Bitcoins on the Move — Is BTC Price Inversely Correlated ...

Bitcoin stocked in mempool for almost 48hours

I sent btc and it’s almost 48 hours now and it’s still in mempool. I used 2.70$ as transaction fee I don’t understand why it’s taking this long
submitted by tinny_og to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Daily Discussion] Monday, July 27, 2020

Thread topics include, but are not limited to:
Thread guidelines:
Other ways to interact:
submitted by AutoModerator to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

What is your Bitcoin Maturity Score?

How many of the 25 steps in the bitcoin rabbit hole have you mastered? Be honest. Count how many and divide your score by 2.5.
Your Score: <5: learner / weak hands 5-7: hodler 8-9: mature 10: orange pilled
Post your result below.
The Bitcoin Journey: 1. That (log) price chart! 🧐 2. Digital scarce? 🤔 3. Satochi 4. Blockchain 5. Alts 6. Mining, halvings, diff adjustment 7. How do I get it? 8. Wallets, keys, seeds, exchanges 9. Crypto Twitter 10. Fees, hashrate, mempool, txs 11. Money, inflation, central banks 12. Stocks, S&P500, 13. Charts, TA, RSI, MA’s, triangles, patterns 🤓 14. Keynes, Austrian economics 15. Bull/bear market, trading, win/lose 16. Network effects & adoption 17. Gold, Silver, real estate 18. Full node, electrum pvt server 19. Evangelize / orange pilled 💊 20. All-in / auto-dca 21. Immaculate conception 22. NGU, game theory 23. Cosmic renaissance 24. Opsec, multisig 25. Maximalism
Let me know your score & what’s missing from your journey. Also accepting suggestions for better results categories/ descriptions.
submitted by mbrookson to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Price Prediction 2020

Bitcoin Price Prediction 2020
Bitcoin is a digital and fully decentralized currency. Decentralization of the network is the main goal of the Bitcoin. The fundamental achievement of bitcoin is its genuine peer-to-peer payment system; no person or even institution was “in charge” of bitcoin.
by StealthEX
Three main ideas were embedded in the Bitcoin code:
• Bitcoin should not be regulated by anyone.
• Its emission should not be infinite.
• The cost of a coin depends on its demand.
The maximum number of bitcoins – 21 million, and the possibility of their extraction were laid in the bitcoin algorithm.
Bitcoin “halving” occurred on 11 May 2020. This means that its miners’ remuneration was halved.

Bitcoin statistics

Source: CoinMarketCap, Data was taken on 19 May 2020.
Current Price $9,672.54
ROI since launch 7,048.96%
Market Cap $177,790,148,642
Market Rank #1
Circulating Supply 18,380,918 BTC
Total Supply 18,380,918 BTC

Bitcoin achievements and future plans

Bitcoin in 2019:

Bitcoin Core released:
• Improved Partially Signed Bitcoin Transaction (PSBT) support and added support for output script descriptors. This allowed it to be used with the first released version of the Hardware Wallet Interface (HWI).
• Implemented the new CPFP carve-out mempool policy, added initial support for BIP158-style compact block filters (currently RPC only), improved security by disabling protocols such as BIP37 bloom filters and BIP70 payment requests by default. It also switches GUI users to bech32 addresses by default.
LND released:
• Support for Static Channel Backups (SCBs) that help users recover any funds settled in their LN channels even if they’ve lost their recent channel state.
• Improved autopilot to help users open new channels, plus built-in compatibility with Lightning Loop for moving funds onchain without closing a channel or using a custodian.
• Added support for using a watchtower to guard your channels when you’re offline.
• Added support for a more extensible onion format, improved backup safety, and improved the watchtower support.
Other:
• Its price has more than doubled.
• For the first time in history Bitcoin was assigned a rating of “A”.
• British court recognized Bitcoin as property.
• The second largest in Germany and ninth in Europe, the Stuttgart Stock Exchange launched Bitcoin spot trading.
• In Russia, for the first time, Bitcoin was added to the authorized capital of a company.
• Bitcoin Named the Best Asset of the Decade by Bank of America Merrill Lynch.

Bitcoin in 2020:

• Focus on the Lightning Network. The continuation of work on c-lightning (Blockstream), Eclair (ACINQ), LND (Lightning Labs) and Rust Lightning to develop the protocol.
• Expectation of the SchnorTaproot softfork in 2020 or 2021 that is improvement in fungibility, privacy, scalability and functionality.
Bitcoin “halving” occurred on 11 May 2020.
• Amid the general crisis caused by coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) and the depreciation of money, the Bitcoin value is growing.

Bitcoin Technical Analysis

Source: TradingView, Data was taken on 19 May 2020.

Bitcoin Price Prediction 2020

TradingBeasts BTC price prediction

The Bitcoin price is forecasted to reach $8,681 (-10.25%) by the beginning of June 2020. At the end of 2020 BTC price will be $8,345 (-13.72%).

Wallet investor Bitcoin price prediction

Bitcoin price prediction: maximum price by the end of December 2020 $13,559 (+40.19%), a minimum price $7,886 (-18.47%).

DigitalCoinPrice Bitcoin forecast

There will be a positive trend in the future and the BTC might be good for investing. BTC price will be equal to $22,501 at the end of 2020 (+132.63%).

Crypto-Rating BTC price forecast

Based on historical data Bitcoin price will be at $12,272 (+26.87%) in 1 week and $13,338 (+37.90%) in 1 month. Analysis of the cryptocurrency market shows that Bitcoin price may reach $18,679 (+93.11%) by the 1st of January 2021 driven by the potential interest from large institutional investors and more regulation expected in the field of digital currencies.

Buy Bitcoin at StealthEX

Bitcoin (BTC) is available for exchange on StealthEX with a low fee. Follow these easy steps:
✔ Choose the pair and the amount for your exchange. For example ETH to BTC.
✔ Press the “Start exchange” button.
✔ Provide the recipient address to which the coins will be transferred.
✔ Move your cryptocurrency for the exchange.
✔ Receive your coins.
The views and opinions expressed here are solely those of the author. Every investment and trading move involves risk. You should conduct your own research when making a decision.
Original article was posted on https://stealthex.io/blog/2020/05/19/bitcoin-price-prediction-2020/
submitted by Stealthex_io to u/Stealthex_io [link] [comments]

For all the newbies here: Relax, you are an early adopter, never 'panic-sell', corrections like this one are a good entry point of for 'Dollar Cost Averaging'. And no, Korea didn't just "ban" Bitcoin.

It is always a good time to buy (the real Bitcoin, not Bcash), we are NOT in a "bubble" (fiat is the real bubble), the answer is: Buy now, always Hodl in FUD times (Bitcoin has "died" many times, but Moneybadger don't care, buy the dips and never panic-sell, stuff like: "China/Korea ban Bitcoin...again!" will keep happening again and again.
Stick to the real Bitcoin through all the 'forks' and 'splits' that accomplish nothing but new mediocre, unsafe and centralized altcoins, strengthen/immunize Bitcoin and give you free altcoins to buy more Bitcoin.
All Central Powers look silly trying to control or ban it. Learn from history and listen to this absolute Boss. There will never be enough Bitcoin for every existing millionaire to own just ONE SINGLE BITCOIN, Total number of millionaires (in USD value) worldwide is around 33 million. BTC is the best money.
Also relax, you are actually an early adopter, BTC is still relatively small, mentally prepare yourself for healthy and expected market volatility/dips/corrections/"crashes" (check out this amazing 'Corrections Trends Perspective') and remember all this:
Follow this basic rules of Bitcoin:
It is always a good time to buy Bitcoin if you are hodling long term and not just for day trading, so this is a great strategy. Remember that Bitcoin has practically been up most of the time, and the road to the moon is paved with minor corrections (Bitcoin is never really "down" when you zoom-out).
Everybody parroting: "The bitcoin bubble is about to pop, not linear.
When they bring up the "2000 Dotcom Bubble collapse", tell them: I hope so! Look at these past decentralized/disruptive tech adoption "bubbles". Hyperbitcoinization is coming.
So is not farfetched to say that it will be at 100,000 by 2020, since it came from less than $1 to $5,000 in less than 10 years, and it hasn't even hit the bottom part of the exponential 'S-Curve' of adoption. Check out this great 2017 MIT study: "The Cryptocurrency Market Is Growing Exponentially". Patience pays, don't listen to most "Expert Analysts" or MSM".
Bitcoin is a Moneybadger that get's stronger and immunized with every new attack and this broad picture of its price since infancy (1 year candles on a logarithmic scale) shows Bitcoin growth is not a "bubble" but it's exponential (bigger "bubbles" every time), this old logarithmic scale has been accurate so far, as well as analysts like Wall Street strategist Tom Lee by using Metcalfe's Law: "The value of a telecommunications network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system (n2)" wiki-link. He explains it clearer here.
Learn the difference between Inflation (dollar) and Deflation (Bitcoin) and just take a look at the fiat >20 trillion (and growing fast) debt clock to get a visual shock of unlimited fiat supply (vs limited Bitcoin/Gold supply). BTC is secured by the laws of the Universe.
Bitcoin has outperformed every other currency, commodity, stock and asset since its inception in 2009. Bitcoin, the Moneybadger, is the first unseizable store of value in human history, unlike gold, equities, or fiat, it can't be confiscated if stored correctly. How banks think blockchain will disrupt their industry. Check out these Bitcoin Economy and Bitcoin Transaction infographics.
Also, remember its fixed, limited supply of 21 million coins ever, there are just ~4.5 million (~20%) bitcoins left to be mined till 2140 and the production will keep decreasing ("halving") every 4 years till then. So, remember this and don't wait for the Bitcoin "bubble" to burst or for the price to drop significantly again, because you could be waiting forever:
“The best time to buy bitcoin was in 2009...”.
Don't be -- this guy
Edit: Stay away from fake "Bitcoin" stuff like "btc", "Bitcoin".com (Bitcoin.org is the legit site), Bcash ("Bitcoin" Cash/BCH), "Bitcoin" Gold, etc.
submitted by domelane to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Some thoughts on the blocksize from a longtimer

