Jon Matonis on Twitter Bitcoin, Cryptocurrency, Blockchain

Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? A analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). [Part I]

Bitcoin was released to the world in 2009 by someone (or a group) who authored a technical whitepaper, released the source code to the protocol and commented on a few p2p forums and mailing lists under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto for a few months prior and a few years afterwards before leaving the project. The project was left in the hands of Gavin Andresson who was another cryptographer that satoshi communicated regularly with on the forums and had been one of the first people involved in the project. Some time after satoshi left, one of his accounts was allegedly hacked and bitcointalk (the primary forum) itself was hacked so a meme kind of emerged that satoshi wouldn't be able to post again from his accounts or that posting from them would be dubious. In 2016 an Australian by the name of Craig S Wright was exposed by Wired and Gizmodo as potentially being the inventor of bitcoin. Craig then signed privately for Gavin Andreson, Jon Matonis but then when he was supposed to cryptographically sign to a journalist the method performed did not hold up to public scrutiny because he could have copy pasted a fragment from an earlier known signed message from satoshi and not generated it himself with the private keys. This cast a lot of doubt from many on the man's claims and he published an article saying he wasn't brave enough to sign.
Since then the term cryptocurrency has blown out massively to include anything with a distributed ledger technology, a token, a security, and has really just devolved into a cesspit of buzzwords and disinformation. Once satoshi disappeared in 2011 and left the repo in the hands of Gavin and the open source community, it left a power vacuum in the space for how to interpret the protocol, whitepaper and handle the development. Gavin Andresson brought some other developers on board from the forums and mailing lists, Shortly after Gavin gave some other developers commit access, bitcointalk was hacked and these new developers somehow deleted gavin from the github repo due to apparent concern that his account was compromised from the hack and afterwards once he validated his identity in certain accounts he was never given access again. Gavin stopped being involved with the project after that.
In the time following satoshi's departure a meme had evolved that satoshi had left because Gavin had met with the CIA to discuss bitcoin. This meme combined with the interpretation of what satoshi meant when he included the quote "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" in the genesis block, the subsequent rise and fall of silk road and darknet markets, and the general lore of the space, his cypherpunk mailing list associations had led the scene to paint/project upon him as some kind of government hating tax dodging l33t h4xor demigod.
Although in the title of the whitepaper it was described as p2p cash, bitcoin as most know it is now is marketed as a store of value. Although it was defined as the longest Proof of Work chain of digital signatures, bitcoin as most know it in actual fact has segregated witnesses (signatures) in the protocol. Although satoshi attests to how bitcoin is designed to scale to giant block sizes hosted and mined in data centers that never really hits a scaling ceiling, it is being sold as that even at 1MB size, the damage has already been done and the blocksize should be 300kB because every user needs to be able to run a full node for bitcoin to validate their own transactions with the lowest hardware and bandwidth requirements possible. A high vertice count with everyone running a (non-mining) full node is said to protect the network against malicious actions by the big bad government while graph theory states that it is the degree of inter connectivity of the vertcies (edge number) that confers security of the network against sybil attacks as it brings the number of hops down.
This decoupling from the original vision has led to development and scaling of bitcoin stalling for many years which led to the proliferation of many alt coins rising up to claim they possess superior attributes to bitcoin or can work in conjunction with bitcoin in a gold and silver type relationship, or serve a different use case to bitcoin. The debate between the groups that represented the opposing roadmaps reached a climax with bitcoin itself forking into two now separate blockchains with the minority chain being declared the imposter by social media claiming hashpower and the market had chosen despite their chain changing on the protocol level to implement segregated witnesses and reject the block size increase. These two now separate chains both forked again to birth bitcoin gold and diamond on the segwit chain and bitcoin cash and bitcoin sv on the non segwit chain. At the non segwit chain fork, bitcoin cash implemented checkpointing at the protocol level whereas bitcoin sv maintained the original nakamoto consensus and sought to scale greater than the 32MB blocksize limit BCH maintained with 64MB blocks.
Following these forking events both BTC (segwit) and BCH (checkpoints) also implemented Schnorr signatures which was marketed as economising the size of a typical bitcoin transaction though in actual fact it can be used to obfuscate signatures and allow for the mixing of coins to mask the chain of digital signatures and essentially "anonymously" launder money. The BSV chain (now Stewarded by Dr Craig Wright) was then declared the loser of that hash war by people heralding the power of the market and the miners to democratize money. The problem with such a claim though is just like current polical democracy, this apparent democratisation of money was just as susceptible to the influence of those who control the cryptocurrency media and just like in politics, there is a cabal like group that exerts a disproportionate influence over the narrative and appears to serve the interests of those in on the racket rather than those it is allegedly informing.
The main forums for discussion of cryptocurrency originally were bitcoin.org, bitcointalk.org and /Bitcoin with all three of them for some time sharing the same moderator theymos. Coindesk and the bitcoinmagazine (started by ethereum devs) were some early sources, talking heads like andreas antonopolos (andreasma), peter todd (petertodd) and greg maxwell (nullc) being propped up as sources of knowledge on what is the best course of action for scaling and endorsing solutions like small blocks, second layer solutions and segwit as a necessarry bitcoin improvement protocol (BIP) while people like Roger Ver (memory dealers) and Dr Craig Wright (craig_s_wright) endorsing a block size increase. Because the core developers had chosen to scale with small blocks and lots of nodes on the network were signalling in support of Segwit any discussion of a big block alternative was considered discussion of an alt coin and deleted and eventually users banned from /bitcoin. Out of that incident /btc emerged as an apparently censorship free forum for the discussion of all scaling plans for bitcoin but was ultimately a partisan sub populated with dejected big blockers. After the BCH fork, discussion for bitcoin sv exists on a few subs /bsv (modded by BCHers), /bitcoinsv (moderated by the lead technician at nChain (Craig Wright's company) and /bitcoincashsv where many users have been banned from both /bitcoin and /btc.
Now this so far is just kind of a synposis of the history of bitcoin covering all three of the main contenders for the legitimate claimant of the name but the part 2 will look more at what kind of drastically different societies would be built upon the different versions of the protocol and what may seem like their subtle differences and which one is likely to succeed.
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

Jeff Garzik: “Today, bitcoin faces existential threats from forks, developer drama and so on. Knowing what we know and having a clean sheet of paper, we asked what would we build and the answer is this”.

...oh, so that explains it.
The old and effective Problem-Reaction-Solution strategy. Well, effective before the current social media era, in which hidden motives can be brought to the light of day to be exposed.
I will keep posting this until the very day of the fork, with the hope that more bitcoiners learn the true nature of S2X/B2X/NYA open attack on Bitcoin disguised as an "upgrade". This is a 2X Trojan Horse, and do you know who is inside that horse? Top level banker's special-forces like Blythe Masters, Larry Summers, Glenn Hutchins (sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York) and DCG (Digital Currency Group).
We need to keep our efforts to expose and inform people about what S2X/NYA/DCG really is. Don't trust and don't do business with these companies and individuals supporting the S2X attack on Bitcoin.
Companies:
https://coin.dance/poli
http://segwit.party/nya/
Individuals:
Those guys are pure greed, they don't care about the 7 billion of people on this planet. Expose them and don't give them your business. Starve the beast. They will regret sticking with the B2X altcoin that will go the BCH way (and all the other highjack attempts before them). Moneybadger don't care and only gets stronger and immunized after each snake-bite.
Actually >99% of the Bitcoin community supports the real Bitcoin. The centralized B2X-coin attack is only supported by a handful of rich crooks and the people they've managed to bribe with their deep pockets:
Brian Armstrong, Fred Ehrsam (ex-Goldman Sacks), Bobby Lee, Winklevoss brothers, Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins, Bill Barhydt and Jiang Zhuoer.
I posted this 18 days ago:
Exposed: How Bankers are trying to centralize and highjack Bitcoin by buying "supporters" and promoters (like OpenBazaar team) for the B2X (S2X/NYA) attack on Bitcoin.
TL;DR: B2X (S2X/NYA) is nothing more than an open attack on Bitcoin, not an "upgrade" as they want to sell it. This attack has no 'consensus', at all. It was "agreed" by a bunch of miners and corporations behind closed doors, with no community nor developers support. Only miners and a few millionaires that stand to profit from the B2X attack support it. The vast majority of the Bitcoin community is totally against this attack on Bitcoin. Most of those companies are under DCG group:
Every bitcoiner should know about what DCG (Digital Currency Group) is, and call out publicly the people that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin.
Edit: Brian Armstrong back on the list for this flip-flop. And added Winklevoss Brothers for this, and Bobby Lee for this.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Exposed: How Bankers are trying to centralize and highjack Bitcoin by buying "supporters" and promoters (like OpenBazaar team) for the B2X (S2X/NYA) attack on Bitcoin.

