or nation-provided charter, as with the emergence of giro banks in many European countries. Later, the willingness of central banks to convert money for gold at a fixed price (the gold standard) was the mechanism. Currency boards, where local money is issued one-to-one with changes in foreign currency holdings, can also work to provide credibility. The tried, trusted and resilient modern way to provide confidence in public money is the independent central bank. This means legal safeguards and agreed goals, ie clear monetary policy objectives, operational, instrument and administrative independence, together with democratic accountability to ensure broad-based political support and legitimacy. While not fully immune from the temptation to cheat, central banks as an institution are hard to beat in terms of safeguarding society’s economic and political interest in a stable currency. Where do cryptocurrencies fit in? One could argue that bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies’ attractiveness lies in an intelligent application of DLT. DLT provides a method to broadcast transactions publicly and pseudonymously in a way that achieves in principle ledger immutability.14 Who would have thought that having people guessing solutions to what was described to me by a techie as the mathematical equivalent of mega-sudokus would be a way to generate consensus among strangers around the world through a proof of work? Does it thus provide a novel solution to the problem of how to generate trust among people who do not know each other? If DLT provides the potential for a superledger, could bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies then substitute for some forms of money?15 We do not have the full answers, but at this time the answer, also in the light of historical experiences, is probably a sound no, for many reasons. In fact, we are seeing the type of cracks and cheating that brought down other private currencies starting to appear in the House of Bitcoin. As an institution, Bitcoin has some obvious flaws. 12 See M King, “The institutions of monetary policy”, speech at the American Economic Association Annual Meeting, San Diego, 4 January 2004. 13 See Giannini, op cit. 14 See Committee on Payments and Market Infrastructures, op cit. 15 See N Kocherlakota, “Money is memory”, Journal of Economic Theory, vol 81, pp 232–51, 1998. In fact, he shows in a very stark setting that having a costless means to record the memory of all economic actors, both present and past, can do as much as money, and sometimes more. Conversely, money effectively functions as memory by providing an observable record of past transactions – that is, agents can tell whether a potential trader is running a current deficit or surplus with society by looking at the money balances that trader is carrying. The finding, however, is theoretical and not robust to slight changes in assumptions, including the risk of loss of data.
Debasement. As I mentioned, we may be seeing the modern-day equivalent of clipping and culling. In Bitcoin, these take the form of forks, a type of spin-off in which developers clone Bitcoin’s software, release it with a new name and a new coin, after possibly adding a few new features or tinkering with the algorithms’ parameters. Often, the objective is to capitalise on the public’s familiarity with Bitcoin to make some serious money, at least virtually. Last year alone, 19 Bitcoin forks came out, including Bitcoin Cash, Bitcoin Gold and Bitcoin Diamond. Forks can fork again, and many more could happen. After all, it just takes a bunch of smart programmers and a catchy name. As in the past, these modern-day clippings dilute the value of existing ones, to the extent such cryptocurrencies have any economic value at all. Trust. As the saying goes, trust takes years to build, seconds to break and forever to repair. Historical experiences suggest that these “assets” are probably not sustainable as money. Cryptocurrencies are not the liability of any individual or institution, or backed by any authority. Governance weaknesses, such as the concentration of their ownership, could make them even less trustworthy. Indeed, to use them often means resorting to an intermediary (for example, the bitcoin exchanges) to which one has to trust one’s money. More generally, they piggyback on the same institutional infrastructure that serves the overall financial system and on the trust that it provides. This reflects their challenge to establish their own trust in the face of cyber-attacks, loss of customers’ funds, limits on transferring funds and inadequate market integrity. Inefficiency. Novel technology is not the same as better technology or better economics. That is clearly the case with Bitcoin: while perhaps intended as an alternative payment system with no government involvement, it has become a combination of a bubble, a Ponzi scheme and an environmental disaster. The volatility of bitcoin renders it a poor means of payment and a crazy way to store value. Very few people use it for payments or as a unit of account. In fact, at a major cryptocurrency conference the registration fee could not be paid with bitcoins because it was too costly and slow: only conventional money was accepted. To the extent they are used, bitcoins and their cousins seem more attractive to those who want to make transactions in the black or illegal economy, rather than everyday transactions. In a way, this should not be surprising, since individuals who massively evade taxes or launder money are the ones who are willing to live with cryptocurrencies’ extreme price volatility. In practice, central bank experiments show that DLT-based systems are very expensive to run and slower and much less efficient to operate than conventional payment