People need to realize, that at the current (and still raising) popularity of Bitcoin, bigger blocks wouldn't help much if at all.
The thing is, it is very easy to fill blocks. If blocks aren't consistently full, users can effectively set fees to as low as they want and miners will include them anyway. Maybe there's going to be some delay, maybe not. Nice and dandy, but it doesn't work for long. It worked for BTC because the number of users was tiny. And it will work for altcoins, as long as they are tiny. But as soon as a given altcoin gets popular enough to be even remotely significant, it will hit the same wall.
As soon as there is more demand than room on the blockchain, some transactions will be left-over and start piling up: the mempool will keep raising until some people are priced out. Some users will say: "well, that's too much, I'm not going to do that test transaction" or "I'm going to use an altcoin for this". There is a "cut-off cliff of pain". I estimate that this pain-price point to be around $10-$20 and kind-of fixed. Exactly between "too expensive for paying for any coffee" and "super-cheap way to make international wires". Where rich users are fine paying, but smaller users have been cut-off. Bitcoin got there already. That's why it's nearing $20k/BTC. That's what many of you wanted, right?
Tip for people with small amounts stuck: get your wallets ready and maybe, if you're lucky, there will another time when network will calm-down a bit (around new year maybe? or maybe when Coinbase finally start supporting SegWit, etc) and either: consolidate all your small outputs into one bigger TXO (segwit one!), or send to an exchange during that time so at least you can sell it. Just three weeks ago we had a period of 2-5sat/B transaction clearing out.
Anyway, there is no other way. We can't have billions of people on-chain. If we had 8MB blocks, we would still fill them up, until some people wouldn't be able to compete with the fees. Maybe we would buy ourselves a month or two.
Also: I've heard many people complain that using the coins is most important, and better for Bitcoin than holding it. It's absolute rubbish. The value of Bitcoin is set by how many people are willing to HODL it at a given price-point, not how many people are willing to spend it. "Spending" Bitcoin is just a transfer of Bitcoin from person A, to person B - nothing in the system changed except current owner of some coins. It's even worse if B automatically sells for fiat immediately. Holding BTC means that your consider it worth more than a current market price. Bitcoin could totally work and be worth millions per piece, even with transactions at $100, as long as people consider it safe and worth holding. As long as I can spend $100 once a year to increase my BTC-retirement-fund, and then spend $100 once a year, once I retired to cash out to some local currency, I'm all good.
Now, I now it sucks if you're not rich, and you can't toy with it, and keep sending between wallets etc. And you feel like altcoins are better etc. And it's true - ATM many altcoins a cheaper way to send small sums of money around. But saving / investing... let me tell you how it looks from my perspective...
I am a software engineer in Sillicon Valley. I have a well-paying job, I eat $20-worth of sushi for dinner, pay $10 every time I trade stocks, pay $3k each month for rent. I can invest $10k in BTC without thinking too much about it. And I'm not telling you this to make you jealous. The wealth inequality is so vast! That's just reality and I think it gives some perspective. I know as I wasn't born here. And I'm no one special here. I'm a nobody. I can't even afford a decent house here. (hindsight is always 20/20, ha)
And there are thousands of software engineers like this. They receive and trade stocks on a weekly/monthly basis, worry about the overpriced stock market, overpriced housing, pilling up cash that they have no idea what to do with. Do you think they care if Bitcoin transaction costs $10? No, they don't. And how many people who complain about $1 fees will take to invest as much as a person like me can? Hundreds. And as I said - I'm nobody. A CEOs here can drop $1MM on Bitcoin, just because they feel playful a given day, or they got jealous of some other CEO friend told them how awesome they are doing with BTC, during a golf game on Saturday. And they wouldn't worry about 50% correction much if at all. And do you think these people buy value-phones and look for good deals on economy-class cars? Do you think they have time to research which altcoin of the day has low transactions? Come on. They will all think something like: "let's put 0.1% of my cash into this magic internet money and see what happens. I want that Bitcoin thing too.".
So, you're free to have your own opinion, but if you ask me, for time being, the people who can not afford to transmit Bitcoin too often will and should just hold it, transferring it when it's relatively cheaper, and use altcoins for playfull spending etc. Just don't expect too much return on your altcoin holdings. I expect Bitcoin to consistently keep growing the fastest, while altcoins keep multiplying. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy. Or an iPhone vs hundreds of Android spin-offs thing. I use Android, but do I believe someone will dethrone iPhone? Nope.
In a sense... you want to invest in Apple stocks, even if you can't afford to drop $1k on an iPhone yourself. Because of people richer than you that can, and will.
And if it makes it any better, I know that LN will solve it all for us. We just need to wait a couple of months.. a year maybe for it to be more common. And I've been through all the early hacks, crashes, MtGox, great depression, forking drama... years and years of problems. And Bitcoin being too popular is like the smallest problem I've seen so far. The problem that smaller coins would like to have, haha. Being patient and some educated faith is what you are rewarded for.
Edit: I woke up, and I have to work, so I'm just going to address some common themes.
Obviously I created this account as throw-away. Duh.
I already can send quickly money for free. I send my friends money with Google Wallet every day. And in many countries in Europe free wires were a thing for like 10 years now. And for purchasing stuff I am very happy with credit cards. They give me points and stuff. If someone thinks Bitcoin can compete as a "payment processor", then I don't know what to say... Wake up, Bitcoin in itself was never really that great at it. Bitcoin won't be a payment processor for the masses. It will be an alternative monetary and banking system. And on top of it, we will get cheap payments and such.
The reason why I hold Bitcoin is that I have something that can't be taken away from me. Through theft, inflation, confiscation, economic crisis, banking collapse, unjust court order, you name it. Noone can prove I have it, noone can take it away. I can keep 1% of my wealth in this weird thing and sleep better at night. Other reasons are secondary, though sure... speculation on the price is a nice thing.
LN networks are going to work. As a software engineer, I understood how Bitcoin works since I've read the whitepaper and did some research. I've always admired how simple it is. Cryptography part requires expertise, but that's OK. LNs are very elegant and simple too. On a daily basis, I work and improve systems that are way, way more complex than BTC + LN.
submitted by hodlforthelongest to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

r/Bitcoin recap - May 2019

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the 29th monthly Bitcoin news recap. (sorry a bit late this month)
For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in May 2019
Adoption
Development
Security
Mining
Business
Research
Education
Regulation & Politics
Archeology (Financial Incumbents)
Price & Trading
Fun & Other
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Looks like its flattened off at 10900, and that's good

With all the talk of the bubble exploding, because of the second down spike, it's reassuring to see it's leveled off at around 10900, I'm no expert, and I know the volatility is problematic, but the fact that we haven't had any massive fluctuations in the past day or so, is probably a good indicator that somewhere around 10800-10900 is the new floor?
$12k by next week?
Let's get the 12k memes ready boys!
Edit: ninja edit
submitted by Poetatoboat to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Debunked: "Bitcoin needs to become a store of value before it can be used as a medium of exchange."

Savings and consumption go hand in hand. One is quite useless without the other and if you try to base your money solely on store of value or rapid deflation — basically for sake of seeing a number on a screen appreciate — then you are running a pump scheme desperately looking for others to provide you with the real justification for the exceedingly higher price and you are just as much against sound money as anyone instead preferring to see it depreciate.
This is the case even if you think that you will necessarily have the use value in commerce of that same number created increase in relation to other goods or necessarily keep the same price tag on the global market later when you finally decide to reconfigure it's attributes. The market will not treat your coin the same way once you give it an actual use case besides speculation and there can be no guarantees as to its price once you stop those actions that made it rise in price so far.

Central planning or manipulation of the price system through the introduction of artificial shortages do not make sound money, no matter your intentions or the direction price takes in order to compensate for your shenanigans.

Bubbles form in environments where for one reason or another demand becomes artificially great in relation to supply considering somethings non-speculative use case. What is done to the price of an asset by systematically forcing rapid deflation is the private equivalent of what the central banks of the world do to all other assets when they are devaluing their locally prescribed fiat currency. It may sound better for savers, but is just as unsustainable and in fact erodes the point of regularly increasing ones savings in the first place.
Without having a monopoly, trade in the actual underlying asset thus historically tends to be replaced with much more risky promissary notes used off the record (off chain) and diminish overall in favor off any and all comparable alternatives that provide better liquidity. Trade in the underlying asset may never stop entirely, but it's connection to the rest of the productive economy has significantly worsened and made it's use increasingly unproductive except where absolutely needed.
To quote Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, a big proponent of money as a store of value,
Money is a tool of exchange; it represents wealth only so long as it can be traded for material goods and services. Wealth does not grow in nature; it has to be produced by men. . .
. . When people refuse to consider the source of wealth, what they refuse to recognize is the fact that wealth is the product of man’s intellect, of his creative ability, fully as much as is art, science, philosophy or any other human value.
Source: The Objectivist Forum
and
So you think that money is the root of all evil? . . . Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?
Source: For the New Intellectual
As per Satoshis design — now arguably better implemented in the form of Bitcoin Cash — bitcoins were always a store of value, because they represented the fungible results of hours of precious computing power that had been consciously expended in order to create them.
They clearly had value to the creator and they also clearly were fungible enough to be divisible into very small pieces and easily passed on to another wallet held by Satoshi himself or by one of his earliest friends to join him in running the network.
The Bitcoin design had been created as the productive response to issues of the past that all stemmed from the problem of having to trust in the reliability of a third party as mediator in any money transactions. It mitigated abusive banking policies and it used competitive market principles rather than a mint or other overseer to keep the network available to any user and drive down the cost of each transaction to the point where it could be free or mostly go completely unnoticed, which would make it usable as cash payment in e-commerce or in person.
There were no "moochers", no arbitrary price manipulation, no central entity that could not be replaced and no price tags preventing small and casual cash-like transactions of any kind.
Any high but limited amount of inflation pressure at the time would have been mitigated by Satoshis own valuation of the importance of these attributes even before he had anyone to trade his coins with and also later when he potentially had, which is exactly how the so called "subjective theory of value" describes prices on a free market.
Economist Ludvig Von Mises, representing the Austrian School of economics and arguably the foremost influence on Rand in this area of thought, had the following to say about money in this regard
In the case of money, subjective use-value and subjective exchange-value coincide.
He also explicitly reminds us that,
Both are derived from objective exchange-value, for money has no utility other than that arising from the possibility of obtaining other economic goods in exchange for it.
Source: The Theory of Money and Credit
But as both Mises and here below Rand are quick to point out, since this means that money is not merely meant to be passed around carelessly (at any rate, slow or fast, cheaply or expensively), the most important function of money is retaining value until it is time to do so, including of course the very moment of the exchange itself. When exactly that time is, can not be allowed to be decided by another human being or by a government-like entity that might be tempted for reasons of controlling such behavior to introduce a tax or a special fee of some kind. Money — the default method of exchange within a network of people, or a community — must still be liquid enough to allow it to be spent cheaply and easily at all times.
Money is the tool of men who have reached a high level of productivity and a long-range control over their lives. Money is not merely a tool of exchange: much more importantly, it is a tool of saving, which permits delayed consumption and buys time for future production. To fulfill this requirement, money has to be some material commodity which is imperishable, rare, homogeneous, easily stored, not subject to wide fluctuations of value, and always in demand among those you trade with.
This leads you to the decision to use gold as money. Gold money is a tangible value in itself and a token of wealth actually produced. When you accept a gold coin in payment for your goods, you actually deliver the goods to the buyer; the transaction is as safe as simple barter. When you store your savings in the form of gold coins, they represent the goods which you have actually produced and which have gone to buy time for other producers, who will keep the productive process going, so that you’ll be able to trade your coins for goods any time you wish.
Source: Philosophy: Who Needs It
Bitcoin fits perfectly into the formula so far described and we may conclude that when it comes to its basic function as money, there is not much more to say in terms of Bitcoin qua the design described in the final edition of Satoshis paper; Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System.

But the story did not end there (a brief but still long overview of the breakdown of the Bitcoin community around Bitcoin Core)