*Open Bazaar was crossed-out after their S2X support retraction, see edit at bottom.
These guys have deep pockets, but as you will see below, they are funded by even deeper pockets.
We can't leave this to chance or "the markets to decide" when there is such a malicious intent to manipulate the markets by those powerful players. So that's why all the people saying: "Don't worry, S2X won't happen" or "S2X is DOA" need to stop, we are at a 'make-or-break' moment for Bitcoin. It's very dumb to underestimate them. If you don't know yet who those malicious players are, read below:
We need to keep exposing them everywhere. Using Garzik as a pawn now, after they failed when they bought Hearn and Andresen (Here are the corrupted former 'good guys'), they are using the old and effective 'Problem-Reaction-Solution' combined with the 'Divide & Conquer' strategies to try to hijack Bitcoin. Well, effective before the current social media era, in which hidden motives can be brought to the light of day to be exposed.
Public pressure works when your profits depend on your reputation. The social media criticism worked for companies like Open Bazaar, which after weeks of calling them out on their S2X support, they finally withdrew it.
Please contact the companies on these lists if you have any type of relationship with them, we have just a few days left until the fork:
Regarding OpenBazaar:
* openbazaar (OB1) developer appears to be spreading pro s2x fud. someone needs to fork their project
* PSA : Open Bazaars latest investment round was for 200K from Barry Silberts DCG (Digital Currency Group)
(See edit at the bottom)
B2X (S2X/NYA) is nothing more than an open attack on Bitcoin, not an "upgrade" as they want to sell it. This attack has no 'consensus', at all. It was "agreed" by a bunch of miners and corporations behind closed doors, with no community nor developers support. Only miners and a few millionaires that stand to profit from the B2X attack support it. The vast majority of the Bitcoin community is totally against this attack on Bitcoin. Most of those companies are under DCG group:
Every bitcoiner should know about what DCG (Digital Currency Group) is, and call out publicly these crooks and the people they bribed that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin:
Brian Armstrong, Winklevoss brothers, Bobby Lee, Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team)(see edit at the bottom), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins (Federal Reserve Board of Directors), Bill Barhydt and Jiang Zhuoer.
Once people are informed, they won't be fooled (like all the poor guys at btc) and will follow Bitcoin instead of the S2X or Bcash or any other centralized altcoin they come up with disguised as Bitcoin.
DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Blythe Masters:
Former executive at JPMorgan Chase.[1] She is currently the CEO of Digital Asset Holdings,[2] a financial technology firm developing distributed ledger technology for wholesale financial services.[3] Masters is widely credited as the creator of the credit default swap as a financial instrument. She is also Chairman of the Governing Board of the Linux Foundation’s open source Hyperledger Project, member of the International Advisory Board of Santander Group, and Advisory Board Member of the US Chamber of Digital Commerce.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blythe_Masters
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
  1. MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
  2. Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistant in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
And before you dismiss all those hard and documented facts as just a 'conspiracy theory', think about this:
Of course, who thought that the ones holding the centralized financial power today (famous for back-door shady plots to consolidate even more power and control), would sit on their hands and let Bitcoin just stroll in and easily take that power away from them?
So, it is not a crazy conspiracy theory, but more like the logical and expected thing to happen. Don't let it happen.
Edit: Formatting.
Edit 2: Brian Armstrong taken out of the 'bad guys' list.
Edit 3: Welp, Brian Armstrong back on the blacklist for this flip-flop. And added Winklevoss Brothers for this, and Bobby Lee for this.
Edit 4: Due to Brian Hoffman just issuing this excellent and explicit S2X/NYA support retraction, I created this post to apologize for my previous posts (calling them out for the S2X support) and I will be editing my posts to reflect this positive change. I'm gladly back to being a supporter of the great and promising project that OpenBazaar has proven to be.
Edit 5: Added Blythe Masters (How could we leave her out?).
Edit 6: Added links to lists of companies supporting S2X/NYA.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I don’t understand why people think CSW is a fraud. He is not.

CSW was the first person who brought up: 1. Segwit is shit. 2. Bitcoin network forms a complete graph. 3. Miners are nodes. 4. Bitcoin is Turing-complete. 5. Spamming the network is not an attack. 6. 2nd layer is in script. 7. N versus NP
I personally find CSW’s arguments all correct. CSW pretty much re-set my understanding of Bitcoin.
So let’s say he’s just a smart fraud who happens to know a lot about Bitcoin. A fraud whom Gavin Andresen, Jon Matonis, Ian Grigg, Ryan Charles, David Jerry, and Calvin Ayre believe to be Satoshi.
What and who did he scam? Who is the victim?
His behavior might be annoying but People need to listen to him more carefully.
submitted by krbch to btc [link] [comments]

Craig Wright tweet storm on Ryan X. Charles' twitter page. These were all posted while Craig was at The Future of Bitcoin conference. Very interesting read until we get the full livestream video of the conference.

https://twitter.com/ryanxcharles?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Simply look for every tweet that begins with "CSW:"
These were all posted while Craig was at The Future of Bitcoin conference.
Interesting tweets:
CSW: "Everyone wants SegWit" is 1984 doublespeak.
CSW: RBF is the biggest piece of shit ever created.
CSW: We need to attract companies. We want banks to use bitcoin. Not like luke-jr.
CSW: The quadratic scaling issue was added to bitcoin. It is easy to fix. Our team fixed it in 3 hrs.
CSW: We're going to distribute the petabytes of data. Jimmy will figure it out.
CSW: Jimmy will get upset if I tell you more. But we're doing a lot more.
CSW: I'm here for the long-term. Like it or not, you're not getting rid of me. We're here for 20 years.
CSW: nChain has an unlimited block size strategy.
CSW: We're going to scale radically. If you don't want to come along, stiff shit.
CSW: Our pool will reject segwit txs.
CSW: As a miner, I choose. I decide if I don't want segwit. It's about time miners figured out their role. Miners choose.
 
CSW: There is no king. There is no glorious leader. I am here to kill off Satoshi.
CSW: Everybody in the world should use bitcoin to buy coffee and whatever else they want.
CSW: We can achieve 500,000 sigops per second with a full node on a $20,000 machine
CSW: I don't care about raspberry pis.
 
CSW: Lightning is a mesh. Lots of little hops, central nodes, etc. Look at the math.
CSW: Any network with d=3+ can always be Sybiled. Lightning can have 80 hops.
CSW: LN is always vulnerable to attack. Read the paper. Read the results.
 
Talk now available (2:23:10 - including a short intro by Jon Matonis):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAcOnvOVquo&feature=youtu.be&t=8603
submitted by BitcoinIsTehFuture to btc [link] [comments]

It is time to unite, organize and squeeze-out any possible viability for S2X/NYA.

And the simplest, cheapest, fastest and more efficient way to do it is this one:
Expose to the sunlight what DCG is and who is behind it
First, let's just post the links to the sites listing all the companies supporting the attack for quick reference:
https://coin.dance/poli
http://segwit.party/nya/
Then, let's post a list of the individuals still supporting this attack despite the overwhelming evidence presented to them about how and why S2X is not only totally pointless from the technical as well as economical (benefit for the whole ecosystem and not just a few) points of view and also about how and why S2X is an open attack on Bitcoin.
Those guys are pure greed, they don't care about the 7 billion of people on this planet. Expose them and don't give them your business. Starve the beast. They will regret sticking with the B2X altcoin that will go the BCH way (and all the other highjack attempts before them). Moneybadger don't care and only gets stronger and immunized after each snake-bite, that is as a system, but we, as individuals, do care and must be proactively working against this attack.
Actually >99% of the Bitcoin community supports the real Bitcoin. The centralized B2X-coin attack is only supported by a handful of rich crooks and the people they've managed to bribe with their deep pockets, so here they are:
Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Brian Armstrong, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins and Jiang Zhuoer.
DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
  1. MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
  2. Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistant in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
Edit: Formatting.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Scaling "debate" (*attacks) ELI5 for newbies:

Miners want the transactions ON chain and as many, slow and inefficient as possible, because they get paid (fees) for each one of them. That's why they want bigger blocks to hold/carry/process more transactions and why they have been always blocking every possible progress/solution that would benefit the whole world (with the sole exception of themselves): Segwit, LN, second layer scaling apps, etc.
That's why they created their fake bitcoin without Segwit. Read also about Asicboost and Antbleed (those are also whole dirty rabbit holes by themselves):
That's how the Mafia operates, and joining the Mining Cartel and their leader Jihan Wu, there are some corrupt very rich individuals that want more power and control for themselves (some of them well-known scammers and felons) colluding with them like: Roger Ver, Craig Wright, Barry Seibert, John McAfee, Bobby Lee, Stephen Pair, Calvin Ayre, Vitalik Buterin, Ryan Charles, Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzic, Mike Hearn, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, etc.
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitpay-partners-bitmain-multi-million-dollar-agreement/
Must read post from u/cutepoops:
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cgzbv/so_i_did_5minutes_of_digging_and_oh_my_god/
Bitcoin Cash Operation: Collusion and Manipulation
On one of the numerous attacks against Bitcoin, one the most powerful and recent ones (SX2/NYA) they were also joined by some Banker's special forces embedded in DCG with Barry Seibert: Blythe Masters, Larry Summers, Glen Hutchins, etc. That's another deep rabbit hole and here's some interesting information and evidence.
Among their explicit objectives that they themselves stated multiple times, were to "fire" all Core developers (those meddling good guys opposing their take-over attempts) and they've been using some of these powerful tools to spread FUD, misinformation, Blockstream-Core conspiracies, etc:
So, remain sceptical and do your own research to decide on what side are you on, where to invest your money and what companies and individuals deserve your trust and support.
On the long term, none of those dramas matter anyway, Moneybadger don't care: Decentralized, Immutable, Trustless, Freedom-Giver, Worldwide-Distributed, Censorless, Permissionless, Antifragile technology's time has come and nothing can stop it.
"Even China Can't Kill Bitcoin"
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-24/even-china-can-t-kill-bitcoin
BILL GATES: “NOBODY CAN STOP BITCOIN”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0HmrSfJwhU
Andreas Antonopoulos: "No Governments can ban Bitcoin"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIQkuF_I5Xo
Edit: Added Antbleed.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Top comment on recent r/bitcoin 2X FUD thread