and settlement systems. The electricity used in the process of mining bitcoins is staggering, estimated to be equal to the amount Singapore uses every day in electricity,16 making them socially wasteful and environmentally bad. Therefore, the current fascination with these cryptocurrencies seems to have more to do with a speculative mania than any use as a form of electronic payment, except for illegal activities. Accordingly, authorities are edging closer and closer to clamping down to contain the risks related to cryptocurrencies. There is a strong case for policy intervention. As now noted by many securities markets and regulatory and supervisory agencies, these assets can raise concerns related to consumer and investor protection. Appropriate authorities have a duty to educate and protect investors and consumers, and need to be prepared to act. Moreover, there are concerns related to tax evasion, money laundering and criminal finance. Authorities should welcome innovation. But they have a duty to make sure technological advances are not used to legitimise profits from illegal activities. 16 See Digiconomist, “Bitcoin energy consumption index”, digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption.
What role for the central bank? Central banks, acting by themselves and/or in coordination with other financial authorities like bank regulators and supervisors, ministries of finance, tax agencies and financial intelligence units, may also need to act, given their roles in providing money services and safeguarding money’s real value. Working with commercial banks, authorities have a part to play in policing the digital frontier. Commercial banks are on the front line since they are the ones settling trades, providing real liquidity, keeping exchanges going and interacting with customers. It is alarming that some banks have advertised “bitcoin ATMs” where you can buy and sell bitcoins. Authorities need to ensure commercial banks do not facilitate unscrupulous behaviours. Central banks need to safeguard payment systems. To date, Bitcoin is not functional as a means of payment, but it relies on the oxygen provided by the connection to standard means of payments and trading apps that link users to conventional bank accounts. If the only “business case” is use for illicit or illegal transactions, central banks cannot allow such tokens to rely on much of the same institutional infrastructure that serves the overall financial system and freeload on the trust that it provides. Authorities should apply the principle that the Basel Process has adhered to for years: to provide a level playing field to all participants in financial markets (banks and non-banks alike), while at the same time fostering innovative, secure and competitive markets. In this context, this means, among other things, ensuring that the same high standards that money transfer and payment service providers have to meet are also met by Bitcoin-type exchanges. It also means ensuring that legitimate banking and payment services are only offered to those exchanges and products that meet these high standards. Financial authorities may also have a case to intervene to ensure financial stability. To date, many judge that, given cryptocurrencies’ small size and limited interconnectedness, concerns about them do not rise to a systemic level. But if authorities do not act pre-emptively, cryptocurrencies could become more interconnected with the main financial system and become a threat to financial stability. Most importantly, the meteoric rise of cryptocurrencies should not make us forget the important role central banks play as stewards of public trust. Private digital tokens masquerading as currencies must not subvert this trust. As history has shown, there simply is no substitute. Still, central banks are embracing new technologies as appropriate. Many new developments can help. For example, fintech and “techfin” – which refers to established technology platforms venturing into financial services. These are changing financial service provision in many countries, most clearly in payments, and especially in some emerging market economies (for example, China and Kenya). While they introduce the possibility of non-bank financial institutions introducing money-type instruments, which raises a familiar set of regulatory questions, they do present scope for many gains. Conclusion In conclusion, while cryptocurrencies may pretend to be currencies, they fail the basic textbook definitions. Most would agree that they do not function as a unit of account. Their volatile valuations make them unsafe to rely on as a common means of payment and a stable store of value. They also defy lessons from theory and experiences. Most importantly, given their many fragilities, cryptocurrencies are unlikely to satisfy the requirement of trust to make them sustainable forms of money. While new technologies have the potential to improve our lives, this is not invariably the case. Thus, central banks must be prepared to intervene if needed. After all, cryptocurrencies piggyback on the institutional infrastructure that serves the wider financial system, gaining a semblance of legitimacy from their links to it. This clearly falls under central banks’ area of responsibility. The buck stops here. But the buck also starts here. Credible money will continue to arise from central bank decisions, taken in the light of day and in the public interest. In particular, central banks and financial authorities should pay special attention to two aspects. First, to the ties linking cryptocurrencies to real currencies, to ensure that the relationship is not parasitic. And second, to the level playing field principle. This means “same risk, same regulation”. And no exceptions allowed.