As Bitcoin was already making mainstream appearances time and time again (which it had already started to do while Satoshi was still openly in the community and working on the project), it turned out that many of the remaining developers, as well as those that would arrive later, would completely reject Satoshis views and the design he had proposed. While they likely still keep convincing themselves that they are developing Bitcoin and that their actions have been in the best interest of the project as they see it, they had and still have radically different priorities and the community that formed around them naively competed to rationalize the basis for these priorities among each other and to any newcomers. This resulted in what must carefully be described as a "cult like" atmosphere and lead to a number of debilitating changes in the networks protocol.
Everything started to change. New ideas that went completely against the Bitcoin design started to be made part of the general concerns and everything from scaling, network topology, acceptable fee levels and even transaction speed and reliability were made to perform worse than they used to because of the deep ideological differences that allowed this. The economic understanding of the gradually reduced block rewards for the miners was only one of the many casualties within the community.
According to design, as the tokens of CPU cycles started to spread across the world, the inflation would start to taper off and ultimately at some point in the still distant future ensure that no actively inflating parties were allowed on the network anymore; Thereby safeguarding the limit of 21 million coins and that any price being gradually established during the time of initial distribution would meet up with objective exchange value as per the users in the community and from there remain relatively stable. Then, the plan always was, fees and interest in running the network itself would be the remaining incentive already built into the system to keep it going.
However soon, long before the final stage of the coin distribution which even today still has a really long way to go, developers working on the official reference software implementation that had been named "Bitcoin Core" no longer all expected that this would happen. In fact, not everyone agreed that the system should perform as "cash" at all, but instead perhaps as a "digital gold" or "store of value" that could then still be traded easily, only through other presumably still decentralized means.
That's how it was decided and eventually why increasing the amount of transactions on the network through a simple and safe change of a single parameter was not only considered a potentially unsustainable path to continue down in the long run, but also actually not as high a priority as other factors much less relevant to the systems function as "cash".
Instead of upgrading per the only plan consisted with the original design and as suggested by Satoshi, his successor Gavin Andresen and countless others that eventually would become isolated and for various reasons themselves decide to or be forced to have their role in Bitcoin development further reduced, the block space available for such transactions was kept so low that it eventually got full. This in turn triggered an event in the self-stabilizing transaction fee parameter, the price of which would normally trend as low as it could over time by virtue of being priced in the designs own deflationary native currency and nodes choosing to keep their fees low for sake of internal competition. Now the market in fees traded steadily higher, spiking several times, and with the introduction of features that would let the users more easily increase their fees to have higher chance of being one of the lucky to transact on time, got more and more extreme. At one point it had Greg Maxwell — prominent developer of technologies that would eventually enable "solutions" to this problem, such as the Lightning Network to be deployed as a side chain to what at least ought to be the main chain — supposedly celebrating the event, which he and other developers had already made known was the intent all along.
Personally, I’m pulling out the champaign that market behaviour is indeed producing activity levels that can pay for security without inflation, and also producing fee paying backlogs needed to stabilize consensus progress as the subsidy declines
Source
This in turn, not only priced out all casual and cash type transactions, but also generated a lock-in effect as users could no longer sell what supposedly was still "currency" without loosing a significant portion of their balance or perhaps do anything at all, until the price of the "coins" had trended high enough to compensate for any fees. The now known risks and fees, had spread throughout the system in various ways. For example had fees to and from exchanges increased and the newly developer introduced RBF function also pushed (the one that would allow a user to increase fees, and that was wrongly argued on various occasions to have been part of the original design) made users have to wait for hours or days before their transactions were considered safe. In other words, the system was no longer the one described in the paper and behaved at best more like a typical bank.
But while Bitcoin use for casual and outward facing commerce transactions stagnated, this didn't stop the price rallies that were increasingly driven on by this fee based lack of "liquidity" for recent buyers waiting to sell and fears of missing out on a good investment. It can also be speculated, that not only the lock in-effect for traders looking to ride the price but the high fees on users themselves contributing to a rapid concentration in wealth amongst miners and exchanges, thereby replacing the deflation already brought on by increased difficulty and reduced block rewards with a state of hyperdeflation.
While this may sound good for every bag holder on the onset, it was not so good for the small users looking to spend their coins. Their money store of value had now become more like a time locked interest paying account with a really large withdraw fee.
For those users that did not have much or enough money to even pay the fee in the first place, a single necessary transaction could trigger an event to them comparable to what happened in Cyprus during the height of the financial crisis, as the government had a large portion of savings confiscated as an "emergency tax" directly out of ordinary people's savings accounts. In fact it might be far worse for them than what happened back then, as the sum needed to be paid in fees could be a far greater percentage of their savings and constitute a small fortune depending on where in the world the user had earned and were planning to spend it.
It also did not help at all in the long run that the bull market may draw in more speculating "adopters", since this deflationary mode is only a temporary benefit to traders and doesn't itself necessarily bring any reliable value or relatively stable price at higher levels at all. It can just as well collapse again at any moment and lead to countless losses or by worsening simply rob users of their money by not making it usable on the network anymore.
Instead of viewing this economic policy as merely "testing" the system or "preparing it" for a future without block rewards, you would do better to compare it to "pumping" pretty much any currency, stock or commodity, as the goal even when assuming "good faith" is to centrally plan a restriction on blockspace to below market demand and "happily accept" the result that it manipulates the internal price per byte that is sent upwards. This in combination with already existing speculative interest from the public also almost inevitably leads to significant price moves and in turn even more of the public buying into the bull run before the developers themselves have actually provided anything that should logically attract such increased investment or use interest in the first place.
After the initial pumps it may also be anticipated that corrections in the form of bear markets will tend to set in, as the nodes mempools (the recorded transactions now having to wait in a long que to be timestamped) eventually clears are expected to clear. Because this marks the eventual return to normal fee levels and thus also a temporary stop to increasing deflation. The perceived inflation in turn created by increased liquidity in the underlying asset (on chain) may then set in fast or slow in the markets as some users are finally able to sell for a more reliable asset.
(As soon as speculators have become accustomed to the new prices in the underlying asset itself, its related IOUs and fees relating to both, markets will have stabilized enough that bullish speculation either alone or with the help of the very same processes can start over, yet again and with renewed enthusiasm.)
In the end, the market response will be what the market response will be and you have no control over it. Now that there is Bitcoin Cash, the same is true for it. No guarantees exist or can be made that either of the two chains will remain the more successful one as compared to the other, but the market will be the ultimate arbitrator in the long run.
TLDR: Savings and consumption go hand in hand. Bitcoins were a store of value ever since inception, even when only Satoshi were mining them. All market prices must emerge and be entertained in the market place without top down manipulation through the introduction of artificial scarcity. Pumping prices or letting the various parts of the design malfunction/be fundamentally changed to go against the rest is not sustainable and will only break the incentives model. In the long run the market is the ultimate arbitrator in all matters of money prices.
submitted by fruitsofknowledge to btc [link] [comments]

Creating a Headless Staking Node on Ubuntu 18.04

Creating a Headless Staking Node on Ubuntu 18.04
##UPDATE## Step 8 - Option 2, has some bugs in the final build process. i haven't had time to work them out yet!

This guide will take you through building and running a headless x42 Full Node! The OS I am using here is Ubuntu 18.04, this guide picks up from a complete/fresh ubuntu install.
This is meant to setup a staking node and so this guide will run you through building, configuring and setting up staking. It will not cover sending transactions or anything else.
The things we are going to do:
  • Step 1 - Install .net core
  • Step 2 - Download The x42 Node Source & Compile It
  • Step 3 - Setting The x42 Node Up To Run On Boot
  • Step 4 - Setup A New Wallet
  • Step 5 - Configure The x42 Daemon
  • Step 6 - Get Address
  • Step 7 - Check Balance
  • Step 8 - Connect The UI Wallet To A Headless Node
  • Step 8 - [Option 1 - Use Installer] Connect The UI Wallet To A Headless Node
  • Step 8 - [Option 2 - Build/Compile UI Only] Connect The UI Wallet To A Headless Node # BROKEN#

Step 1 - Install .net Core

Here is the reference link:
https://dotnet.microsoft.com/download/linux-package-manageubuntu18-04/sdk-current
Register Microsoft Key’s & Install Their repos:
cd /tmp wget -q https://packages.microsoft.com/config/ubuntu/18.04/packages-microsoft-prod.deb sudo dpkg -i packages-microsoft-prod.deb sudo add-apt-repository universe sudo apt -y install apt-transport-https sudo apt update sudo apt -y install dotnet-sdk-2.2 
Microsoft collect telemetry data by default, if you are part of the “tin foil hat brigade” you can set the following environment variable to turn it off:
echo "DOTNET_CLI_TELEMETRY_OPTOUT=1" >> /etc/environment 
now you should be at a point where .net core is installed on your system… that wasn’t so hard was it! You can check by running the following command:
dotnet--list-sdks 
The output should look like this:
$ dotnet --list-sdks 2.2.103 [/usshare/dotnet/sdk] 

Step 2 - Download & Compile The x42 Node

This part assumes you have GIT installed, if not:
apt -y install git 
Now to pull down the source and compile it!
cd ~/ git clone https://github.com/x42protocol/X42-FullNode.git # “cd” into the source folder cd X42-FullNode/src/ 
Now .net core uses NuGet for package management, before we compile, we need to pull down all of the required packages.. its as simple as running (this will take a couple of minutes) inside of “X42-FullNode/src/”:
dotnet restore 
now we are ready to compile the source, execute (inside of “X42-FullNode/src/”):
dotnet build --configuration Release 
ignore the yellow warnings, this is just the rosyln compiler having a grumble.. if you get red ones then something went wrong! The “--configuration Release” will strip out all debug symbols and slim things down.. only a little, this optional parameter is not mandatory.
Once this is done everything is built/compiled, you can run the daemon directly from the repository, this can be done by going to:
cd ~/X42-FullNode/src/x42.x42D/bin/Release/netcoreapp2.1 dotnet x42.x42D.dll 
this will kick off the node, however if you exit SSH at this time it will kill the process! however I always recommend copying out the binaries to a separate folder. This can be done with the following:
mkdir ~/x42node mv ~/X42-FullNode/src/x42.x42D/bin/Release/netcoreapp2.1/*.* ~/x42node/ 
now we have everything we need to run the node outside the git repository! What we need to do now is run the node and have it create the default x42.conf file.. so
cd ~/x42node dotnet x42.x42D.dll 
feel free to hit “CTRL + C” to exit the application after a couple of seconds, by then the folders/files would have been created at the following path:
~/.x42node/x42/x42Main/ 

Step 3 - Setting The x42 Node Up To Run on Boot

Now we are going to create a service file so our x42 node automatically starts when the system is rebooted.
THINGS TO NOTE ABOUT BELOW.. CHANGE THE ##USER## to the username your currently using as these files are within your home directory!
We need to drop to root for this..
sudo -i cat < /etc/systemd/system/x42node.service [Unit] Description=x42 Node [Service] WorkingDirectory=/home/##USER##/x42node ExecStart=/usbin/dotnet /home/##USER##/x42node/x42.x42D.dll Restart=always # Restart service after 10 seconds if the dotnet service crashes: RestartSec=10 SyslogIdentifier=x42node User=##USER## Environment=ASPNETCORE_ENVIRONMENT=Development [Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target EOF 
To enable the service, run the following (as the root user):
systemctl enable x42node.service 
BOOM.. the node isn’t running yet.. but next time the system restarts it will automatically run!
now lets exit out of root!
exit 
We can now start the node up and begin downloading blocks, by running the following command:
sudo systemctl start x42node.service 
if you want to check its loaded and see some of the output, you can run:
sudo systemctl status x42node.service 
an example of the output:
$ sudo systemctl status x42node.service ● x42node.service - x42 Node Loaded: loaded (/etc/systemd/system/x42node.service; enabled; vendor preset: enabled) Active: active (running) since Thu 2019-01-24 15:47:55 UTC; 14s ago Main PID: 5456 (dotnet) Tasks: 23 (limit: 1112) CGroup: /system.slice/x42node.service └─5456 /usbin/dotnet /home/darthnoodle/x42node/x42.x42D.dll Jan 24 15:48:09 x42staking x42node[5456]: Batch Size: 0 Mb (0 headers) Jan 24 15:48:09 x42staking x42node[5456]: Cache Size: 0/50 MB Jan 24 15:48:09 x42staking x42node[5456]: Jan 24 15:48:09 x42staking x42node[5456]: =======Mempool======= Jan 24 15:48:09 x42staking x42node[5456]: MempoolSize: 0 DynamicSize: 0 kb OrphanSize: 0 Jan 24 15:48:09 x42staking x42node[5456]: Jan 24 15:48:09 x42staking x42node[5456]: info: Stratis.Bitcoin.Connection.ConnectionManagerBehavior[0] Jan 24 15:48:09 x42staking x42node[5456]: Peer '[::ffff:86.184.76.255]:52342' connected (outbound), agent 'x42:1.2.13 (70012)', height 213920 Jan 24 15:48:09 x42staking x42node[5456]: info: Stratis.Bitcoin.Connection.ConnectionManagerBehavior[0] Jan 24 15:48:09 x42staking x42node[5456]: Peer '[::ffff:86.184.76.255]:52342' offline, reason: 'Receiving cancelled.'. All node screen output can be found in the /valog/syslog file. 