Original thread: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7801lg/these_are_the_companies_who_still_support_the_ny/
PS:these are not my views, but a shill from bitcoin
" I will keep posting this in relevant threads until the day of the fork, with the hope that more bitcoiners learn the true nature of S2X/B2X/NYA open attack on Bitcoin disguised as an "upgrade". This is a 2X Trojan Horse, and do you know who is inside that horse? Top level banker's special-forces like Blythe Masters, Larry Summers, Glenn Hutchins (sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York) and DCG (Digital Currency Group).
We need to keep our efforts to expose and inform people about what S2X/NYA/DCG really is. Don't trust and don't do business with these companies and individuals supporting the S2X attack on Bitcoin.
> Companies: > > https://coin.dance/poli > > http://segwit.party/nya/ > > Individuals:
> Those guys are pure greed, they don't care about the 7 billion of people on this planet. Expose them and don't give them your business. Starve the beast. They will regret sticking with the B2X altcoin that will go the BCH way (and all the other highjack attempts before them). Moneybadger don't care and only gets stronger and immunized after each snake-bite. > > Actually >99% of the Bitcoin community supports the real Bitcoin. The centralized B2X-coin attack is only supported by a handful of rich crooks and the people they've managed to bribe with their deep pockets:
> Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Brian Armstrong, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins, Bill Barhydt and Jiang Zhuoer. >
I posted this 13 days ago:
Exposed: How Bankers are trying to centralize and highjack Bitcoin by buying "supporters" and promoters (like OpenBazaar team) for the B2X (S2X/NYA) attack on Bitcoin.
TL;DR: B2X (S2X/NYA) is nothing more than an open attack on Bitcoin, not an "upgrade" as they want to sell it. This attack has no 'consensus', at all. It was "agreed" by a bunch of miners and corporations behind closed doors, with no community nor developers support. Only miners and a few millionaires that stand to profit from the B2X attack support it. The vast majority of the Bitcoin community is totally against this attack on Bitcoin. Most of those companies are under DCG group:
> Every bitcoiner should know about what DCG (Digital Currency Group) is, and call out publicly the people that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin. "
Edit: clairity, I did not write this comment
submitted by SpliffZombie to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 2017 a Comprehensive Timeline

Some of the most notable news and events over the past year:
Jan 3:
Jan 10:
Jan 17:
Jan 19:
Feb 8:
Feb 9:
Feb 24:
Mar 1:
Mar 2:
Mar 10:
Mar 12:
Mar 14:
Mar 15:
Mar 23:
Mar 28:
Apr 1:
Apr 5:
Apr 6:
Apr 12:
Apr 20:
Apr 26:
May 2:
May 9:
May 10:
May 21:
May 22:
May 23:
May 31:
Jun 2:
Jun 14:
Jun 29 - Jul 1:
Jun 30:
Jul 12:
Jul 16:
Jul 17:
Jul 22:
Jul 23:
Jul 24:
Jul 25:
Jul 27:
Jul 28:
Jul 31:
Aug 1:
Aug 2:
Aug 3:
Aug 10:
Aug 12:
Aug 15:
Aug 17:
Aug 21:
Aug 22:
Aug 24:
Aug 25:
Aug 28:
Aug 29:
Aug 30:
Aug 31:
Sep 1:
Sep 2:
Sep 3:
Sep 4:
Sep 5:
Sep 6:
Sep 7:
Sep 8:
Sep 9:
Sep 10:
Sep 12:
Sep 13:
Sep 14:
Sep 15:
Sep 17:
Sep 19:
Sep 20:
Sep 21:
Sep 23:
Sep 24:
Sep 25:
Sep 26:
Sep 27:
Sep 28:
Sep 29:
Sep 30:
Oct 4:
Oct 7:
Oct 9:
Oct 10:
Oct 11:
Oct 12:
Oct 13:
Oct 14:
Oct 16:
Oct 27:
Oct 30:
Nov 1:
Nov 2:
Nov 3:
Nov 4:
Nov 7:
Nov 8:
Nov 9:
Nov 10:
Nov 12:
Nov 13:
Nov 20:
Nov 21:
Nov 27:
Nov 28:
Dec 2:
Dec 5:
Dec 6
Dec 7
Dec 9
Dec 10
Dec 11
Dec 12
Dec 13
Dec 14
Dec 15
Dec 16
Dec 17
Dec 19
Dec 20
Dec 21
Dec 22
Dec 23
Dec 25
Dec 27
Dec 29
Dec 30
Dec 31
submitted by BitcoinChronicler to btc [link] [comments]

"Craig Wright's New Company is Building a Bitcoin Core Competitor" What a joke, Jihan will also be involved.

This is an automatic summary, original reduced by 83%.
Former Bitcoin Foundation director Jon Matonis doesn't waste any time asserting that his new employer is seeking to disrupt bitcoin's established development process.
Long the subject of criticism for the significant financial support it provides to developers working on bitcoin's open-source protocol and its primary implementation Bitcoin Core, Blockstream has been villainized for that group's roadmap for scaling bitcoin, specifically its decision to prioritize innovations that don't alter a hard-coded limit on block size.
According to Matonis, nChain's SDK will be different from newer Bitcoin Core competitors including Bitcoin Unlimited and Bcoin, which he framed as being more compatible with Core.
Bitcoin Unlimited, for example, is a version of Bitcoin Core with new features added.
Should nChain launch its implementation to widespread adoption, Matonis suggested that miners and node operators could be forced to choose between two competing versions of bitcoin's blockchain history - one kept by Bitcoin Core and the other by nChain.
The idea that a hard fork could possibly disrupt the validity of the bitcoin blockchain was factor cited by Bitcoin Core developers in their support for their proposed scaling solutions.
Summary Source | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: Bitcoin#1 Matonis#2 nChain#3 implementation#4 Core#5
Post found in /Bitcoin, /btc, /BitcoinAll, /BTCNews, /ethernews and /CryptoCurrency.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

German Bitcoin Podcast - new episode!

Diese Woche liefern wir euch die Bitcoinupdate Episode 34 in Rekordlänge (66:31). Hauptverantwortlich dafür: Wir sprechen mit Conrad Barski über seine e-book Platform mit einem innovativen UI. Ausserdem spüren wir wie immer für euch auf, was sich in der Bitcoinwelt diese Woche getan hat. Wie immer freuen wir uns über euer Feedback - feedback -a- bitcoinupdate.com Wenn ihr automatisch über neue Folgen Bescheid bekommen wollt abonniert unseren RSS feed.
http://bitcoinupdate.com/index.php?id=25
Unsere Themen diesmal:
submitted by apetersson to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Jeff Garzik: “Today, bitcoin faces existential threats from forks, developer drama and so on. Kno...

The following post by readish is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/78kg89
The original post's content was as follows:
...oh, so that explains it.
The old and effective Problem-Reaction-Solution strategy. Well, effective before the current social media era, in which hidden motives can be brought to the light of day to be exposed.
I will keep posting this until the very day of the fork, with the hope that more bitcoiners learn the true nature of S2X/B2X/NYA open attack on Bitcoin disguised as an "upgrade". This is a 2X Trojan Horse, and do you know who is inside that horse? Top level banker's special-forces like Blythe Masters, Larry Summers, Glenn Hutchins (sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York) and DCG (Digital Currency Group).
We need to keep our efforts to expose and inform people about what S2X/NYA/DCG really is. Don't trust and don't do business with these companies and individuals supporting the S2X attack on Bitcoin.
Companies:
https://coin.dance/poli
http://segwit.party/nya/
Individuals:
Those guys are pure greed, they don't care about the 7 billion of people on this planet. Expose them and don't give them your business. Starve the beast. They will regret sticking with the B2X altcoin that will go the BCH way (and all the other highjack attempts before them). Moneybadger don't care and only gets stronger and immunized after each snake-bite.
Actually >99% of the Bitcoin community supports the real Bitcoin. The centralized B2X-coin attack is only supported by a handful of rich crooks and the people they've managed to bribe with their deep pockets:
Brian Armstrong, Fred Ehrsam (ex-Goldman Sacks), Bobby Lee, Winklevoss brothers, Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins, Bill Barhydt and Jiang Zhuoer.
I posted this 18 days ago:
Exposed: How Bankers are trying to centralize and highjack Bitcoin by buying "supporters" and promoters (like OpenBazaar team) for the B2X (S2X/NYA) attack on Bitcoin.
TL;DR: B2X (S2X/NYA) is nothing more than an open attack on Bitcoin, not an "upgrade" as they want to sell it. This attack has no 'consensus', at all. It was "agreed" by a bunch of miners and corporations behind closed doors, with no community nor developers support. Only miners and a few millionaires that stand to profit from the B2X attack support it. The vast majority of the Bitcoin community is totally against this attack on Bitcoin. Most of those companies are under DCG group:
Every bitcoiner should know about what DCG (Digital Currency Group) is, and call out publicly the people that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin.
Edit: Brian Armstrong back on the list for this flip-flop. And added Winklevoss Brothers for this, and Bobby Lee for this.
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Scaling "debate" (*attacks) ELI5 for newbies:

The following post by readish is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7cyshw
The original post's content was as follows:
Miners want the transactions ON chain and as many, slow and inefficient as possible, because they get paid (fees) for each one of them. That's why they want bigger blocks to hold/carry/process more transactions and why they have been always blocking every possible progress/solution that would benefit the whole world (with the sole exception of themselves): Segwit, LN, second layer scaling apps, etc.
That's why they created their fake bitcoin without Segwit. Read also about Asicboost (that's also a whole dirty rabbit hole by itself):
ASICBoost, the reason why Bitmain blocked Segwit
That's how the Mafia operates, and joining the Mining Cartel and their leader Jihan Wu, there are some corrupt very rich individuals that want more power and control for themselves (some of them well-known scammers and felons) colluding with them like: Roger Ver, Craig Wright, Barry Seibert, John McAfee, Bobby Lee, Stephen Pair, Calvin Ayre, Vitalik Buterin, Ryan Charles, Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzic, Mike Hearn, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, etc.
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitpay-partners-bitmain-multi-million-dollar-agreement/
Must read post from u/cutepoops:
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cgzbv/so_i_did_5minutes_of_digging_and_oh_my_god/
On one of the numerous attacks against Bitcoin, one the most powerful and recent ones (SX2/NYA) they were also joined by some Banker's special forces embedded in DCG with Barry Seibert: Blythe Masters, Larry Summers, Glen Hutchins, etc. That's another deep rabbit hole and here's some interesting information and evidence.
Among their explicit objectives that they themselves stated multiple times, were to "fire" all Core developers (those meddling good guys opposing their take-over attempts) and they've been using some of these powerful tools to spread FUD, misinformation, Blockstream-Core conspiracies, etc:
  • DCG funding
  • btc subreddit
  • Bitcoin.com news
  • Bitcoin.com website
  • Mining manipulation and disruptions
  • Russian troll farms to sway public perception
  • Popular You Tube Channels like 'The Dollar Vigilante'
So, remain sceptical and do your own research to decide on what side are you on, where to invest your money and what companies and individuals deserve your trust and support.
On the long term, none of those dramas matter anyway, Moneybadger don't care: Decentralized, Immutable, Trustless, Freedom-Giver, Worldwide-Distributed, Censorless, Permissionless, Antifragile technology's time has come and nothing can stop it.
"Even China Can't Kill Bitcoin"
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-24/even-china-can-t-kill-bitcoin
BILL GATES: “NOBODY CAN STOP BITCOIN”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0HmrSfJwhU
Andreas Antonopoulos: "No Governments can ban Bitcoin"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIQkuF_I5Xo
Edit- Wow, this just happened:
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cyj7o/i_just_got_257_downvotes_in_8_minutes_for_calling/
More info on this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cxvn6/attack_continues_on_bitcoin/
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] It is time to unite, organize and squeeze-out any possible viability for S2X/NYA.

The following post by readish is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/76tkbp
The original post's content was as follows:
And the simplest, cheapest, fastest and more efficient way to do it is this one:
Expose to the sunlight what DCG is and who is behind it
First, let's just post the links to the sites listing all the companies supporting the attack for quick reference:
https://coin.dance/poli
http://segwit.party/nya/
Then, let's post a list of the individuals still supporting this attack despite the overwhelming evidence presented to them about how and why S2X is not only totally pointless from the technical as well as economical (benefit for the whole ecosystem and not just a few) points of view and also about how and why S2X is an open attack on Bitcoin.
Those guys are pure greed, they don't care about the 7 billion of people on this planet. Expose them and don't give them your business. Starve the beast. They will regret sticking with the B2X altcoin that will go the BCH way (and all the other highjack attempts before them). Moneybadger don't care and only gets stronger and immunized after each snake-bite, that is as a system, but we, as individuals, do care and must be proactively working against this attack.
Actually >99% of the Bitcoin community supports the real Bitcoin. The centralized B2X-coin attack is only supported by a handful of rich crooks and the people they've managed to bribe with their deep pockets, so here they are:
Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Brian Armstrong, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins and Jiang Zhuoer.
DCG (Digital Currency Group) is the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement. The CEO of DCG is Barry Silbert, a former investment banker, and Mastercard is an investor in DCG.
Let's have a look at the people that control DCG:
http://dcg.co/who-we-are/
Three board members are listed, and one Board "Advisor." Three of the four Members/advisors are particularly interesting:
Glenn Hutchins: Former Advisor to President Clinton. Hutchins sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York, where he was reelected as a Class B director for a three-year term ending December 31, 2018. Yes, you read that correctly, currently sitting board member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Barry Silbert: CEO of DCG (Digital Currency Group, funded by Mastercard) who is also an Ex investment Banker at (Houlihan Lokey)
And then there's the "Board Advisor,"
Lawrence H. Summers:
"Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Summers
Seriously....The segwit2x deal is being pushed through by a Company funded by Mastercard, Whose CEO Barry Silbert is ex investment banker, and the Board Members of DCG include a currently sitting member of the Board of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, and the Ex chief Economist for the World Bank and a guy responsible for the removal of Glass Steagall.
It's fair to call these guys "bankers" right?
So that's the Board of DCG. They're spearheading the Segwit2x movement. As far as who is responsible for development, my research led me to "Bitgo". I checked the "Money Map" https://i.redd.it/15auzwkq3hiz.png And sure enough, DCG is an investor in Bitgo.
(BTW, make sure you take a good look take a look at the money map and bookmark it for reference later, ^ it is really helpful.)
"Currently, development is being overseen by bitcoin security startup BitGo, with help from other developers including Bloq co-founder Jeff Garzik."
https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-segwit2x-scaling-proposal-miners-offer-optimistic-outlook/
So Bitgo is overseeing development of Segwit2x with Jeff Garzick. Bitgo has a product/service that basically facilitates transactions and supposedly prevents double spending. It seems like their main selling point is that they insert themselves as middlemen to ensure Double spending doesn't happen, and if it does, they take the hit, of course for a fee, so it sounds sort of like the buyer protection paypal gives you:
"Using the above multi-signature security model, BitGo can guarantee that transactions cannot be double spent. When BitGo co-signs a BitGo Instant transaction, BitGo takes on a financial obligation and issues a cryptographically signed guarantee on the transaction. The recipient of a BitGo Instant transaction can rest assured that in any event where the transaction is not ultimately confirmed in the blockchain, and loses money as a result, they can file a claim and will be compensated in full by BitGo."
Source: https://www.bitgo.com/solutions
So basically, they insert themselves as middlemen, guarantee your transaction gets confirmed and take a fee. What do we need this for though when we have a working blockchain that confirms payments in the next block already? 0-conf is safe when blocks aren't full and one confirmation should really be good enough for almost anyone on the most POW chain. So if we have a fully functional blockchain, there isn't much of a need for this service is there? They're selling protection against "The transaction not being confirmed in the Blockchain" but why wouldn't the transaction be getting confirmed in the blockchain? Every transaction should be getting confirmed, that's how Bitcoin works. So in what situation does "protection against the transaction not being confirmed in the blockchain" have value?
Is it possible that the Central Bankers that control development of Segwit2x plan to restrict block size to benefit their business model just like our good friends over at Blockstream attempted to do, although unsuccessfully as they were not able to deliver a working L2 in time?
It looks like Blockstream was an attempted corporate takeover to restrict block size and push people onto their L2, essentially stealing business away from miners. They seem to have failed, but now it almost seems like the Segwit2x might be a culmination of a very similar problem.
Also worth noting these two things, pointed out by Adrian-x:
  1. MasterCard made this statement before investing in DCG and Blockstream. (Very evident at 2:50 - enemy of digital cash watch the whole thing.) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tu2mofrhw58
  2. Blockstream is part of the DCG portfolio and the day after the the NYA Barry personal thanked Adam Back for his assistant in putting the agreement together. https://twitter.com/barrysilbert/status/867706595102388224
So segwit2x takes power away from core, but then gives it to guess who...Mastercard and central bankers.
So, to recap:
  • DCG's Board of Directors and Advisors is almost entirely made up of Central Bankers including one currently sitting Member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and another who was Chief Economist at the World Bank.
  • The CEO of the company spearheading the Segwit2x movement (Barry Silbert) is an ex investment banker at Houlihan Lokey. Also, Mastercard is an investor in the company DCG, which Barry Silbert is the CEO of.
  • The company overseeing development on Segwit2x, Bitgo, has a product/service that seems to only have utility if transacting on chain and using 0-Conf is inefficient or unreliable.
  • Segwit2x takes power over Bitcoin development from core, but then literally gives it to central bankers and Mastercard. If segwit2x goes through, BTC development will quite literally be controlled by central bankers and a currently serving member of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
Did we just spend so much time fighting and bickering with core that we totally missed the REAL takeover of Bitcoin, happening right before our eyes, by the likes of currently serving Federal Reserve Bank of New York Board Members?
Edit: Formatting.
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

10-25 03:43 - 'Welp, Brian Armstrong back on the list and Winklevoss brothers just added.' (self.Bitcoin) by /u/readish removed from /r/Bitcoin within 50-60min