submitted by stellan0r to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Cryptocurrency Weekly Recap

submitted by QuantalyticsResearch to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Questions about technical / political / economic / "game theory" aspects of BU & ViaBTC. (1) With BU, can non-mining (full) nodes influence blocksize? (2) Should ViaBTC open-source their private relay network software? (3) Which is more anti-fragile: a ViaBTC/BU future, or a Core/SegWit future?

Some of these issues were raised briefly in today's AMA with Haipo Yang, founder and CEO of ViaBTC:
Mining vs non-mining nodes
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ddiqw/im_haipo_yang_founder_and_ceo_of_viabtc_ask_me/da3wszm/
What do you think of the influence of non-mining node operators under Bitcoin Unlimited's model for voting on maximum block size? Do you think that non-mining nodes signaling for a certain size would truly motivate miners to not exceed that size?
~ u/ChronosCrypto (Bitcoin Vlogger)
I believe that with the Bitcoin Unlimited method, the influence of non-mining nodes on the block size is very limited.
~ u/ViaBTC
ViaBTC's closed-source relay network
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5ddiqw/im_haipo_yang_founder_and_ceo_of_viabtc_ask_me/da3uvpv/
Are you using the Bitcoin FIBRE relay network bitcoinfibre.org?
~ u/core_negotiator (Note: This person is not a "Core negotiator". There is no such thing.)
No, we use our own system [which was] developed by myself. It is much better.
~ u/ViaBTC
[Have you] Thought about having that incorporated into BU (even giving access to BU miners)? I ask because looking at some of your pool's first-job times, it looks your system is quite impressive and it'd be a massive slap in the face for core's RN et al
~ u/pekatete
I am very happy that other pool would like join our network.
~ u/ViaBTC
Why don't you open source it to help improve the network?
~ u/messiano84
haha so when will you open source it?
~ u/yeh-nah-yeh
Should we be concerned that ViaBTC will have a lot of hashing power - and they will be using a private, close-source relay network?
There is probably a lot of discussion we could have on this topic.
I like ViaBTC - but it seems strange that he did not address this point very much in his AMA.
Are we going to have to "trust ViaBTC" now and "trust" their closed-source private relay network software?
This seems like this would be a point of centralization / vulnerability in the network - where ViaBTC could abuse his power, or other players could attack ViaBTC, and harm Bitcoin itself.
How does BU "signaling" work - in a non-mining (fully-validating) node, vs a mining node.
One question quoted above from the AMA was:
Do you think that non-mining nodes signaling for a certain size would truly motivate miners to not exceed that size?
I understand there are multiple parameters involved in "signaling":
  • EB = excessive blocksize
  • AD = acceptance depth
(Are there other parameters too? I can't remember.)
Here is a Medium post by ViaBTC where he proposes some strategies for setting these parameters, in order to safely hard fork to bigger blocks with BU:
Miner Guide: How to Safely Hard Fork to Bitcoin Unlimited
https://medium.com/@ViaBTC/miner-guide-how-to-safely-hard-fork-to-bitcoin-unlimited-8ac1570dc1a8#.akijaiba7
Could we have some more discussion on how "signaling for" blocksizes works - under various possible future scenarios (optimistic / pessimistic... likely / unlikely / black-swan)?
There are various future scenarios (after the network has eventually / presumably forked from Core to BU) where people could use BU's parameters to realize certain results on the network.
(1) What are some of those future scenarios?