Step 4 - Setup a New Wallet

With the Node running, we now need to setup and/or restore a wallet!
Everything will be performed through the API’s, however by default these API’s are listening on localhost (127.0.0.1), if you are connecting in remotely then this would be a problem since you cant hit that IP. The solution, SSH TUNNEL!
Execute the following command on your local system:
ssh -L 42220:localhost:42220 @ 
This binds the local port (on your system) with 127.0.0.1:42220 on the remote system, once you have executed the command you can type the following address in your laptop/desktop’s web browser and be able to access the API’s:
http://127.0.0.1:42220/swaggeindex.html 
It should look something like this:
https://preview.redd.it/9lzeg3vob8d21.jpg?width=482&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b5d574998816056140d5d6de7b03c56772a892fe
To Create a new wallet, first we have to generate some mnemonic works (e.g. the seed), you can do that by going to the following API:
/api/Wallet/mnemonic 
Hit the “Try it out” button which then prompts you for 2 fields:
https://preview.redd.it/dvbdllfrb8d21.jpg?width=722&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=766d14bafba6facbcd56d31c63c0012748e682e5
Enter “English” and I would recommend 24 words as this greatly increases the seed strength! Once that is done you hit execute and then scroll down to see the “Response Body”, this should contain the mnemonic which you are going to use to create the wallet! This looks something like below:
https://preview.redd.it/6p4q0rsub8d21.jpg?width=603&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=44b9265626467a43ca670b134c4d28187f475c2e
THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT, BACKUP THIS MNEMONIC TO A SAFE SECURE LOCATION THAT IS ENCRYPTED!!!
So now we have our mnemonic, its time to generate the wallet, for this we need to use the API:
/api/Wallet/create
There are a number of parameters which are required in order to create a wallet:
WalletCreationRequest{ mnemonic string password* string passphrase* string name* string } 
It should be noted that the password and mnemonic are is the most important parts of this request where the “password” will encrypt the wallet and Is required to unlock it.
  • Hit the “Try it out” button
  • input the necessary data
  • Insert the mnemonic
  • Put a password & passphrase
  • “Name” is what your wallet will be called
It should look something like the following:
https://preview.redd.it/958ttfbxb8d21.jpg?width=603&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ce48336436ea4b469b5e87513da802de0bf444ee
Hit “Execute”, the “Loading” sign may spin for a few minutes while the wallet is created… once the wallet has been created the “Response Body” will return the mnemonic you have just used.. we now have a wallet!!
HOWEVER IT IS NOT LOADED INTO THE NODE JUST YET!
This is where we will now jump back out and to configure the node to automatically load the wallet and automatically start staking when it first loads.
AGAIN BACKUP YOUR MNEMONIC AND PASSWORD, MAKE SURE THEY ARE ENCRYPTED AND STORED SOMEWHERE SAFE!

Step 5 - Configure The x42 Daemon

Now we are going to modify the x42.conf file in order to automatically load our wallet and start staking 😊
First things first, lets stop our node by running the following command:
sudo systemctl stop x42node.service 
CD to the following folder and view its contents:
~/.x42node/x42/x42Main ls -lah 
within that folder there should be 2 files you are interested in:
-rw-r--r-- 1 darthnoodle darthnoodle 18K Jan 28 16:01 TestWallet.wallet.json -rw-rw-r-- 1 darthnoodle darthnoodle 3.1K Jan 24 15:25 x42.conf 
So TestWallet.wallet.json is our physical wallet that will be loaded, but for right now we want to modify the x42.conf file.. fire up your favourite text editor (if you use VI you’re a masochist)..
nano x42.conf 
The area we are interested in is the following:
####Miner Settings#### #Enable POW mining. #mine=0 #Enable POS. #stake=0 #The address to use for mining (empty string to select an address from the wallet). #mineaddress= #The wallet name to use when staking. #walletname= #Password to unlock the wallet. #walletpassword= #Maximum block size (in bytes) for the miner to generate. #blockmaxsize=1000000 #Maximum block weight (in weight units) for the miner to generate. #blockmaxweight=1000000 #Enable splitting coins when staking. #enablecoinstakesplitting=1 #Minimum size of the coins considered for staking, in satoshis. #minimumstakingcoinvalue=10000000 #Targeted minimum value of staking coins after splitting, in satoshis. #minimumsplitcoinvalue=10000000000 
Uncomment (remove the #) of the following lines and change their value:
stake=1 (changed to 1) walletname=TestWallet (changed to our Wallet Name) walletpassword=password123 (changed to the wallet password) 
save the file and exit back to the command prompt, now we shall restart the node with the following command:
sudo systemctl status x42node.service 
now the wallet is automatically loaded and ready for action!
YES I KNOW YOU HAVE PUT YOUR PASSWORD IN CLEARTEXT, THIS IS WHERE YOU SHOULD HARDEN YOUR BOX. IF THEY CAN GET TO THE POINT WHERE THEY CAN READ YOUR CONF FILE THEY CAN JUST GRAB YOUR WALLET AND BRUTEFORCE THE PASSWORD.
You can check its loaded by going back to the API and executing the following command:
/Dashboard 
Or execute the following command on the NODE:
curl -X GET "http://127.0.0.1:42220/Dashboard" -H "accept: application/json" 
both will produce the same output, if you scroll to the bottom you should see something like this:
======Wallets====== TestWallet/account 0, Confirmed balance: 0.00000000 Unconfirmed balance: 0.00000000 
This means the wallet is loaded and ready for action!!

Step 6 - Get Addresses

Next thing you are probably going to want is a receive address and to check the balance and TX history.. so lets start with getting an address!
Go to the following API:
/api/Wallet/unusedaddress 
Fill in the Wallet name which is “TestWallet” (in this example) and “account 0” (which is the first/default account):
https://preview.redd.it/ayri5jk0c8d21.jpg?width=602&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2d16bbb78da49c0125d24d0834c9454d702cb7a1
Hit execute and you should have an x42 address within the “Response Body”:

https://preview.redd.it/tmc495j3c8d21.jpg?width=349&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b00177f66a9e24c980d3c6d4e532a33cbf3fb0bc
BOOM… ok now we can receive funds! 😊

Step 7 - Check TX History

Go to the API and the following call:
/api/Wallet/history 
The 2 fields we are most concerned about are:
https://preview.redd.it/lw194af6c8d21.jpg?width=602&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=27e264bc008879355ff5b9c50a0a5cb06f16e960
Input the name of the wallet and account you want to view the history of, then hit execute. The other fields can be black. This will return a list of TX’s that the wallet has received:
This should look like the following:
https://preview.redd.it/x1hgargac8d21.jpg?width=585&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4fd25f22772f4bcec523a6e82b321ae8146a2c75
There is an easier way of doing this, that doesn’t require you to be connected to your node.. especially if your only interested in viewing your staking rewards… THE EXPLORER!
Access the following URL:
https://explorer.x42.tech/address/ 
this will allow you to easily see all TX’s associated with this address, it should look something like below:
https://preview.redd.it/e480grscc8d21.jpg?width=601&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0f8a9ebc7944dfcc73f7df659bd839bb983ba90c
… and your done! By this point your node should be running, staking and you have an easy way to view transactions/rewards 😊


Step 8 - Connect The UI Wallet To A Headless Node

The UI utilises a combination of technologies, however the important part is the code attempts to access the x42 Node API on 127.0.0.1:42220.
So you have 2 options here:
  1. Download the Wallet Installers
  2. Compile The UI Yourselves
Pick the option that best suits you given the pros/cons below:
Option 1 - Pro's/Cons
Pro's
  • If you use the installer, its quick and easy.
Cons
  • This also installs an x42 node on your system which runs when the UI loads.
  • If you dont setup an SSH tunnel before running the wallet the local node will bind to the port and the tunnel wont work.. you will be connecting to the local wallet!!
Option 2 - Pro's/Cons
Pro's
  • You only run the UI, the x42 node is not installed
  • you dont have a superfluous node running, downloading blocks on your local system
Cons
  • Time Consuming
  • Have to download dependencies and manually compile the code

Pre-Requirement - Needed For Both Options!!
As previously mentioned, the UI attempts to access the API's on 127.0.0.1:42220, however our node isnt running on our local system. IN ORDER TO GET IT WORKING YOU NEED TO HAVE AN SSH TUNNEL, THIS TUNNEL NEEDS TO REMAIN ACTIVE WHENEVER YOU WANT TO ACCESS THE WALLET.
this can be done by executing the following command:
ssh -L 42220:localhost:42220 @ 


Step 8 - [Option 1 - Use Installer] Connect The UI Wallet To A Headless Node

Download and install the UI/Wallet & Node from:
https://github.com/x42protocol/X42-FullNode-UI/releases

DO NOT RUN THE WALLET YET!
Those of us who dont want to run a local node and just want the UI, execute the following commands (as an administrator):
cd C:\Program Files\x42 Core\resources\daemon\ ren x42.x42D.exe x42.x42D.exe.bak 
The above is with Windows, if your are in *NIX then locate the daemon and rename it (i will update how to do that/where to find it shortly)
Setup the SSH tunnel as outlined above, Execute the wallet and it will load, however you will see an exception:

https://preview.redd.it/9os5h8q7scd21.jpg?width=550&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac45ed7bc987917142075c61fb486e7d71f820d1
dont worry, this is just the wallet trying to execute/start the x42 node which we dont want, if all works according to plan.. after you click "OK" you should now be presented with the wallet UI and have the option to select what wallet you would like to load:

https://preview.redd.it/hnyt0b4mscd21.jpg?width=958&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a47df710a804375d8363ffcd77d1ede2862b9b4d
... DONE!

Step 8 - [Option 2 - Build/Compile UI Only] Connect The UI Wallet To A Headless Node ###BROKEN

THIS IS STILL A WORK IN PROGRESS, THE ELECTRON BUILD DOESNT WANT TO COMPILE BECAUSE SOME CODE IS MANGLED SOMEWHERE!!

Ok, this is the fun bit! .. we need to install the following dependencies. these instructions are written for a Windows system but it should be easy enough to perform the same on a *NIX system.
Install Dependencies
In order to build the wallet UI, you need to install the following components:
  • git
  • NodeJS
  • Electron Builder
First thing you need to do is install git, so download and install the package:
https://gitforwindows.org/
Next you need to install NodeJS, download and install the package:
https://nodejs.org/en/download/
Next we need to install the node package manager:
npm install npx –verbose 
next we need to make sure we have Visual Studio build tools and Python (2.7) installed, this can be done by executing the following (AS AN ADMINISTRATOR!):
npm install -g --production windows-build-tools 
this will install the necessary tools to build C#/C++ code and python 2.7, this could take some time! When its done you should have something like the following;

https://preview.redd.it/5ekfy5g1kcd21.jpg?width=490&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f65196dee6f78f2ececec5ee8b5df1044d68f635

Build & Install - Windows
Create a temp folder to navigate to a folder where you want to download the GIT repository, execute the following command:
git clone https://github.com/x42protocol/X42-FullNode-UI.git 
This will clone the repository into the folder, it will only clone the wallet and not the Node source! now lets CD into the folder and build the UI:
cd X42-FullNode-UI\FullNode.UI npm install 
This will download and install all dependencies (can take a while), at the end you should see something like..

https://preview.redd.it/0zfbfxa8kcd21.jpg?width=601&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=438d072a6ab2bc7a3d84a8dfe773968acc762bc7
Now the stock UI has a number of third-party libraries which contain some vulnerabilities, being a security conscious person, ive also run:
npm audit fix 
when this is done, we have fixed most of the package vulnerabilities 😊 We also get a complaint about the typescript library being too new for the version of angular in use, so run the following command to install the additional dependency:
npm install [email protected]">=2.4.2 <2.7.0" 
now its time to build the UI, execute the following:
npm run build:prod 
once complete you should see something like the following..

https://preview.redd.it/56vf9zfckcd21.jpg?width=601&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=31b72daff9ab5001843cba529a7bd38c76fd099d
Next its time to compile the electron binary, it should be noted that the build/package process utilises AppVoyer which is not installed and if you attempt to build right now you will get the following error:
cannot expand pattern "${productName}-v${version}-setup-${os}-${env.arch}.${ext}": env arch is not defined. 
To fix this we need to modify the build file, this is a quick one liner that can do it:
powershell -Command "(gc electron-builder.json) -replace 'env.arch', 'arch' | Out-File electron-builder.json" 
Essentially the offending line for Windows is..
"artifactName": "${productName}-v${version}-setup-${os}-${env.arch}.${ext}" 
The build cannot resolve “env.arch”, so the above one liner replaces “env.arch” with “arch” which works 😊
execute the following command:
npx electron-builder build --windows --x64 
At present i get the following error, no matter what i do.. and ive ran out of time to go hunting about.. if anyone has any ideas on how to fix then please post in here or message me on discord:

https://preview.redd.it/t66rtuqdtcd21.jpg?width=918&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a3f1a5ff682586348909c67645ca7ae9454922ff


Happy staking!

If you found this post helpful, then buy me a beer and send a donation to XQXeqrNFad2Uu7k3E9Dx5t4524fBsnEeSw
submitted by D4rthNoodle to x42 [link] [comments]

Bitcoin transaction backlog now 180 000. Network is full.