'''
References: Brian Armstrong back on the list for [this flip-flop]1 . And added Winklevoss Brothers for [this]2 .
Regarding the recent Jeff Garzik news, they are using old and effective 'Problem-Reaction-Solution' strategy. Well, effective before the current social media era, in which hidden motives can be brought to the light of day to be exposed.
I will keep posting this until the very day of the fork, with the hope that more bitcoiners learn the true nature of S2X/B2X/NYA open attack on Bitcoin disguised as an "upgrade". This is a 2X Trojan Horse, and do you know who is inside that horse? Top level banker's special-forces like Blythe Masters, Larry Summers, Glenn Hutchins (sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York) and DCG [(Digital Currency Group)]3 .
We need to keep our efforts to expose and inform people about what S2X/NYA/DCG really is. Don't trust and don't do business with these companies and individuals supporting the S2X attack on Bitcoin.
Companies:
[link]8
[link]9
Individuals:
Those guys are pure greed, they don't care about the 7 billion of people on this planet. Expose them and don't give them your business. Starve the beast. They will regret sticking with the B2X altcoin that will go the BCH way (and all the other highjack attempts before them). Moneybadger don't care and only gets stronger and immunized after each snake-bite.
Actually >99% of the Bitcoin community supports the real Bitcoin. The centralized B2X-coin attack is only supported by a handful of [rich crooks]4 and the people they've managed to bribe with their deep pockets:
Brian Armstrong, Winklevoss brothers, Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia ([and all OB1 team]5 ), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins, Bill Barhydt and Jiang Zhuoer.
I posted this 17 days ago:
[Exposed: How Bankers are trying to centralize and highjack Bitcoin by buying "supporters" and promoters (like OpenBazaar team) for the B2X (S2X/NYA) attack on Bitcoin.]6
TL;DR: B2X (S2X/NYA) is nothing more than an open attack on Bitcoin, not an "upgrade" as they want to sell it. This attack has no 'consensus', at all. It was "agreed" by a bunch of miners and corporations behind closed doors, with no community nor developers support. Only miners and a few millionaires that stand to profit from the B2X attack support it. The vast majority of the Bitcoin community is totally against this attack on Bitcoin. Most of those companies are under DCG group:
Every bitcoiner should know about what DCG [(Digital Currency Group)]3 is, and call out publicly the people that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin.
'''
Welp, Brian Armstrong back on the list and Winklevoss brothers just added.
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: readish
1: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/78kd07/coinbase_will_refer_to_the_chain_with_most/ 2: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/78isl3/gemini_exchange_offers_this_weak_segwit2x_strategy/ 3: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/74wejs/exposed_how_bankers_are_trying_to_centralize_and/ 4: https://i.redd.it/t1z62pow09qz.jpg 5: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/74dot9/psa_open_bazaars_latest_investment_round_was_fodnxjsrg/?context=3 6: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/74wejs/exposed_how_bankers_are_trying_to_centralize_and/ 7: https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/74wejs/exposed_how_bankers_are_trying_to_centralize_and/ 8: https://coin.dance/poli 9: seg**t.par*y*nya/
Unknown links are censored to prevent spreading illicit content.
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Welp, Brian Armstrong back on the list and Winklevoss brothers just added.

The following post by readish is being replicated because the post has been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/78kv8i
The original post's content was as follows:
References: Brian Armstrong back on the list for this flip-flop. And added Winklevoss Brothers for this.
Regarding the recent Jeff Garzik news, they are using old and effective 'Problem-Reaction-Solution' strategy. Well, effective before the current social media era, in which hidden motives can be brought to the light of day to be exposed.
I will keep posting this until the very day of the fork, with the hope that more bitcoiners learn the true nature of S2X/B2X/NYA open attack on Bitcoin disguised as an "upgrade". This is a 2X Trojan Horse, and do you know who is inside that horse? Top level banker's special-forces like Blythe Masters, Larry Summers, Glenn Hutchins (sits on the board of The Federal Reserve Bank of New York) and DCG (Digital Currency Group).
We need to keep our efforts to expose and inform people about what S2X/NYA/DCG really is. Don't trust and don't do business with these companies and individuals supporting the S2X attack on Bitcoin.
Companies:
https://coin.dance/poli
http://segwit.party/nya/
Individuals:
Those guys are pure greed, they don't care about the 7 billion of people on this planet. Expose them and don't give them your business. Starve the beast. They will regret sticking with the B2X altcoin that will go the BCH way (and all the other highjack attempts before them). Moneybadger don't care and only gets stronger and immunized after each snake-bite.
Actually >99% of the Bitcoin community supports the real Bitcoin. The centralized B2X-coin attack is only supported by a handful of rich crooks and the people they've managed to bribe with their deep pockets:
Brian Armstrong, Winklevoss brothers, Peter Smith, Nic Cary, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Ryan X Charles, Brian Hoffman/Sam Patterson/Chris Pacia (and all OB1 team), Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzik, Mike Hearn, Roger Ver, Jihan Wu, John Mcaffe, Craig Wright, Barry Silbert, Larry Summers, Blythe Masters, Stephen Pair, Erik Voorhees, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Aaron Voisine/Adam Traidman/Aaron Lasher (Breadwallet team), Glenn Hutchins, Bill Barhydt and Jiang Zhuoer.
I posted this 17 days ago:
Exposed: How Bankers are trying to centralize and highjack Bitcoin by buying "supporters" and promoters (like OpenBazaar team) for the B2X (S2X/NYA) attack on Bitcoin.
TL;DR: B2X (S2X/NYA) is nothing more than an open attack on Bitcoin, not an "upgrade" as they want to sell it. This attack has no 'consensus', at all. It was "agreed" by a bunch of miners and corporations behind closed doors, with no community nor developers support. Only miners and a few millionaires that stand to profit from the B2X attack support it. The vast majority of the Bitcoin community is totally against this attack on Bitcoin. Most of those companies are under DCG group:
Every bitcoiner should know about what DCG (Digital Currency Group) is, and call out publicly the people that are working for the Corporations/Bankers against Bitcoin.
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

nChain's action plan is to release a SDK that will likely be given away for free as a means of proliferating alternatives to Bitcoin Core

This is an automatic summary, original reduced by 83%.
Former Bitcoin Foundation director Jon Matonis doesn't waste any time asserting that his new employer is seeking to disrupt bitcoin's established development process.
Long the subject of criticism for the significant financial support it provides to developers working on bitcoin's open-source protocol and its primary implementation Bitcoin Core, Blockstream has been villainized for that group's roadmap for scaling bitcoin, specifically its decision to prioritize innovations that don't alter a hard-coded limit on block size.
According to Matonis, nChain's SDK will be different from newer Bitcoin Core competitors including Bitcoin Unlimited and Bcoin, which he framed as being more compatible with Core.
Bitcoin Unlimited, for example, is a version of Bitcoin Core with new features added.
Should nChain launch its implementation to widespread adoption, Matonis suggested that miners and node operators could be forced to choose between two competing versions of bitcoin's blockchain history - one kept by Bitcoin Core and the other by nChain.
The idea that a hard fork could possibly disrupt the validity of the bitcoin blockchain was factor cited by Bitcoin Core developers in their support for their proposed scaling solutions.
Summary Source | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: Bitcoin#1 Matonis#2 nChain#3 implementation#4 Core#5
Post found in /btc, /Bitcoin, /btc, /Buttcoin, /BitcoinAll, /BTCNews, /ethernews and /CryptoCurrency.
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic. Please do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

El inventor del bitcoin revela su identidad

Tras años de misterio y de especulaciones, el verdadero creador de la moneda virtual bitcoin reveló el lunes su identidad a la BBC, a The Economist y a la revista GQ: se trata del empresario australiano Craig Wright.
Para demostrarlo, Craig Wright presentó claves criptográficas que sólo podían estar en manos del creador del bitcoin, precisó la BBC.
Desde hacía años, los medios buscaban identificar a los misteriosos informáticos que, disimulados detrás del pseudónimo de Satoshi Makamoto, concibieron en 2009 el programa que genera la moneda virtual.
“Estos son los lotes usados para enviar diez bitcoins a Hal Finey en enero (de 2009), en la primera operación con bitcoins”, indicó Wright en la primera demostración realizada ante los tres medios informativos.
Finney, precisó, es un ingeniero y reputado criptógafo que contribuyó a crear la moneda virtual.
“Soy el principal conceptor (del bitcoin), pero otros me ayudaron”, indicó el empresario australiano instalado en Sídney.
Craig publicó en su blog http://www.drcraigwright.net/jean-paul-sartre-signing-significance/) informaciones que permiten verificar que detrás del seudónimo Satoshi Nakamoto se escondía su propia identidad.
Explicó que había usado el apellido de Tominaga Nakamoto, un filósofo japonés del siglo XVII sumamente crítico del pensamiento normativo de su época y defensor de la libertad de comercio.
– Una autoría convincente –
Un economista y codirector de la fundación Bitcoin, Jon Matonis, se dijo convencido de la veracidad de esa reivindicación de autoría.
“Tuve la oportunidad de examinar los datos en función de tres criterios: criptográfico, social y técnico. Y tengo la firme convicción de que Craig Wright cumple con los tres”, declaró.
Craig Wright aseguró que se sintió forzado a revelar su identidad para preservar a allegados acosados por periodistas desde que la revista estadounidense Wired y el blog Gizmodo mencionaron en diciembre de 2015 su nombre como el de un posible inventor del bitcoin.
Negó sentirse motivado por un deseo de notoriedad. “No ha sido mi voluntad” desvelar su identidad, declaró. “No quiero ser la imagen pública de nada”, subrayó.
“Quiero seguir trabajando, haciendo lo que me gusta. No busco dinero. No busco la gloria. No quiero ser adorado por nadie. Quiero que me dejen tranquilo”, insistió.
Los Bitcoins se crean o intercambian utilizando protocolos de software tan complejos que son considerados “criptomoneda” (cryptocurrency). Las transacciones se procesan en servidores llamados “Bitcoin miners” y, contrariamente a las monedas tradicionales, su emisión no está regida por ningún banco central.
La moneda digital se puede transferir directamente entre teléfonos inteligentes o cualquier otro tipo de dispositivo informático para pagar en tiendas “reales” o a cambio de servicios (como un viaje en taxi por ejemplo).
Sus detractores afirman que es una herramienta predilecta de los tráficos ilegales y que en su forma actual se puede robar fácilmente. Numerosos países estudian darle un marco legal a su uso.
Los primeros bitcoins se cotizaban a unos pocos centavos de dólar por unidad, pero llegaron a valer 1.000 dólares en 2013. Actualmente, se negocian a unos 460 dólares (400 euros).
Actualmente hay unos 15 millones de bitcoins en circulación. Algunos economistas estiman que, debido a su número limitado, su precio tenderá a incrementarse a largo plazo y que por eso será más útil como moneda de almacenamiento de valores, como el oro, que como instrumento cotidiano.
AFP
submitted by bitcoinloco to BitcoinVenezuela [link] [comments]