  • economic / political / technical events which could abruptly affect Bitcoin network traffic
    • already: Chinese currency (Yuan) dropping against US currency (dollar)
    • already: India demonetizing Rs 500 and Rs 1000 notes
    • likely: major ETF getting approved in the US (Winklevoss or other)
    • possible: additional spam attacks on the Bitcoin network
    • ...from white hats (testing the system; pointing out vulnerabilities; making a statement)
    • ...from black hats (another coin; a bot-net; pro-Core and/or anti-BU users; state / corporate actors; Mircea Popescu?)
    • black swan: some government does something weird & unexpected impacting financial markets and/or Bitcoin
    • ... Trump administration : some high-level person (who's actually just an alt-right blogger that Trump hired to run some major governnent department) makes some crazy pronouncement / ruling about the internet / about the markets (FCC eliminates network neutrality? T-Bill sale fails?)
    • ... Fed : rate hike? more helicopter money?
    • ... Europe : Deutsche Bank collapses? Merkel / ECB decides to rescue / not rescue them? bail-ins?
    • ... China : China bans Bitcoin again? releases their own crypto? imposes new capital controls? Bitcoin price goes moon and CNY crashes so Chinese govt imposes emergency ban on all traffic across Great Firewall - cutting off 80% of mining from the West?
    • ... Russian hackers? some 400 pound guy on his bed? 4chan? whoever took down a big chunk of the DNS a few weeks ago?
(2) What are some possible (typical, atypical... benevolent, malicious... altruistic, selfish... defensive, proactive... pessimistic, optimistic ) BU parameter-setting strategies which people might adopt in those scenarios?
  • Which software is more safe / more dangerous... more anti-fragile / more fragile in the above scenarios?
    • Core/SegWit 1-1.7M blocksize (assuming wallet / exchange software gets upgraded for SegWit)?
    • users "signaling for" blocksize on the network using parameters in Bitcoin Unlimited?
(3) Can we start putting together a comprehensive strategic "threat (and opportunity) assessment" on those various possible future scenarios / strategies - ranking various threats (and opportunities) in terms of impact as well as probability?
  • How would the network react to threats/opportunities using BU (with most mining still concentrated in China, and maybe also concetrated on ViaBTC's private closed-source relay network)?
  • How would the network react to threats/opportunities using Core/SegWit?
(4) A lot of the discussion about BU is among miners - mostly in China - and maybe later many miners will be using the ViaBTC pool - which is also offering a cloud mining option... so perhaps it is normal & expected that most of the discussion about BU parameters revolves around miners.
  • What about non-mining (fully-validating) nodes in a BU world?
  • What about SPV clients and servers in a BU world?
  • Do non-mining (fully-validating) nodes also have some role to play in helping to set the blocksize, and helping to secure and grow the network, based on setting BU parameters? Or with BU, only the miners decide?
  • Can non-mining (fully-validating) nodes prevent blocks from getting too big?
  • How would SPV clients and servers work in a BU world? Can they actively participate in helping to decide blocksize?
(5) Does BU give miners "all the power" - and so blocksize goes to 2 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB - and then some users from low-bandwidth geographic regions can no longer run full nodes at home?
(6) If we have a period of 1-2 weeks where "bigger blocks" get mined (eg, 2 MB, or 4 MB), and then we decide we don't like it, can everyone "signal for" smaller blocks after a couple of weeks of bigger blocks? Can the chain reverts to a smaller blocksize, after a brief, one-week "bulge" of bigger blocks?
(7) If we have an isolated incident where a single very-big block gets appended to the chain & accepted to a sufficient depth (say, an 8 MB block or a 32 MB, that some miner somehow managed get accepted on the chain)
  • Can the chain revert to smaller blocks after an isolated incident of one very-big block?
  • Or are we "stuck" with that bigger blocksize forever, simply because one got mined in the past?
(8) Remember BitPay Adaptive Blocksize? One of the nice things about it was that its consensus-forming mechanism was based on taking a median of what people were signalling - and the median is a more robust statistic (harder to fake/sybil?).
Can any ideas from BitPay Adaptive Blocksize (eg, using the median) be incorporated into Bitcoin Unlimited?
These are just some initial questions.
Other people probably have many more.