Chart: https://blockchain.info/charts/mempool-count
Average wait time for a bitcoin transaction is now 12 hours.
Again, the Bitcoin network is unable to meet increased demand.
If waiting time increases to 24 - 36 hours (something we haven't seen before) I expect panic with investors, who will then move onto Altcoins to get their crypto wealth off the exchanges.
This might cause a domino effect that influences:
A) Bitcoin price
B) Panic on the forums and chats because of increased reports of "BTC transaction stuck" - especially from all these newbies who are new on the scene since 2 weeks.
C) altcoin prices will be fueled with bitcoin money
We don't know if shit is going to hit the fan, but now would be a good time to stock up some alts as preperation for the great flood.
This is why I still don't own Bitcoin, the network is shit.
Disclaimer: I've predicted panic many times before and was always proven wrong, since the backlog suddenly got cleared. So take this post with a grain of salt.
submitted by Nooku to ETHInsider [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash transactions within mins and paying penny fees! Why Bitcoin Cash will be worth more?

People like me believe in simple business fundamentals. Right now, some people are paying over $5 usd per transaction on legacy bitcoin. I paid $10 usd as transaction fees last weekend on legacy bitcoin. My legacy bitcoin transactions stay stuck and unconfirmed in the mempool for 2 days when I tried to pay small fees. Contrast this with bitcoin cash where my transaction was confirmed within 10 mins and paid pennies for transaction fees.
Say you're a business looking to adopt bitcoin as a way to accept payments, which would you choose? Do you think your customer is happy to pay $5 usd transaction fees to buy your $2 cake? Do you think starbucks can adopt bitcoin if customer has to pay $5 usd transaction fees for his $6 coffee? Bitcoin cash does not have scaling issues so transaction fees can remain at pennies even at scale. This will massively drive adoption rate for bitcoin cash and that means more demand, which drives up the value of bitcoin cash.
In a stock market, the price of a company's stock may not match the actual valuation in the short term. But given time, the price will eventually correct to match that valuation. So the question is, what is the value of bitcoin? We can see people are willing to pay $4k for an unscalable problematic bitcoin, what do you think people will price a scalable more secured bitcoin cash?
And remember, bitcoin cash is only less than 1 month old. For it to double in value within 1 month tells me there may be others who shared the same thoughts. And for the above reasons, I am holding for at least the next 5 years and will be buying more.
submitted by MobTwo to btc [link] [comments]

Why does the mempool on TradeBlock and Kaiko show drastically different mempool sizes? Currently Kaiko shows 7.5mb, and Tradblock shows 38mb. Is one correct, and the other wrong? Are the looking at different measures, including different transactions? https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/

Why does the mempool on TradeBlock and Kaiko show drastically different mempool sizes? Currently Kaiko shows 7.5mb, and Tradblock shows 38mb. Is one correct, and the other wrong? Are the looking at different measures, including different transactions? https://tradeblock.com/bitcoin/ submitted by littleenginetuta to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

I’m Hoarding Bitcoins, and No You Can’t Have Any Daniel Krawisz February 12, 2014

http://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/im-hoarding-bitcoins-and-no-you-cant-have-any/#selection-7.6-17.23
Those nasty hoarders! You know the ones. They won’t use bitcoins because they think they’ll be worth so much more later. But how can we convince businesses to accept bitcoins if no one will spend them? We need to guilt those hoarders into spending their bitcoins to support the merchants! This article is about why this line of reasoning is exactly wrong.
If You Sell Bitcoins, You Aren’t “Selling” Bitcoins I’m sure you’ve heard a story like this. “I’ve been going to all the local stores and telling them how awesome Bitcoin is! But none of them wants to take payments in Bitcoin! Why don’t they like it?”
Let’s think about that for a minute. You are essentially telling the merchant, “Hey look at this totally awesome thing that I want to get rid of! You should trade me some stuff for it!” Not actually much of a sales pitch, is it? Why would the merchant want something that you, apparently, don’t want? If you really want him to start accepting bitcoins himself, ask him, “Do you take worthless paper money at this store? Good, because you’re not getting a satoshi from me!” That will convince him that you think they’re valuable.
How about this instead? Tell your local merchants that you want to be able to spend cash in their stores and get the change in bitcoins. That’s the kind of store I’d like to shop at. And then when the merchant later says “I’m not going to do that anymore. I want you to pay me in bitcoins!” you know he’s become a true hoarder.
Hoarders Give Bitcoin Value
The initial price of bitcoin was caused by people who wanted to hold it, not people who wanted to spend it. Furthermore, each subsequent step in Bitcoin’s advance must begin with more holders, not more spenders. The business that bitcoins can absorb is limited by its market cap. At a market cap of two or three billion dollars, Bitcoin can absorb many small businesses but it cannot be used for international oil trade. It would have to be dozens of times more expensive for that, and it can only achieve that if the peoples’ desire to hold bitcoins continues to increase faster than their desire to spend them. Thus, one who wants Bitcoin to become mainstream should never want its price to be lower. He should want an ever-increasing supply of hoarders.
It is true that Bitcoin’s price can occasionally and temporarily outpace the growth in its real prospects, but this is merely a byproduct of Bitcoin’s phenomenal success. A commodity which increases in price as quickly as bitcoins can be expected to experience shocks and manias on its way up because it would be difficult to tell the difference between a sustainable price increase and short-term speculation. However, does it make really sense to prefer an alternative history for Bitcoin in which its price has increased slowly enough that it never developed any manias? I do not see how that could possibly be preferable. The faster Bitcoin grows, the more complete and decisive will be its victories, and the more difficult it will be for its natural enemies to react to it.
Who Needs Merchants Anyway? One of the most annoying things about Bitcoin is that it’s so convenient to make payments with it that sometimes it is extremely tempting to spend it and avoid the hassle of using dollars. One of the ways to help deal with the temptation to spend is to demand a Bitcoin discount at any store that accepts Bitcoin. This is perfectly reasonable because not only is the store lowering its own costs by using Bitcoin, but it is asking me to give up an inherently superior commodity.
Hoarders are more important than merchants. If a restaurant downtown starts accepting bitcoins, this does not necessarily create an incentive for anybody to buy more bitcoins. Why would anyone bother if they can still just use a credit card? If you can convince a merchant to accept bitcoins and stop accepting dollars, then I’ll be impressed.
Unless a merchant is offering something that cannot be bought for dollars, or at least offering a discount, he is only benefiting Bitcoin to the extent that he encourages more hoarding. If he immediately converts the bitcoins he receives as payment into dollars, and if his customers only buy bitcoins so as to spend them at his shop shortly thereafter, then neither has much direct effect on Bitcoin’s demand. The real hero is the hoarder behind the scenes who buys from the merchant and enables him to convert his payments into dollars.
Greed is Your Friend
There can be no spending of bitcoins without the buying of them, and thus all use of bitcoins as a medium of exchange depend on someone who wants to increase his holdings, i.e., a hoarder. Without them there could literally be no Bitcoin trade. Furthermore, it is counterproductive to try to turn hoarders into spenders. There really is no compelling reason that anybody should spend bitcoins any time soon—if everybody is hoarding, that will just make the price go up until finally someone can’t help spending some.
Currencies are unusual in that the greater is its market cap, the more useful they are. This is in contrast to a more ordinary security, such as a stock, because a stock has a better value the cheaper it is in relation to the underlying assets of the company. A more expensive currency is ipso facto more marketable (more liquid), thus making it a superior medium of exchange. The more bitcoin hoarding there is, the better it is as a medium of exchange.
Thus, the success of Bitcoin is, to some extent, a self-fulfilling prophesy. Belief in Bitcoin improves the Bitcoin network, as long as people back-up that belief by the the action of acquiring and holding more. The more greedy people are for Bitcoin, the better are its chances. You should never want people to spend more—you should want everyone to be as greedy as possible.
All Hail the Hoarders Let out your inner hoarder. Don’t deny your urges. Let him out and come to terms with him. Imagine how he would look if he could sit on your hoard of bitcoins. Doesn’t he look terribly happy? Let him roll in your bitcoins. Doesn’t he look so cute poring over his copy of Atlas Shrugged? Look at how gleeful he is as he buries it in his basement. Now let his avariciousness flow over you. Let it seep under your skin. Let your hands clutch! Let you teeth clench and your mouth contort into a covetous grimace. I want to hear cackles!
Now didn’t that feel good? The Bitcoin economy will thank you in the end!
I conclude with one proviso: it can be very effective to give out small amounts of bitcoins just to help accustom people to having them. However, the reason this is effective is that it helps spread avarice around.
submitted by BitcoinAlways to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