The Future of Bitcoin

Is Bitcoin in fact the biggest disruptive technology since the Internet itself?
Is Bitcoin's real innovation its ‘Blockchain' technology which is being used to build a completely new way of interacting online?
Will Bitcoin provide the basis for the next generation of apps?
Speakers:
Jon Matonis- Executive Director, The Bitcoin Foundation
Stephan Tual- Chief Communications Officer, Ethereum
Niki Wiles- Community Relations, Counterparty
Preston Byrne- Adam Smith Institute (ASI) fellow and associate at Norton Rose Fulbright
Chair: Richard Boase- Cybersalon/UK Digital Currency Association
Advocates argue that Bitcoin has the capacity to address not simply money issuance but other crucial questions of trust, financial privacy, transparency and freedom of expression.
Critics claim that Bitcoin's inherent anonymity encourages money laundering, gambling and drug dealing. They also point to its wild volatility as evidence that it functions as a poor store of value that will make economic activity ultimately less productive.
At this Cybersalon we will be asking what have we learnt from Bitcoin and where is it heading:
  1. What is 'Blockchain' technology and what are new applications are using it?
  2. Is Bitcoin likely to form the basis of the new Internet of Money and Trust?
  3. What is Bitcoin teaching us about global consensus, decentralisation and open source technologies?
So if currency is simply the first application for this Blockchain technology, what else is in the pipeline? Initiatives such as Ethereum, Coloured Coins, Mastercoin, Counterparty and Namecoin suggest decentralised stock, bond and equities markets, asset and property registration, notary services, DNS lookup system and more.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO PAY WITH BITCOIN, PLEASE VISIT cybersalon.org/bitcoinheading/
Bitcoin Background
Bitcoin (which is now known as a “Crypto currency” or Hidden Currency) has fluctuated from $0.0001 to US $1,200 in the span of 5 years. Advocates cite its capacity to be a truly global, digital currency- to lower remittance and cross border transfer costs particularly with regards to developing economies and its power to remove politics from the money supply. Its main attraction, they claim, is that all other banking and monetary systems are ‘pre-internet’ technologies but Bitcoin offers us the potential to build an entirely new system of global financial consensus, even acting as a global reserve currency.
Bitcoin 2.0
The value of the Bitcoin platform is that it can be used for other means than as a currency: for instance to transfer goods directly from person to person around the planet securely without third party verification. The way Bitcoin does this is through what is known as a peer to peer network, with these transactions being verified automatically by thousands of so called ‘Miners'. Bitcoin is not a company, and whilst Miners might act like employees, it was designed as an open standard protocol similar to http (web pages) or smtp (email), allowing anyone who wishes to to build companies, services and software to interact with it, and because Bitcoin functions a little bit like TCP/IP, owning a Bitcoin is akin to owning real-estate on the new internet, similar in some ways to owning name brand dot coms in the ‘90s.
what do you think this??
to score: https://www.eventbrite.co.uk
submitted by professorXY to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Deutscher Podcast über Bitcoin

Diese Woche liefern wir euch die Bitcoinupdate Episode 34 in Rekordlänge (66:31). Hauptverantwortlich dafür: Wir sprechen mit Conrad Barski über seine e-book Platform mit einem innovativen UI. Ausserdem spüren wir wie immer für euch auf, was sich in der Bitcoinwelt diese Woche getan hat. Wie immer freuen wir uns über euer Feedback - feedback -a- bitcoinupdate.com Wenn ihr automatisch über neue Folgen Bescheid bekommen wollt abonniert unseren RSS feed.
http://bitcoinupdate.com/index.php?id=25
Unsere Themen diesmal:
submitted by apetersson to BitcoinDE [link] [comments]

[Table] IAmA: IAM Peter Vessenes, Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation. AMAA!