Hopefully we can have some good discussion and analysis, so we can keep the network safe & growing.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Futures Falls On Chip Carnage As World Await Brexit Verdict

Stocks in Europe faded early gains and S&P futures fell after a mixed session in Asia as chip stocks were taken to the woodshed on poor guidance from Nvidia and Applied Materials sparked fears that the chip bull run is over, while investors wondered whether China and America can de-escalate their trade war after mixed signals by US officials just days before the G-20 summit.

The euro failed to rebound while the sterling halted its biggest drop in 2 years after some of the most dramatic 24 hours yet in the Brexit process and another turbulent week for world markets. With reports of a UK leadership coup still rife and fear that the country could crash out of the EU without an agreement, cable struggled to rise above $1.28.

Meanwhile traders around the world were waiting for an outcome from the ongoing Brexit saga: “If and when a vote on the withdrawal agreement occurs is uncertain. Whether the withdrawal bill is passed by both houses of Parliament is uncertain,” Joseph Capurso, a senior currency strategist at CBA, said in a note. “Whether the Prime Minister resigns or is challenged for the leadership is uncertain. And, whether there is a second referendum and/or an election is uncertain.”
Fears over political turmoil in the UK and Italy dragged Europe's Stoxx 600 back into the red, set for its first weekly drop in three, trimming Friday’s gain as AstraZeneca's drop weighed on the gauge after a cancer-drug setback while telecom names were outperforming. Utilities started the session lower in the wake of yesterday’s ECJ decision which deemed the UK’s scheme for ensuring power supplies during the winter months as a violation of state aid rules. Other individual movers include Vivendi (+4.2%) sit at the top of the Stoxx 600 after posting impressive Q3 sales metrics and announcing a potential sale of part of their Universal Music Group division. Elsewhere, AstraZeneca (-2.3%) and Shire (-1.3%) have been seen lower throughout the session after both posting disappointing drug updates.
Not helping sentiment, ECB head Mario Draghi said the bank still plans to dial back its stimulus at the end of the year, but acknowledged the economy had hit a soft patch and inflation may rise more slowly than expected. “If firms start to become more uncertain about the growth and inflation outlook, the squeeze on margins could prove more persistent,” Draghi told a conference.
Earlier in the day, Asian shares ended the session in the red (MSCI Asia -0.2% to 151.52), led lower by declines in Japan, even as China and Hong Kong rose after initial reports the United States might pause further China tariffs were denied by Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross who damped hopes of any imminent trade deal with China. The Nikkei fell 0.6% pressured by a drop in the USDJPY after China Mofcom began an investigation into alleged dumping of machine tools by Japanese firms. The Hang Seng (+0.3%) and Shanghai Comp. (+0.4%) swung between gains and losses after continued liquidity inaction by the PBoC which skipped Reverse Repos for a 16th consecutive occasion.
S&P futures were hit on fresh slowdown concerns, this time out of the semiconductochip space, after Nvidia gave a dire sales forecast, projecting a 20% drop in revenue while a disappointing outlook from Applied Materials indicated the chip industry is holding off on expansion plans in the face of a murky outlook for electronics demand. The chipmaking sector saw another bout of selling in Asia, wiping at least $11.2 billion in market value amid signals that demand for servers, personal computers and mobile is falling.

Also falling after hours were shares of AMD and Intel, dragging Nasdaq futures lower.
"It started with Apple, then Nvidia ... Since performances of these companies set the tone for the global tech and chip industries, related Japanese stocks will likely be sluggish for a while,” said Takatoshi Itoshima, a strategist at Pictet Asset Management.
The Bloomberg Dollar Spot Index was little changed after Fed Chairman Powell flagged his concern over potential headwinds for the U.S. economy, while the pound staged a modest rebound on reports that some pro-Brexit ministers decided to stay in their governmental posts. The pound gained as U.K. Prime Minister Theresa May defied demands to quit and amid reports her environment secretary wouldn’t resign, following the resignation of several ministers Thursday. The yen rallied as trade stress simmered, with investors trying to gauge whether China and the U.S. can de-escalate their dispute.
Also under water was the cryptocurrency Bitcoin, which hit a one-year trough overnight. It had tumbled 10 percent early in the week when support at $6,000 gave way. It was last changing hands at $5,500 on the Bitstamp platform.