History Lesson for new VIA Viacoin Investors

Viacoin is an open source cryptocurrency project, based on the Bitcoin blockchain. Publicly introduced on the crypto market in mid 2014, Viacoin integrates decentralized asset transaction on the blockchain, reaching speeds that have never seen before on cryptocurrencies. This Scrypt based, Proof of Work coin was created to try contrast Bitcoin’s structural problems, mainly the congested blockchain delays that inhibit microtransaction as this currency transitions from digital money to a gold-like, mean of solid value storage. Bitcoin Core developers Peter Todd and Btc have been working on this currency and ameliorated it until they was able to reach a lightning fast speed of 24 second per block. These incredible speeds are just one of the features that come with the implementation of Lightning Network, and and make Bitcoin slow transactions a thing of the past. To achieve such a dramatic improvement in performance, the developers modified Viacoin so that its OP_RETURN has been extended to 80 bytes, reducing tx and bloat sizes, overcoming multi signature hacks; the integration of ECDSA optimized C library allowed this coin to reach significant speedup for raw signature validation, making it perform up to 5 times better. This will mean easy adoption by merchants and vendors, which won’t have to worry anymore with long times between the payment and its approval. Todd role as Chief Scientist and Advisor has been proven the right choice for this coin, thanks to his focus on Tree Chains, a ground breaking feature that will fix the main problems revolving around Bitcoin, such as scalability issues and the troubles for the Viacoin miners to keep a reputation on the blockchain in a decentralized mining environment. Thanks to Todd’s expertise in sidechains, the future of this crypto currency will see the implementation of an alternative blockchain that is not linear. According to the developer, the chains are too unregulated when it comes to trying to establish a strong connection between the operations happening on one chain and what happens elsewhere. Merged mining, scalability and safety are at risk and tackling these problems is mandatory in order to create a new, disruptive crypto technology. Tree Chains are going to be the basis for a broader use and a series of protocols that are going to allow users and developers to use Viacoin’s blockchain not just to mine and store coins, but just like other new crypto currencies to allow the creation of secure, decentralized consensus systems living on the blockchain The commander role on this BIP9 compatible coin’s development team has now been taken by a programmer from the Netherlands called Romano, which has a great fan base in the cryptocurrency community thanks to his progressive views on the future of the world of cryptos. He’s in strong favor of SegWit, and considers soft forks on the chain not to be a problem but an opportunity: according to him it will provide an easy method to enable scripting upgrades and the implementation of other features that the market has been looking for, such as peer to peer layers for compact block relay. Segregation Witness allows increased capacity, ends transactions malleability, makes scripting upgradeable, and reduces UTXO set. Because of these reasons, Viacoin Core 0.13 is already SegWit ready and is awaiting for signaling.
Together with implementation of SegWit, Romano has recently been working on finalizing the implementation of merged mining, something that has never been done with altcoins. Merged mining allows users to mine more than one block chain at the same time, this means that every hash the miner does contributes to the total hash rate of all currencies, and as a result they are all more secure. This release pre-announcement resulted in a market spike, showing how interested the market is in the inclusion of these features in the coin core and blockchain. The developer has been introducing several of these features, ranging from a Hierarchical Deterministic key (HD key) generation that allows all Viacoin users to backup their wallets, to a compact block relay, which decreases block propagation times on the peer to peer network; this creates a healthier network and a better baseline relay security margin. Viacoin’s support for relative locktime allows users and miners to time-lock a transaction, this means that a new transaction will be prevented until a relative time change is achieved with a new OP code, OP_CHECKSEQUENCEVERITY, which allows the execution of a script based on the age of the amount that is being spent. Support for Child-Pays-For-Parent procedures in Viacoin has been successfully enabled, CPFP will alleviate the problem of transactions that stuck for a long period in the unconfirmed limbo, either because of network bottlenecks or lack of funds to pay the fee. Thanks to this method, an algorithm will selects transactions based on federate inclusive unconfirmed ancestor transaction; this means that a low fee transaction will be more likely to get picked up by miners if another transaction with an higher fee that speeds its output gets relayed. Several optimizations have been implemented in the blockchain to allow its scaling to proceed freely, ranging from pruning of the chain itsel to save disk space, to optimizing memory use thanks to mempool transaction filtering. UTXO cache has also been optimization, further allowing for significant faster transaction times. Anonymity of transaction has been ameliorated, thanks to increased TOR support by the development team. This feature will help keep this crypto currency secure and the identity of who works on it safe; this has been proven essential, especially considering how Viacoin’s future is right now focused on segwit and lightning network . Onion technology used in TOR has also been included in the routing of transactions, rapid payments and instant transaction on bi directional payment channels in total anonymity. Payments Viacoin’s anonymity is one of the main items of this year’s roadmap, and by the end of 2017 we’ll be able to see Viacoin’s latest secure payment technology, called Styx, implemented on its blockchain. This unlinkable anonymous atomic payment hub combines off-the-blockchain cryptographic computations, thanks to Viacoin’s scriptin functionalities, and makes use of security RSA assumptions, ROM and Elliptic Curve digital signature Algorithm; this will allow participants to make fast, anonymous transfer funds with zero knowledge contingent payment proof. Wallets already offer strong privacy, thanks to transactions being broadcasted once only; this increases anonymity, since it can’t be used to link IPs and TXs. In the future of this coin we’ll also see hardware wallets support reaching 100%, with Trezor and Nano ledger support. These small, key-chain devices connect to the user’s computer to store their private keys and sign transactions in a safe environment. Including Viacoin in these wallets is a smart move, because they are targeted towards people that are outside of hardcore cryptocurrency users circle and guarantees exposure to this currency. The more casual users hear of this coin, the faster they’re going to adopt it, being sure of it’s safety and reliability. In last October, Viacoin price has seen a strong decline, probably linked to one big online retailer building a decentralized crypto stock exchange based on the Counterparty protocol. As usual with crypto currencties, it’s easy to misunderstand the market fluctuations and assume that a temporary underperforming coin is a sign of lack of strength. The change in the development team certainly helped with Viacoin losing value, but by watching the coin graphs it’s easy to see how this momentary change in price is turning out to be just one of those gentle chart dips that precede a sky rocketing surge in price. Romano is working hard on features and focusing on their implementation, keeping his head low rather than pushing on strong marketing like other alt coins are doing. All this investment on ground breaking properties, most of which are unique to this coin, means that Viacoin is one of those well kept secret in the market. Minimal order books and lack of large investors offering liquidity also help keep this coin in a low-key position, something that is changing as support for larger books is growing. As soon as the market notices this coin and investments go up, we are going to see a rapid surge in the market price, around the 10000 mark by the beginning of January 2018 or late February. Instead of focusing on a public ICO like every altcoin, which means a sudden spike in price followed by inclusion on new exchanges that will dry up volume, this crypto coin is growing slowly under the radar while it’s being well tested and boxes on the roadmap get checked off, one after the other. Romano is constantly working on it and the community around this coin knows, such a strong pack of followers is a feature that no other alt currency has and it’s what will bring it back to the top of the coin market in the near future. His attitude towards miners that are opposed to SegWit is another strong feature to add to Viacoin, especially because of what he thinks of F2Pool and Bitmain’s politics towards soft forks. The Chinese mining groups seem scared that once alternative crypto coins switch to it they’re going to lose leveraging power for what concerns Bitcoin’s future and won’t be able to speculate on the mining and trading market as much as they have been doing in the past, especially for what concerns the marketing market.
It’s refreshing to see such dedication and releases being pushed at a constant manner, the only way to have structural changes in how crypto currencies work can only happen when the accent is put on development and not on just trying to convince the market. This strategy is less flashy and makes sure the road is ready for the inevitable increase in the userbase. It’s always difficult to forecast the future, especially when it concerns alternative coins when Bitcoin is raising so fast. A long term strategy suggestion would be to get around 1BTC worth of this cryptocoin as soon as possible and just hold on it: thanks to the features that are being rolled in as within 6 months there is going to be an easy gain to be made in the order of 5 to 10 times the initial investment. Using the recent market dip will make sure that the returns are maximized. What makes Viacoin an excellent opportunity right now is that the price is low and designed to rise fast, as its Lightning Network features become more mainstream. Lightning Network is secure, instant payment that aren’t going to be held back by confirmation bottlenecks, a blockchain capable to scale to the billions of transactions mark, extremely low fees that do not inhibit micropayments and cross-chain atomic swap that allow transaction across blockchain without the need of a third party custodians. These features mean that the future of this coin is going to be bright, and the the dip in price that started just a while ago is going to end soon as the market prepares for the first of August, when when the SegWit drama will affect all crypto markets. The overall trend of viacoin is bullish with a constant uptrend more media attention is expected , when news about the soft fork will spread beyond the inner circle of crypto aficionados and leak in the mainstream finance news networks. Solid coins like Viacoin, with a clear policy towards SegWit, will offer the guarantees that the market will be looking for in times of doubt. INVESTMENT REVIEW Investment Rating :- A+
https://medium.com/@VerthagOG/viacoin-investment-review-ca0982e979bd
submitted by alex61688 to viacoin [link] [comments]

Is anyone else freaked out by this whole blocksize debate? Does anyone else find themself often agreeing with *both* sides - depending on whichever argument you happen to be reading at the moment? And do we need some better algorithms and data structures?