Verified? (This bot cannot verify AMAs just yet)
Date: 2012-09-28
Link to submission (Has self-text)
Link to my post
Questions Answers
Most proponents of Bitcoin seem to believe that there will be a point where one coin exceeds a value of $100 or even $1000. Sure, that is definitely possible and I can accept that it may happen one day. However, since each coin has this intrinsic potential value.. why would anyone spend them on trivial stuff like food now? How can you spend something that you believe will continue to grow in value effectively to infinity? That seems like a fair complaint to me, in general. In practice, and as opposed to Krugman's thoughts on the matter, we have many thousands of happy Bitcoin transactors, I think people like to spend their bitcoins with others, give them away, and use them for things. I do know some Bitcoin businesses that try never to spend their coins. That said, we have had some periods like last year where EVERYBODY wished they'd spent their coins.. To my mind volatility is a worse 'evil' than being deflationary. As I said above, I think most government economists wish an inflationary currency (and many bitcoiners hate this, and talk a lot about how much they hate it), but I think there's definitely a place in the world for a deflationary value system. An interesting thought experiment for you -- if you forked the Bitcoin blockchain and changed issuance so that it tracked say, USD or USD/EUR inflation rates for issuance, would it have the same uptake or not?
Every once in a while I hear stories about security breaches including 240,000 bitcoins that went missing the other month. How do you ensure security of account holders funds? The practical security aspects of running Bitcoin businesses are a REAL need, and it's something we want to help on with advice, and possibly opt-in certification at some point. I say more about this elsewhere in the AMA.
Furthermore, most sites I've came upon that sell goods seem poorly managed and difficult to use. Is there a Bitcoin equivalent to sites like Ebay and Amazon? Re: bitcoin site usability -- I agree, it's often terrible! I'm not sure why this is, except to say that bitcoins make transacting online so easy that even people who can't afford a designer can do it.
A: How does the intrinsic non-fiat nature of the currency affect its susceptibility to market fluctuation? I.E. Better or worse stability than fiat currency? So far, because market cap is so low, (Roughly $100mm of value), Bitcoin exchange rates are highly susceptible to people pushing it around. This is really tough for everyone. There are a bunch of businesses that might not be viable until you have some exchange rate certainties that extend beyond a short (one day-ish) window.
B: What can be done to improve the resistance to massive fluctuations in value stemming from exchange market manipulation or normal use? There are some macro-economic things that could be done, like exchanges publishing all trades to a central area, and implementing locks if prices rise / fall too suddenly, but those all have their own effects to consider. I think the fundamental thing to do is help Bitcoin acceptance and uptake grow, increasing the size of the pie until there are a much smaller number of parties that could push the price around.
C: Is there anything that can be done to the standard to improve stability or is it all up to the markets to implement safeguards? So, we all do have a part in that stabilization for sure. There's also the angle of creating whole supply chains that are bitcoin denominated -- paying our staff in Bitcoins only is an attempt to work on that angle.
What do you say to people that claim Bitcoin is nothing but a pump-and-dump pyramid scheme designed to benefit it's creators? That they're sitting on a huge pile of bitcoins obtained by them before the currency was made available to the public when mining was far easier then dumping huge batches of Bitcoins destroying the price over and over again to enrich themselves and fuck everybody else? And that they get more chumps into the system to inflate the price again, by going around the internet and promoting Bitcoins as an alternative currency rather than a complete fraud? This borders on the troll-ish, but I will say that the Bitcoin network autosizes coin generation based on how many people wish to do it. That is, people opt in to make the coins and secure the network. Nobody is forced to.
Is the Bitcoin Foundation a non-profit, tax-exempt organization in the United States? Who among the directors and the board has experience running a non-profit? Why is the ED also a member of the board? How does the ED have the time to run the organization given his obligation to CoinLab? Why haven't I seen any of the involved parties at either of the last two Bitcoin conferences? Can we get somebody who isn't a white male involved? We're a 501(c)6, Washington DC Nonprofit.
I have experience launching a non-profit, hence my job.
ED's typically get a salary and work full time at the job; we didn't know if we'd have budget to pay someone who could operate such a thing, so we went with this structure. I anticipate that I will step down from being the ED at the earliest moment we know we have someone better to do it; running CoinLab is plenty of work for me.
Our assistant director Lindsay Holland is not a white male.
In general, Bitcoin is a white male sausage-fest, though. I urge you and all Bitcoiners everywhere to work on changing that.
What is the future of bitcoins? Do you think they will ever make government-issued currency obsolete? I don't know the future of Bitcoin, but I hope that I and the Foundation are a part of it!
I don't believe Bitcoin will ever obsolete a government currency, but I only speak for myself when I say that. Bitcoin is a fascinating and novel technology with a HUGE number of potential benefits to the world, so I'm into it. I don't see a government wishing to cede control of its currency to anything like the technocratic / consensus model that Bitcoins are governed by, though.
That said, I do hope that Bitcoins will be able to help people in areas of the world that need better money features. Mpesa is a great example of something that helps Kenyans (and people from a few other countries) by changing how money is used. Bitcoin has the potential to help people like that, all over the world, whether or not the 'market' is large enough in that country.
I personally think that sort of thing is SUPER exciting.
Could you describe the bitcoin foundation for me? Sure! It's a trade organization, member-driven. Its goal is to promote, protect and help standardize Bitcoin. Our initial goals are to provide funding for the core development team, run a 2013 Silicon Valley Conference, and create some opt-in certification methods and best practices for businesses dealing with Bitcoin.
Join us.. :)
Standardize? I can tell you hate our goals, so I won't spend a long time trying to convince you. But, I will say that businesses often need a long, secure timeframe to make investment decisions, and they need to have some sense that what they work on or invest in will be roughly similar at the end of their investment to the beginning.
Why do you want to "standardize"? For instance, imagine ebay deciding to take bitcoins. The person-hours to get that done inside ebay are staggering to imagine, from wallet scalability issue to accounting treatments, refunds, ... It would be a major endeavor.
What gives you that authority? It would be great for bitcoin if ebay took bitcoins. Seriously great, but they can't right now until they feel there is some generally stable path going forward.
Why is the core development team so deserving of funding when they can't even make a decent client? You might hate everything about that, and that's cool. I urge you to go ahead, fork the code, advocate as much as you like for something else. Bitcoin's free, both the protocol and the software. Nobody is stopping you.
Is there any legal action to be done if someone steals your bitcoins? Yep, if you're in the US, file a police report, and call FBI Cybercrimes division.
As an individual member of the Bitcoin Foundation, what do I get? Any perks or privileges? Email aliases, voting rights, a newsletter, etc? Or are these memberships mostly a way of providing financial support to the foundation? The bylaws are up now, so you can read in great detail what the organization will provide its members: Link to github.com
In short, though, rights to vote people on / off the board of the Foundation, soon access to private forums, probably discounts to the bitcoin 2013 conference, happiness at supporting the dev team.
I would like to provide email aliases, we've got Patrick and Jon working on any possible gotchas there, though.
Many aren't taking bitcoin seriously because of the security issues some have had. What steps are you taking to legitimize this currency? Like Jeff says below, I would distinguish between fundamental protocol security and security practices.
Bitcoins fundamental protocol security seems pretty good at this point; I'm sure we'll all be keeping an eye on that quite intently into the future.
Practical Security has been, largely, terrible in the Bitcoin space for most businesses, Mt. Gox perhaps excepted. The amount of work it takes to secure 80 byte strings that may be valued in the million dollar range is non trivial. Think securing missile codes as to the level of security needed.
Many bitcoin businesses can't afford (or don't wish to) this sort of security. I'm hoping we can provide some tools and pointers for these businesses and their users to help people understand what they're getting into when they transact with a bitcoin business, and what their risks are.
The Bitcoin Foundation Membership (VIP) fees are definitely disproportionate. Why? Are we now heading for a two-tier bitcoin community? We got requests from large supporters to make a more expensive membership tier. I'm slow, but not so slow that I said 'no'.
I'm slow, but not so slow that I said 'no'. - So you said 'YES'? Someone said "Please make higher corporate member fees: Linux Foundation Top Tier member fees are $500k. Your plan is too low."
I said "OK, Thank you for that advice. We should do that."
Is the foundation primarily focused on US or also europe and the rest of the world? Right now Jon Matonis is considered our "Europe Expert" on the board. There's a huge amount of work to do just in keeping track of how Bitcoin is categorized and regulated around the world. I would expect the Foundation to put some time and energy into helping with that process, but it's not our first goal.
What would you or the Fundation do if the government declares Bitcoin ilegal? Advocate that such a thing is silly, unenforceable, and counterproductive.
Thats no answer to the question. Have you got any plans for the "unthinkable"? That really is what I would do. What do you suggest?
What are your thoughts on transparency of the foundation? How much revenue is there and how it is spent, will that info be public? We're aiming to be highly transparent. I proposed today that we publicize our cold wallet public keys so that people can check our balances. This got pushed back a month while we work on some logistics. I will follow up about this, though. I think having auditable books from day one is really cool.
What are your thoughts on fiat currency? I love it and wish more of it. I'm totally grateful that nations have standardized and created currencies for their people, so that I can travel and buy stuff without worrying about the reputability of a local bank when I go to exchange my money.
I read something recently about a Bitcoin based debit card system. How is that coming along? I don't know, but I want one! The Foundation would like one, too. We are trying to run the Foundation with only Bitcoins, so it would be nice to fuel up a debit card for some expenses.
Create an opt-in certification process for Bitcoin businesses. How will you be going about this? What will certification entail? TBD, But I am imagining that businesses could vet their processes and procedures against a set of published standards, pay for an audit, and then be able to help their users understand what level of security they provide, e.g. "Bronze certification -- the site could be trusted with 50 bitcoins of stored value per person."
Does the foundation intend to have control over bitcoin.org and thereby over the main distribution channel for Bitcoin-Qt? We're a member organization. Some of our members do have access to and influence over bitcoin.org and bitcoin-qt. I have no idea if they would like us to help manage bitcoin.org, since we just launched yesterday.
If the decision makers for bitcoin.org and bitcoin-qt want us to help out in those areas, I wouldn't mind. I don't think either of those things is super strategic to helping Bitcoin right now; there's more need for messaging and some financial security for the core team, and the other stuff we said we're going to work on this year. bitcoin.org and -qt publishing don't seem broken to me or risky right now.
Given that Mt Gox has a (rightfully deserved) place on he board, what steps can and will you be taking to ensure that independent exchanges are encouraged and not ignored? Also what steps, if any, can and will you take to ensure the public that the commercial interests of those on the board do not conflict with the decentralised ideals and paradigm of Bitcoin itself? I don't know how we'd encourage or ignore exchanges, since everyone is welcome to join.
I do think this individual / corporate angle is at the heart of the Bitcoin, though; it's got a lot of parties that care about it, passionately. Some are investing millions of dollars. Some are tirelessly advocating for Bitcoin. Many sit around and troll and waste people's time.
I guess that partly we expect our board members will act with integrity, and that if they aren't representing the needs of their member class, they'll get replaced with someone who will.
I also don't know how we would, practically, decentralize Bitcoin, even if we wished such a thing. I don't think anyone on the board thinks Bitcoin is doing badly. We're all really excited about it and want to help. I personally believe if corporations (a small group or just one) ever provably controlled Bitcoin, they would become vastly less appealing and useful. So, we're on watch.
Not as on watch as a paranoid bitcointalk forum troll wants us to be, but we're on watch.
Why do you require a real name and real address, when bitcoins core values are to be anonymous? The Foundation's core values include openness and transparency. I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way. Every bitcoin transaction links two addresses; often people can be determined from those addresses.
At any rate, we wish to make sure you can't stuff the ballot box during voting, and we wish civil productive discourse among our members, so we need real names and addresses.
If you just want to support us without joining, you can always send money to our vanity donation address: 1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW.
What is the current, largest obstacle when it comes to wider Bitcoin adoption? I think Bitcoin adoption is growing nicely. There seems to be a sort of stair-step function where people figure out something new and broadly appealing to do with them, and it makes a big jump. I expect we'll see that many times over the next five or ten years.
Doubts about the network's scalability, uncertain status about its legality or something else? Bitcoin's brand seems bad to me; mostly the highly publicized exchange attacks worry people. It's too hard to have a secure cold storage wallet for even a very smart individual. I'd like to see some of those things improved.
Does Bitcoin have any plan to combat criminals using the currency to purchase things on online black markets? I can't speak for Bitcoin, but the Foundation has no criminal combatant plans. We do want our members to use their real names and promise that they only engage in activities legal in their jurisdiction, though.
That's mostly just a way of us saying who we want to hang out with, and expressing some community values we think will help our organization be a success.
Did you expect for the Bitcoin concept to explode as it has? I sort of did, but I definitely didn't put my wallet behind that explosion. Sigh.
Also, where do you see it going in the future? I talk elsewhere in the AMA about what I'm hoping for Bitcoin.
Will the foundation be sponsoring Bitcoin software outside of Bitcoin.org? What do you mean? Like if Jeff Garzik made cool software that would help the Bitcoin world but didn't release it at bitcoin.org would we try and help him?
The answer is yes.
I.e., the Foundation would provide a service with recommendations such as wallet security for an exchange, but I don't think the Foundation should be in the business of "certifying". Yeah, there's an interesting set of questions there about certification. I would LOVE to see a certification that brought with it the ability to be insured against loss and theft. Think how nice it would be for an exchange or wallet business to be able to offer that insurance. That said, I don't know of any bitcoin company that has such insurance yet. I think we have some work to do vetting out the processes and procedures, and then some sales and relationship work with insurance companies first. At any rate, we won't be stumping up security for certified companies through the main Foundation corporate vehicle ever. But I think the membership will want to discuss what a good set of next steps is toward that goal, if we're all sold on trying to make it happen.
What's the advantage to using bitcoins over government issued currency, basically why should I invest my $US in bitcoins? Some people have ideological preferences for Bitcoins money issuance scheme.
Some are nerds, and like it for nerdy reasons.
Some just like being able to pay whom they choose when they choose.
Some deal with payment infrastructures that are scary (Paypal freezes are scary), or slow (wiring money in and out of small country central banks is REALLY slow).
Also, they're neat.
How does it feel to know that a kitten wearing a top hat has more upvotes than you? That kitten is so damn cute. I spent some of my AMA time going "AWWW"
How will you try to keep BIG businesses from buying their way into "THE" Bitcoin Foundation? Bitcoin is inherently free, it's peer to peer, it can be forked, it's not controlled by the Foundation, especially one that's one day old.
So, I look forward to large donations from BIG businesses. We will use that money to further the Foundation's mission. Our members will, no doubt, be highly engaged in discussions about what to do with large donations. I'm looking forward to it.
What is your opinion on Canada's new digital currency, "Mint Chip"? How does this affect Bitcoin? I don't know much about it, but I think it's cool from what I do know, (and is it technically flawed? I don't recall). I'm all for money system experimentation, as you might guess.
You are starting to get increased media/congressional notice. Are you at all worried about being shut down and prosecuted like E-Gold was? Who is we? The Foundation is a member organization, nothing else.
There are some bitcoin exchange operators that actively flout the same AML laws that got the E-Gold founders in trouble.
There are some that try hard to do the right thing, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
Personally, I don't worry about the ones trying to comply, and I don't transact with the ones flouting the laws.
Why do you have different vote classes, is one class worth more then another? Corporate members vote their seats, Individual members vote theirs.
Anecdotally, there are fewer corporate members, so a corporate membership vote has a greater proportional influence over a board seat than an individual membership.
so a corporate membership vote has a greater proportional influence over a board seat than an individual membership. - So there may be poll when votes of both classes come together? Like asking ALL members to opt out changes to the source code? I would be stunned if we voted on source code, ever. I don't think anyone thinks that is in the remit of the Foundation.
Pragmatically, the dev team is one arm of bitcoin source code governance, and miners are the other, since they can refuse to work with code changes they don't like if they do it in bulk.
The board meets often, and should be listening to its constituents; sign up as a member, and then mail your appropriate rep. As a sample of what we discussed today: "Should we do an AMA? Who will get member signup confirmations out? Can we publicize Patrick's bylaws yet?" were the scintillating topics of conversation.
Will I be getting an e-mail with receipt for my payment confirming my membership subscription? Yes, we are ACTIVELY working on it. Apologies.
What's the dev's payroll? TBD, now that we know what our member signups are.
I don't know if we'll release payroll or budget numbers outside the membership -- something we have to discuss.
What power does this foundation have over Bitcoin? Why did you make Satoshi the founder without his permission? We have no power over Bitcoin whatsoever.
I think we felt a foundation that didn't somehow acknowledge Satoshi would be a bit churlish, like ignoring Linus completely while making the Linux Foundation. Satoshi is, as always, free to participate as he/she chooses.
Has there been a growth in algorithmic trading of Bitcoins in the past year? If so, is that growth in algos added stability to the Bitcoin Market? I have no idea. But I'm curious about this too!
Why hasn't (almost) anybody heard of you before today? I keep a low profile. Until yesterday. Also, I gave up on the forums a long time ago; not productive enough for me.
That was very informative, thanks. Not that hard to grasp when somebody spells it out. The reason you do it is to provide a second element of value to a chain of transactions; the first element of value is consensus -- what everyone else says happens.
Is there a reason for doing this? Or just a way to pace the grinding nature of mining bitcoins? The second, arguably more powerful one is provable computation time spent on creating the consensus. So you can look at a set of bitcoin transactions and say "Ah ha, that had roughly [say] $1mm worth of computation time put in to securing and validating it! I believe it's safe to consider my $55 transaction secure."
Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea how many people have applied so far? Yep. We'll release end of first-month member numbers in 29 days. :)
How does one go about buying bitcoins? Probably the fastest way is to ask a friend who has some.
Next would be to use a service like Link to bitinstant.com.
How long are terms for each board member? Two years.
Will the Bitcoin Foundation promote a Vulnerability Reward Program ? I would like to see that, but I think the first things to do in terms of importance are on our published list.
Will the funds for a permanent memberships be put into an endowment, or will they be spent immediately? We haven't discussed it. Budget discussions are next couple of weeks, now that we have our heads around some numbers.
We also have to discuss if the foundation wishes to go long bitcoin, or instead spend to its annual budget. All TBD; if you have opinions send them on to your member reps.
I'm curious about this too. I'm not sure I understand how they work entirely. Maybe somebody could Explain like i'm five... Totally. They are confusing; it's a truly novel solution. Essentially it mixes something non-intuitive and magical-seeming (public key cryptography) with something very hard to imagine a solution for (distributed timestamping among non-trusted parties).
We will be seeing the concept extended out into a number of technology arenas over the next 25 years I imagine. It's an incredibly powerful solution-space.
I spent maybe an hour on the wiki reading the FAQ and everything, and it still makes references to "blocks" and "mining blocks" and those that mine have the option of transaction fees.. and I'm still not really sure what is happening. Yep, like I said. I've been thinking hard about them for two years, I have a cryptography background, and I still have 'a-ha!' moments weekly, at the very least.
There are a couple pretty good bitcoin explanation videos out there, but I'm not up to date on what the best one is. Maybe someone helpful can post a link.
After establishing support for food and shelter for Gavin, will there be opportunities for other bitcoin developers to apply for grants - maybe for specific implementations or features desperately needed. I'd love it. I think Gavin will be working out the specifics of what we want to do. I'd LOVE to see money put into a huge test suite, personally.
Thank you for furthering the effort of Cryptocurrency, I have written several policy papers in this arena, and look forward to the day where the deep web stigma is removed from the currency. Thanks FapNowPayLater! We genuinely appreciate the support.
Last updated: 2012-10-02 22:30 UTC | Next update: 2012-10-03 04:30 UTC
This post was generated by a robot! Send all complaints to epsy.
submitted by tabledresser to tabled [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Futures: In Conversation with Jon Matonis - YouTube Jon Matonis: Bitcoin - The future of commerce? Bitcoin Foundation Jon Matonis Interview Future Of Bitcoin: Jon Matonis Jon Matonis on Bitcoin and crypto-currencies