Treasuries were steady while 10-year yields on German bonds were set for their biggest weekly fall in three weeks, in a sign that the Brexit uncertainty and worries about Italy’s finances, continued to support demand. Italian bonds edged higher even as European Commission Vice President Valdis Dombrovskis said in an interview with Il Sole 24 Ore that the country’s government was openly defying EU budget rules. Emerging-market currencies consolidated recent gains while oil prices extended their rebound.
Oil prices rose, helped by a decline in U.S. fuel stockpiles and the possibility of a cut in OPEC output. Brent (+1.3%) and WTI (+1.1%) are both in the green and continuing their rebound seen yesterday with WTI hovering around USD 57.00bbl. Energy newsflow remains light, post-yesterday's DoE report, however, Iraq’s North Oil Co. have announced that they have resumed Kiruk oil exports heading towards the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Looking ahead, the main highlight on the calendar will be the Baker Hughes rig count. Elsewhere, natural gas futures are relatively steady after their 19% decline yesterday which came in the wake of a 20% increase the day before.
In geopolitical news, US Republican and Democrat Senators filed a bipartisan bill seeking to suspend arms sales to Saudi Arabia in response to war in Yemen and killing of journalist. North Korean Leader Kim inspected test of new high-tech tactical weapons, according to Yonhap citing North Korean state media
Today's data include October industrial production and capacity utilization. Viacom is among companies reporting earnings
Market Snapshot
Top Overnight News
Asia-Pac stocks traded indecisively as the region lacked fresh catalysts and as uncertainty regarding Brexit and US-China trade played on investor’s minds. ASX 200 (-0.1%) and Nikkei 225 (-0.6%) were choppy with outperformance of tech and mining names in Australia overshadowed by a lacklustre broader market, while the Japanese benchmark was subdued by mild flows into the JPY and after China Mofcom began an investigation into alleged dumping of machine tools by Japanese firms. Elsewhere, Hang Seng (+0.3%) and Shanghai Comp. (+0.4%) swung between gains and losses after continued liquidity inaction by the PBoC which skipped OMOs for a 16th consecutive occasion, while participants were also tentative amid ongoing trade uncertainty after conflicting reports regarding the next round of China tariffs being placed on hold which USTR Lighthizer later denied. Finally, 10yr JGBs were mildly higher with prices underpinned amid an indecisive tone seen in stocks and with the BoJ also present in the market for JPY 680bln of JGBs in the belly to super-long end.
Top Asian News - China’s Kindergarten Crackdown Is the Latest Disaster for Stocks - Modi Is Said to Enlist Tata for Jet Airways Rescue Ahead of Vote - Philippines Shuts 3 Miners, Suspends 9 Others After Review - Indian Central Bank Board to Discuss Surplus Funds Transfer
European equities trade relatively flat (Eurostoxx 50 +0.2%) in the wake of mixed trade headlines overnight for the US and China. Performance across European indices is relatively equal whilst focus once again falls on the FTSE 100 (U/C) which remains at the whim of Brexit-inspired fluctuations in the GBP. Once again, potential upside for the index is being capped by losses in domestically focused banking names (RBS -3.0%, Lloyds -2.1%) as Brexit uncertainty continues to dampen investor sentiment. In terms of sector specifics, most sectors are trading higher with mild outperformance seen in telecom names. Utilities started the session lower in the wake of yesterday’s ECJ decision which deemed the UK’s scheme for ensuring power supplies during the winter months as a violation of state aid rules. Other individual movers include Vivendi (+4.2%) sit at the top of the Stoxx 600 after posting impressive Q3 sales metrics and announcing a potential sale of part of their Universal Music Group division. Elsewhere, AstraZeneca (-2.3%) and Shire (-1.3%) have been seen lower throughout the session after both posting disappointing drug updates.