Why do both sides of the debate seem “right” to me?
I know, I know, a healthy debate is healthy and all - and maybe I'm just not used to the tumult and jostling which would be inevitable in a real live open major debate about something as vital as Bitcoin.
And I really do agree with the starry-eyed idealists who say Bitcoin is vital. Imperfect as it may be, it certainly does seem to represent the first real chance we've had in the past few hundred years to try to steer our civilization and our planet away from the dead-ends and disasters which our government-issued debt-based currencies keep dragging us into.
But this particular debate, about the blocksize, doesn't seem to be getting resolved at all.
Pretty much every time I read one of the long-form major arguments contributed by Bitcoin "thinkers" who I've come to respect over the past few years, this weird thing happens: I usually end up finding myself nodding my head and agreeing with whatever particular piece I'm reading!
But that should be impossible - because a lot of these people vehemently disagree!
So how can both sides sound so convincing to me, simply depending on whichever piece I currently happen to be reading?
Does anyone else feel this way? Or am I just a gullible idiot?
Just Do It?
When you first look at it or hear about it, increasing the size seems almost like a no-brainer: The "big-block" supporters say just increase the blocksize to 20 MB or 8 MB, or do some kind of scheduled or calculated regular increment which tries to take into account the capabilities of the infrastructure and the needs of the users. We do have the bandwidth and the memory to at least increase the blocksize now, they say - and we're probably gonna continue to have more bandwidth and memory in order to be able to keep increasing the blocksize for another couple decades - pretty much like everything else computer-based we've seen over the years (some of this stuff is called by names such as "Moore's Law").
On the other hand, whenever the "small-block" supporters warn about the utter catastrophe that a failed hard-fork would mean, I get totally freaked by their possible doomsday scenarios, which seem totally plausible and terrifying - so I end up feeling that the only way I'd want to go with a hard-fork would be if there was some pre-agreed "triggering" mechanism where the fork itself would only actually "switch on" and take effect provided that some "supermajority" of the network (of who? the miners? the full nodes?) had signaled (presumably via some kind of totally reliable p2p trustless software-based voting system?) that they do indeed "pre-agree" to actually adopt the pre-scheduled fork (and thereby avoid any possibility whatsoever of the precious blockchain somehow tragically splitting into two and pretty much killing this cryptocurrency off in its infancy).
So in this "conservative" scenario, I'm talking about wanting at least 95% pre-adoption agreement - not the mere 75% which I recall some proposals call for, which seems like it could easily lead to a 75/25 blockchain split.
But this time, with this long drawn-out blocksize debate, the core devs, and several other important voices who have become prominent opinion shapers over the past few years, can't seem to come to any real agreement on this.
Weird split among the devs
As far as I can see, there's this weird split: Gavin and Mike seem to be the only people among the devs who really want a major blocksize increase - and all the other devs seem to be vehemently against them.
But then on the other hand, the users seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of a major increase.
And there are meta-questions about governance, about about why this didn't come out as a BIP, and what the availability of Bitcoin XT means.
And today or yesterday there was this really cool big-blockian exponential graph based on doubling the blocksize every two years for twenty years, reminding us of the pure mathematical fact that 210 is indeed about 1000 - but not really addressing any of the game-theoretic points raised by the small-blockians. So a lot of the users seem to like it, but when so few devs say anything positive about it, I worry: is this just yet more exponential chart porn?
On the one hand, Gavin's and Mike's blocksize increase proposal initially seemed like a no-brainer to me.
And on the other hand, all the other devs seem to be against them. Which is weird - not what I'd initially expected at all (but maybe I'm just a fool who's seduced by exponential chart porn?).
Look, I don't mean to be rude to any of the core devs, and I don't want to come off like someone wearing a tinfoil hat - but it has to cross people's minds that the powers that be (the Fed and the other central banks and the governments that use their debt-issued money to run this world into a ditch) could very well be much more scared shitless than they're letting on. If we assume that the powers that be are using their usual playbook and tactics, then it could be worth looking at the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins, to get an idea of how they might try to attack Bitcoin. So, what I'm saying is, they do have a track record of sending in "experts" to try to derail projects and keep everyone enslaved to the Creature from Jekyll Island. I'm just saying. So, without getting ad hominem - let's just make sure that our ideas can really stand scrutiny on their own - as Nick Szabo says, we need to make sure there is "more computer science, less noise" in this debate.
When Gavin Andresen first came out with the 20 MB thing - I sat back and tried to imagine if I could download 20 MB in 10 minutes (which seems to be one of the basic mathematical and technological constraints here - right?)
I figured, "Yeah, I could download that" - even with my crappy internet connection.
And I guess the telecoms might be nice enough to continue to double our bandwidth every two years for the next couple decades – if we ask them politely?
On the other hand - I think we should be careful about entrusting the financial freedom of the world into the greedy hands of the telecoms companies - given all their shady shenanigans over the past few years in many countries. After decades of the MPAA and the FBI trying to chip away at BitTorrent, lately PirateBay has been hard to access. I would say it's quite likely that certain persons at institutions like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs and the Fed might be very, very motivated to see Bitcoin fail - so we shouldn't be too sure about scaling plans which depend on the willingness of companies Verizon and AT&T to double our bandwith every two years.
Maybe the real important hardware buildout challenge for a company like 21 (and its allies such as Qualcomm) to take on now would not be "a miner in every toaster" but rather "Google Fiber Download and Upload Speeds in every Country, including China".
I think I've read all the major stuff on the blocksize debate from Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd, Adam Back, and Jeff Garzick and several other major contributors - and, oddly enough, all their arguments seem reasonable - heck even Luke-Jr seems reasonable to me on the blocksize debate, and I always thought he was a whackjob overly influenced by superstition and numerology - and now today I'm reading the article by Bram Cohen - the inventor of BitTorrent - and I find myself agreeing with him too!
I say to myself: What's going on with me? How can I possibly agree with all of these guys, if they all have such vehemently opposing viewpoints?
I mean, think back to the glory days of a couple of years ago, when all we were hearing was how this amazing unprecedented grassroots innovation called Bitcoin was going to benefit everyone from all walks of life, all around the world:
...basically the entire human race transacting everything into the blockchain.
(Although let me say that I think that people's focus on ideas like driverless cabs creating realtime fare markets based on supply and demand seems to be setting our sights a bit low as far as Bitcoin's abilities to correct the financial world's capital-misallocation problems which seem to have been made possible by infinite debt-based fiat. I would have hoped that a Bitcoin-based economy would solve much more noble, much more urgent capital-allocation problems than driverless taxicabs creating fare markets or refrigerators ordering milk on the internet of things. I was thinking more along the lines that Bitcoin would finally strangle dead-end debt-based deadly-toxic energy industries like fossil fuels and let profitable clean energy industries like Thorium LFTRs take over - but that's another topic. :=)
Paradoxes in the blocksize debate
Let me summarize the major paradoxes I see here:
(1) Regarding the people (the majority of the core devs) who are against a blocksize increase: Well, the small-blocks arguments do seem kinda weird, and certainly not very "populist", in the sense that: When on earth have end-users ever heard of a computer technology whose capacity didn't grow pretty much exponentially year-on-year? All the cool new technology we've had - from hard drives to RAM to bandwidth - started out pathetically tiny and grew to unimaginably huge over the past few decades - and all our software has in turn gotten massively powerful and big and complex (sometimes bloated) to take advantage of the enormous new capacity available.
But now suddenly, for the first time in the history of technology, we seem to have a majority of the devs, on a major p2p project - saying: "Let's not scale the system up. It could be dangerous. It might break the whole system (if the hard-fork fails)."
I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here, maybe someone else could enlighten me, but I don't think I've ever seen this sort of thing happen in the last few decades of the history of technology - devs arguing against scaling up p2p technology to take advantage of expected growth in infrastructure capacity.
(2) But... on the other hand... the dire warnings of the small-blockians about what could happen if a hard-fork were to fail - wow, they do seem really dire! And these guys are pretty much all heavyweight, experienced programmers and/or game theorists and/or p2p open-source project managers.
I must say, that nearly all of the long-form arguments I've read - as well as many, many of the shorter comments I've read from many users in the threads, whose names I at least have come to more-or-less recognize over the past few months and years on reddit and bitcointalk - have been amazingly impressive in their ability to analyze all aspects of the lifecycle and management of open-source software projects, bringing up lots of serious points which I could never have come up with, and which seem to come from long experience with programming and project management - as well as dealing with economics and human nature (eg, greed - the game-theory stuff).
So a lot of really smart and experienced people with major expertise in various areas ranging from programming to management to game theory to politics to economics have been making some serious, mature, compelling arguments.
But, as I've been saying, the only problem to me is: in many of these cases, these arguments are vehemently in opposition to each other! So I find myself agreeing with pretty much all of them, one by one - which means the end result is just a giant contradiction.
I mean, today we have Bram Cohen, the inventor of BitTorrent, arguing (quite cogently and convincingly to me), that it would be dangerous to increase the blocksize. And this seems to be a guy who would know a few things about scaling out a massive global p2p network - since the protocol which he invented, BitTorrent, is now apparently responsible for like a third of the traffic on the internet (and this despite the long-term concerted efforts of major evil players such as the MPAA and the FBI to shut the whole thing down).
Was the BitTorrent analogy too "glib"?
By the way - I would like to go on a slight tangent here and say that one of the main reasons why I felt so "comfortable" jumping on the Bitcoin train back a few years ago, when I first heard about it and got into it, was the whole rough analogy I saw with BitTorrent.
I remembered the perhaps paradoxical fact that when a torrent is more popular (eg, a major movie release that just came out last week), then it actually becomes faster to download. More people want it, so more people have a few pieces of it, so more people are able to get it from each other. A kind of self-correcting economic feedback loop, where more demand directly leads to more supply.
(BitTorrent manages to pull this off by essentially adding a certain structure to the file being shared, so that it's not simply like an append-only list of 1 MB blocks, but rather more like an random-access or indexed array of 1 MB chunks. Say you're downloading a film which is 700 MB. As soon as your "client" program has downloaded a single 1-MB chunk - say chunk #99 - your "client" program instantly turns into a "server" program as well - offering that chunk #99 to other clients. From my simplistic understanding, I believe the Bitcoin protocol does something similar, to provide a p2p architecture. Hence my - perhaps naïve - assumption that Bitcoin already had the right algorithms / architecture / data structure to scale.)
The efficiency of the BitTorrent network seemed to jive with that "network law" (Metcalfe's Law?) about fax machines. This law states that the more fax machines there are, the more valuable the network of fax machines becomes. Or the value of the network grows on the order of the square of the number of nodes.
This is in contrast with other technology like cars, where the more you have, the worse things get. The more cars there are, the more traffic jams you have, so things start going downhill. I guess this is because highway space is limited - after all, we can't pave over the entire countryside, and we never did get those flying cars we were promised, as David Graeber laments in a recent essay in The Baffler magazine :-)
And regarding the "stress test" supposedly happening right now in the middle of this ongoing blocksize debate, I don't know what worries me more: the fact that it apparently is taking only $5,000 to do a simple kind of DoS on the blockchain - or the fact that there are a few rumors swirling around saying that the unknown company doing the stress test shares the same physical mailing address with a "scam" company?
Or maybe we should just be worried that so much of this debate is happening on a handful of forums which are controlled by some guy named theymos who's already engaged in some pretty "contentious" or "controversial" behavior like blowing a million dollars on writing forum software (I guess he never heard that reddit.com software is open-source)?
So I worry that the great promise of "decentralization" might be more fragile than we originally thought.
Scaling
Anyways, back to Metcalfe's Law: with virtual stuff, like torrents and fax machines, the more the merrier. The more people downloading a given movie, the faster it arrives - and the more people own fax machines, the more valuable the overall fax network.
So I kindof (naïvely?) assumed that Bitcoin, being "virtual" and p2p, would somehow scale up the same magical way BitTorrrent did. I just figured that more people using it would somehow automatically make it stronger and faster.
But now a lot of devs have started talking in terms of the old "scarcity" paradigm, talking about blockspace being a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" - which seems kinda scary, and antithetical to much of the earlier rhetoric we heard about Bitcoin (the stuff about supporting our favorite creators with micropayments, and the stuff about Africans using SMS to send around payments).
Look, when some asshole is in line in front of you at the cash register and he's holding up the line so they can run his credit card to buy a bag of Cheeto's, we tend to get pissed off at the guy - clogging up our expensive global electronic payment infrastructure to make a two-dollar purchase. And that's on a fairly efficient centralized system - and presumably after a year or so, VISA and the guy's bank can delete or compress the transaction in their SQL databases.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if some guy buys a coffee on the blockchain, or if somebody pays an online artist $1.99 for their work - then that transaction, a few bytes or so, has to live on the blockchain forever?
Or is there some "pruning" thing that gets rid of it after a while?
And this could lead to another question: Viewed from the perspective of double-entry bookkeeping, is the blockchain "world-wide ledger" more like the "balance sheet" part of accounting, i.e. a snapshot showing current assets and liabilities? Or is it more like the "cash flow" part of accounting, i.e. a journal showing historical revenues and expenses?
When I think of thousands of machines around the globe having to lug around multiple identical copies of a multi-gigabyte file containing some asshole's coffee purchase forever and ever... I feel like I'm ideologically drifting in one direction (where I'd end up also being against really cool stuff like online micropayments and Africans banking via SMS)... so I don't want to go there.
But on the other hand, when really experienced and battle-tested veterans with major experience in the world of open-souce programming and project management (the "small-blockians") warn of the catastrophic consequences of a possible failed hard-fork, I get freaked out and I wonder if Bitcoin really was destined to be a settlement layer for big transactions.
Could the original programmer(s) possibly weigh in?
And I don't mean to appeal to authority - but heck, where the hell is Satoshi Nakamoto in all this? I do understand that he/she/they would want to maintain absolute anonymity - but on the other hand, I assume SN wants Bitcoin to succeed (both for the future of humanity - or at least for all the bitcoins SN allegedly holds :-) - and I understand there is a way that SN can cryptographically sign a message - and I understand that as the original developer of Bitcoin, SN had some very specific opinions about the blocksize... So I'm kinda wondering of Satoshi could weigh in from time to time. Just to help out a bit. I'm not saying "Show us a sign" like a deity or something - but damn it sure would be fascinating and possibly very helpful if Satoshi gave us his/hetheir 2 satoshis worth at this really confusing juncture.
Are we using our capacity wisely?
I'm not a programming or game-theory whiz, I'm just a casual user who has tried to keep up with technology over the years.
It just seems weird to me that here we have this massive supercomputer (500 times more powerful than the all the supercomputers in the world combined) doing fairly straightforward "embarassingly parallel" number-crunching operations to secure a p2p world-wide ledger called the blockchain to keep track of a measly 2.1 quadrillion tokens spread out among a few billion addresses - and a couple of years ago you had people like Rick Falkvinge saying the blockchain would someday be supporting multi-million-dollar letters of credit for international trade and you had people like Andreas Antonopoulos saying the blockchain would someday allow billions of "unbanked" people to send remittances around the village or around the world dirt-cheap - and now suddenly in June 2015 we're talking about blockspace as a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" and partially centralized, corporate-sponsored "Level 2" vaporware like Lightning Network and some mysterious company is "stess testing" or "DoS-ing" the system by throwing away a measly $5,000 and suddenly it sounds like the whole system could eventually head right back into PayPal and Western Union territory again, in terms of expensive fees.
When I got into Bitcoin, I really was heavily influenced by vague analogies with BitTorrent: I figured everyone would just have tiny little like utorrent-type program running on their machine (ie, Bitcoin-QT or Armory or Mycelium etc.).
I figured that just like anyone can host a their own blog or webserver, anyone would be able to host their own bank.
Yeah, Google and and Mozilla and Twitter and Facebook and WhatsApp did come along and build stuff on top of TCP/IP, so I did expect a bunch of companies to build layers on top of the Bitcoin protocol as well. But I still figured the basic unit of bitcoin client software powering the overall system would be small and personal and affordable and p2p - like a bittorrent client - or at the most, like a cheap server hosting a blog or email server.
And I figured there would be a way at the software level, at the architecture level, at the algorithmic level, at the data structure level - to let the thing scale - if not infinitely, at least fairly massively and gracefully - the same way the BitTorrent network has.
Of course, I do also understand that with BitTorrent, you're sharing a read-only object (eg, a movie) - whereas with Bitcoin, you're achieving distributed trustless consensus and appending it to a write-only (or append-only) database.
So I do understand that the problem which BitTorrent solves is much simpler than the problem which Bitcoin sets out to solve.
But still, it seems that there's got to be a way to make this thing scale. It's p2p and it's got 500 times more computing power than all the supercomputers in the world combined - and so many brilliant and motivated and inspired people want this thing to succeed! And Bitcoin could be our civilization's last chance to steer away from the oncoming debt-based ditch of disaster we seem to be driving into!
It just seems that Bitcoin has got to be able to scale somehow - and all these smart people working together should be able to come up with a solution which pretty much everyone can agree - in advance - will work.
Right? Right?
A (probably irrelevant) tangent on algorithms and architecture and data structures
I'll finally weigh with my personal perspective - although I might be biased due to my background (which is more on the theoretical side of computer science).
My own modest - or perhaps radical - suggestion would be to ask whether we're really looking at all the best possible algorithms and architectures and data structures out there.
From this perspective, I sometimes worry that the overwhelming majority of the great minds working on the programming and game-theory stuff might come from a rather specific, shall we say "von Neumann" or "procedural" or "imperative" school of programming (ie, C and Python and Java programmers).
It seems strange to me that such a cutting-edge and important computer project would have so little participation from the great minds at the other end of the spectrum of programming paradigms - namely, the "functional" and "declarative" and "algebraic" (and co-algebraic!) worlds.
For example, I was struck in particular by statements I've seen here and there (which seemed rather hubristic or lackadaisical to me - for something as important as Bitcoin), that the specification of Bitcoin and the blockchain doesn't really exist in any form other than the reference implementation(s) (in procedural languages such as C or Python?).
Curry-Howard anyone?
I mean, many computer scientists are aware of the Curry-Howard isomorophism, which basically says that the relationship between a theorem and its proof is equivalent to the relationship between a specification and its implementation. In other words, there is a long tradition in mathematics (and in computer programming) of:
And it's not exactly "turtles all the way down" either: a specification is generally simple and compact enough that a good programmer can usually simply visually inspect it to determine if it is indeed "correct" - something which is very difficult, if not impossible, to do with a program written in a procedural, implementation-oriented language such as C or Python or Java.
So I worry that we've got this tradition, from the open-source github C/Java programming tradition, of never actually writing our "specification", and only writing the "implementation". In mission-critical military-grade programming projects (which often use languages like Ada or Maude) this is simply not allowed. It would seem that a project as mission-critical as Bitcoin - which could literally be crucial for humanity's continued survival - should also use this kind of military-grade software development approach.
And I'm not saying rewrite the implementations in these kind of theoretical languages. But it might be helpful if the C/Python/Java programmers in the Bitcoin imperative programming world could build some bridges to the Maude/Haskell/ML programmers of the functional and algebraic programming worlds to see if any kind of useful cross-pollination might take place - between specifications and implementations.
For example, the JavaFAN formal analyzer for multi-threaded Java programs (developed using tools based on the Maude language) was applied to the Remote Agent AI program aboard NASA's Deep Space 1 shuttle, written in Java - and it took only a few minutes using formal mathematical reasoning to detect a potential deadlock which would have occurred years later during the space mission when the damn spacecraft was already way out around Pluto.
And "the Maude-NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) Protocol Analyzer (Maude-NPA) is a tool used to provide security proofs of cryptographic protocols and to search for protocol flaws and cryptosystem attacks."
These are open-source formal reasoning tools developed by DARPA and used by NASA and the US Navy to ensure that program implementations satisfy their specifications. It would be great if some of the people involved in these kinds of projects could contribute to help ensure the security and scalability of Bitcoin.
But there is a wide abyss between the kinds of programmers who use languages like Maude and the kinds of programmers who use languages like C/Python/Java - and it can be really hard to get the two worlds to meet. There is a bit of rapprochement between these language communities in languages which might be considered as being somewhere in the middle, such as Haskell and ML. I just worry that Bitcoin might be turning into being an exclusively C/Python/Java project (with the algorithms and practitioners traditionally of that community), when it could be more advantageous if it also had some people from the functional and algebraic-specification and program-verification community involved as well. The thing is, though: the theoretical practitioners are big on "semantics" - I've heard them say stuff like "Yes but a C / C++ program has no easily identifiable semantics". So to get them involved, you really have to first be able to talk about what your program does (specification) - before proceeding to describe how it does it (implementation). And writing high-level specifications is typically very hard using the syntax and semantics of languages like C and Java and Python - whereas specs are fairly easy to write in Maude - and not only that, they're executable, and you state and verify properties about them - which provides for the kind of debate Nick Szabo was advocating ("more computer science, less noise").
Imagine if we had an executable algebraic specification of Bitcoin in Maude, where we could formally reason about and verify certain crucial game-theoretical properties - rather than merely hand-waving and arguing and deploying and praying.
And so in the theoretical programming community you've got major research on various logics such as Girard's Linear Logic (which is resource-conscious) and Bruni and Montanari's Tile Logic (which enables "pasting" bigger systems together from smaller ones in space and time), and executable algebraic specification languages such as Meseguer's Maude (which would be perfect for game theory modeling, with its functional modules for specifying the deterministic parts of systems and its system modules for specifiying non-deterministic parts of systems, and its parameterized skeletons for sketching out the typical architectures of mobile systems, and its formal reasoning and verification tools and libraries which have been specifically applied to testing and breaking - and fixing - cryptographic protocols).
And somewhat closer to the practical hands-on world, you've got stuff like Google's MapReduce and lots of Big Data database languages developed by Google as well. And yet here we are with a mempool growing dangerously big for RAM on a single machine, and a 20-GB append-only list as our database - and not much debate on practical results from Google's Big Data databases.
(And by the way: maybe I'm totally ignorant for asking this, but I'll ask anyways: why the hell does the mempool have to stay in RAM? Couldn't it work just as well if it were stored temporarily on the hard drive?)
And you've got CalvinDB out of Yale which apparently provides an ACID layer on top of a massively distributed database.
Look, I'm just an armchair follower cheering on these projects. I can barely manage to write a query in SQL, or read through a C or Python or Java program. But I would argue two points here: (1) these languages may be too low-level and "non-formal" for writing and modeling and formally reasoning about and proving properties of mission-critical specifications - and (2) there seem to be some Big Data tools already deployed by institutions such as Google and Yale which support global petabyte-size databases on commodity boxes with nice properties such as near-real-time and ACID - and I sometimes worry that the "core devs" might be failing to review the literature (and reach out to fellow programmers) out there to see if there might be some formal program-verification and practical Big Data tools out there which could be applied to coming up with rock-solid, 100% consensus proposals to handle an issue such as blocksize scaling, which seems to have become much more intractable than many people might have expected.
I mean, the protocol solved the hard stuff: the elliptical-curve stuff and the Byzantine General stuff. How the heck can we be falling down on the comparatively "easier" stuff - like scaling the blocksize?
It just seems like defeatism to say "Well, the blockchain is already 20-30 GB and it's gonna be 20-30 TB ten years from now - and we need 10 Mbs bandwidth now and 10,000 Mbs bandwidth 20 years from - assuming the evil Verizon and AT&T actually give us that - so let's just become a settlement platform and give up on buying coffee or banking the unbanked or doing micropayments, and let's push all that stuff into some corporate-controlled vaporware without even a whitepaper yet."
So you've got Peter Todd doing some possibly brilliant theorizing and extrapolating on the idea of "treechains" - there is a Let's Talk Bitcoin podcast from about a year ago where he sketches the rough outlines of this idea out in a very inspiring, high-level way - although the specifics have yet to be hammered out. And we've got Blockstream also doing some hopeful hand-waving about the Lightning Network.
Things like Peter Todd's treechains - which may be similar to the spark in some devs' eyes called Lightning Network - are examples of the kind of algorithm or architecture which might manage to harness the massive computing power of miners and nodes in such a way that certain kinds of massive and graceful scaling become possible.
It just seems like a kindof tiny dev community working on this stuff.
Being a C or Python or Java programmer should not be a pre-req to being able to help contribute to the specification (and formal reasoning and program verification) for Bitcoin and the blockchain.
XML and UML are crap modeling and specification languages, and C and Java and Python are even worse (as specification languages - although as implementation languages, they are of course fine).
But there are serious modeling and specification languages out there, and they could be very helpful at times like this - where what we're dealing with is questions of modeling and specification (ie, "needs and requirements").
One just doesn't often see the practical, hands-on world of open-source github implementation-level programmers and the academic, theoretical world of specification-level programmers meeting very often. I wish there were some way to get these two worlds to collaborate on Bitcoin.
Maybe a good first step to reach out to the theoretical people would be to provide a modular executable algebraic specification of the Bitcoin protocol in a recognized, military/NASA-grade specification language such as Maude - because that's something the theoretical community can actually wrap their heads around, whereas it's very hard to get them to pay attention to something written only as a C / Python / Java implementation (without an accompanying specification in a formal language).
They can't check whether the program does what it's supposed to do - if you don't provide a formal mathematical definition of what the program is supposed to do.
Specification : Implementation :: Theorem : Proof
You have to remember: the theoretical community is very aware of the Curry-Howard isomorphism. Just like it would be hard to get a mathematician's attention by merely showing them a proof without telling also telling them what theorem the proof is proving - by the same token, it's hard to get the attention of a theoretical computer scientist by merely showing them an implementation without showing them the specification that it implements.
Bitcoin is currently confronted with a mathematical or "computer science" problem: how to secure the network while getting high enough transactional throughput, while staying within the limited RAM, bandwidth and hard drive space limitations of current and future infrastructure.
The problem only becomes a political and economic problem if we give up on trying to solve it as a mathematical and "theoretical computer science" problem.
There should be a plethora of whitepapers out now proposing algorithmic solutions to these scaling issues. Remember, all we have to do is apply the Byzantine General consensus-reaching procedure to a worldwide database which shuffles 2.1 quadrillion tokens among a few billion addresses. The 21 company has emphatically pointed out that racing to compute a hash to add a block is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem - very easy to decompose among cheap, fault-prone, commodity boxes, and recompose into an overall solution - along the lines of Google's highly successful MapReduce.
I guess what I'm really saying is (and I don't mean to be rude here), is that C and Python and Java programmers might not be the best qualified people to develop and formally prove the correctness of (note I do not say: "test", I say "formally prove the correctness of") these kinds of algorithms.
I really believe in the importance of getting the algorithms and architectures right - look at Google Search itself, it uses some pretty brilliant algorithms and architectures (eg, MapReduce, Paxos) which enable it to achieve amazing performance - on pretty crappy commodity hardware. And look at BitTorrent, which is truly p2p, where more demand leads to more supply.
So, in this vein, I will close this lengthy rant with an oddly specific link - which may or may not be able to make some interesting contributions to finding suitable algorithms, architectures and data structures which might help Bitcoin scale massively. I have no idea if this link could be helpful - but given the near-total lack of people from the Haskell and ML and functional worlds in these Bitcoin specification debates, I thought I'd be remiss if I didn't throw this out - just in case there might be something here which could help us channel the massive computing power of the Bitcoin network in such a way as to enable us simply sidestep this kind of desperate debate where both sides seem right because the other side seems wrong.
https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/neil.ghani/papers/ghani-calco07
The above paper is about "higher dimensional trees". It uses a bit of category theory (not a whole lot) and a bit of Haskell (again not a lot - just a simple data structure called a Rose tree, which has a wikipedia page) to develop a very expressive and efficient data structure which generalizes from lists to trees to higher dimensions.
I have no idea if this kind of data structure could be applicable to the current scaling mess we apparently are getting bogged down in - I don't have the game-theory skills to figure it out.
I just thought that since the blockchain is like a list, and since there are some tree-like structures which have been grafted on for efficiency (eg Merkle trees) and since many of the futuristic scaling proposals seem to also involve generalizing from list-like structures (eg, the blockchain) to tree-like structures (eg, side-chains and tree-chains)... well, who knows, there might be some nugget of algorithmic or architectural or data-structure inspiration there.
So... TL;DR:
(1) I'm freaked out that this blocksize debate has splintered the community so badly and dragged on so long, with no resolution in sight, and both sides seeming so right (because the other side seems so wrong).
(2) I think Bitcoin could gain immensely by using high-level formal, algebraic and co-algebraic program specification and verification languages (such as Maude including Maude-NPA, Mobile Maude parameterized skeletons, etc.) to specify (and possibly also, to some degree, verify) what Bitcoin does - before translating to low-level implementation languages such as C and Python and Java saying how Bitcoin does it. This would help to communicate and reason about programs with much more mathematical certitude - and possibly obviate the need for many political and economic tradeoffs which currently seem dismally inevitable - and possibly widen the collaboration on this project.
(3) I wonder if there are some Big Data approaches out there (eg, along the lines of Google's MapReduce and BigTable, or Yale's CalvinDB), which could be implemented to allow Bitcoin to scale massively and painlessly - and to satisfy all stakeholders, ranging from millionaires to micropayments, coffee drinkers to the great "unbanked".
submitted by BeYourOwnBank to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Cryptoprocessing.io Announces Simple And Effective Tool for Blockchain Applications Creation