9:15 Jon Matonis - Why Support The Bitcoin Foundation; 9:00 CalvinAyre.com - Bitcoin online gambling sites; 8:45 Adrianne Jeffries - Miner problem: big changes are coming; Friday, 16 Nov 2012. 13:00 Jon Matonis - What's Your Bitcoin Strategy? 0:30 WordPress.com - Pay Another Way: Bitcoin; Wednesday, 14 Nov 2012 — Jon Matonis (@jonmatonis) October 20, 2010 At one point, the Wikipedia entry for Bitcoin was deleted because it was not considered noteworthy enough. Bitcoin article is now back on Wikipedia! Looking at Jon Matonis’ bio description, you would see that he is a man of many parts. His Twitter description reads that he is a monetar... Feb 27, 2015 - “Inside The Bitcoin Mine Of Antpool & http://t.co/GxH3huh2as http://t.co/1V9mW9aPFj via @qntra” Economist and Bitcoin Foundation founding director Jon Matonis went on record to reaffirm his belief in Bitcoin’s future last month, dispelling bubble fears.. In an Apr 2 interview with Business Insider, during the Innovate Finance conference in London, Matonis took the opportunity to tell the mainstream media publication that the concept of Bitcoin being in a ‘bubble’ was hypocritical.

[index] [38206] [11273] [28543] [1282] [45219] [49451] [2809] [18918] [46763] [24509]

Bitcoin Futures: In Conversation with Jon Matonis - YouTube

The Monetary Future is a leading economics blog at the intersection of free banking, cryptography, and digital currency. Jon Matonis is a Founding Director o... Speaker: Jon Matonis, Executive Director, Bitcoin Foundation From mobile payments to virtual currencies, the future of commerce is at a major crossroads. Bitcoin is currently the most talked about ... Try watching this video on www.youtube.com, or enable JavaScript if it is disabled in your browser. “When we finally see XBT given approval by the ISO, I think that will be a tremendous buy signal for bitcoin.” Jon Matonis, Founding Director, Bitcoin Foundation. You can view this video and ... My guest this week on Stuff That Interests Me is Jon Matonis, a central figures in the bitcoin and digital cash movement since the early 1990s, even before bitcoin existed.

#