Top European News
Currencies:
In commodities, gold (+0.2%) is trading relatively flat after hitting new weekly highs of USD 1218.39/oz earlier in the session; following uneventful overnight trade. Elsewhere, Shanghai Zinc prices have risen due to London Metal Exchange stockpiles falling to decade-low levels. Brent (+1.3%) and WTI (+1.1%) are both in the green and continuing their rebound seen yesterday with WTI hovering around USD 57.00bbl. Energy newsflow remains light, post-yesterday's DoE report, however, Iraq’s North Oil Co. have announced that they have resumed Kiruk oil exports heading towards the Turkish port of Ceyhan. Looking ahead, the main highlight on the calendar will be the Baker Hughes rig count. Elsewhere, natural gas futures are relatively steady after their 19% decline yesterday which came in the wake of a 20% increase the day before.
US Event Calendar
submitted by rotoreuters to zerohedge [link] [comments]

Bitcoin-Mine: Hier werden Millionen verdient  Galileo ... Best Bitcoin Mining Software That Work in 2020 🍓 - YouTube Lohnt sich MINING SOMMER 2019 ? BITCOIN - YouTube Bitcoin Miner Überblick (2019) - die Profitabelsten -BITCOIN: Mining Basics German-

Wenn Sie die Bitcoin-Software heruntergeladen und konfiguriert haben oder einem Pool beigetreten sind, besteht der nächste Schritt darin Ihre Mining-Software einzurichten. Für GPU/FPGA/ASIC Miner ist dies zurzeit etwa CGminer oder BFGMiner eine spezielle Ableitung davon für FPGA's und ASIC's. Fazit zum Mining von Bitcoin. Wenn Sie am Mining von Bitcoin interessiert sind, kann das auf lange Sicht eine sich lohnende Entscheidung sein. Sie haben die Wahl zwischen Mining mit eigener Hardware oder im Pool oder durch Cloud-Mining.Beide haben ihre Vor- und Nachteile gegenüber den Bitcoin Kauf.Grundsätzlich profitieren Sie als Miner von steigenden und stagnierenden Kursen und damit ... Sie werden erfahren, (1) wie das Bitcoin-Mining funktioniert, (2) wie man beginnt, Bitcoins zu schürfen, (3) welches die beste Software für das Bitcoin-Mining ist, (4) welches die beste Hardware für das Bitcoin-Mining ist, (5) wo Sie die besten Pools zum Bitcoin-Mining finden und (6) wie Sie Ihre Bitcoin-Einkünfte optimieren. Linux Bitcoin Mining Software. Linux kann schmal und klein gehalten werden, rennt auf einem USB Stick und es ist einfach stabil! Wenn man auf Dauer vernünftig minen möchte und auf ein sicheres System aufbauen will, dass man skallieren kann, ist man bei Linux einfach am besten aufgehoben. Darum ist Linux auch unsere Empfehlung. Die Mining Software Optionen sind weitreichend, wie bei Windows ... GUIMiner 12.12.03 Englisch: Mit der kostenlosen Software GUIMiner können Sie selbst Bitcoins minen.

[index] [4673] [36762] [35651] [41007] [2595] [16803] [50591] [35375] [43852] [26373]

Bitcoin-Mine: Hier werden Millionen verdient Galileo ...

👇 Die wichtigsten Kryptoseiten in der Beschreibung 👇 Heute stelle ich euch die besten Bitcoin Miner vor. Die Miner aus dem Video kaufen: https://miners.eu/?r... BITCOIN MINING in Deutschland Profitabel?💰Rechnung und Erklärung - Duration: 15:15. Chris Rzepka 87,372 views. 15:15. 5 MONATE FAZIT Genesis Mining Bitcoin Mining #62 ... BITCOIN MINING in Deutschland Profitabel?💰Rechnung und Erklärung - Duration: 15:15. Chris Rzepka 87,847 views. 15:15. Honeygain deutsch - 300$/Monat passiv verdienen?! Scam?! Eine einfache verständliche Erklärung zum Thema Kryptowährungs-Mining, speziell auf Bitcoin zugeschnitten. Schritt für Schritt erarbeiten wir uns die wichtig... In diesem Video sprechen wir mal über die aktuelle MINING Situation MINING SOMMER 2019 . BITCOIN ☺ Werbung: ☺ BANKEN: ----- Fidor Bank: https://ba...

#