DUBLIN SEPTEMBER 17, 2018 With the complexity of entering the blockchain market it is no surprise that many companies steer clear, but if they were offered a simple solution through which they could launch ICOs, startups, and blockchain related services would it change their mind?
With its roots in global infrastructure, CryptoProcessing is no stranger to fintech projects and the intense work they require to be successful. That success is built upon solid programming, talented teams, and an understanding of the market. It can be daunting for companies to enter into the blockchain market, but CryptoProcessing provide step-by-step programming to create blockchain-applications for companies that don’t have the resources or time to do so on their own.
“The use of created solutions to enable the fast-launching of products allows you to focus on the development of your company. To help, we’ve created a packaged solution: integration with our service is a matter of several hours. Using our prefabricated infrastructure saves your company time and money in blockchain development.” - Eugene Khashin, founder and CTO of CryptoProcessing.
The service is comprised of a set of simple, easy implementable methods to build almost any blockchain project focused business framework:
In more simple terms, businesses will find solutions presented in the form of an API-interface that provides an opportunity to open accounts, track balances, and integrate cryptocurrencies payments through a single service. To ensure infrastructure simplicity each user receives a generated, unique address in Bitcoin and Ethereum. Сorporate clients have access to many other popular cryptocurrencies: BCH, BTG, LTC, ETC, and other ERC-20 based tokens.
Aside from cryptocurrencies, platform also allows for fiat integration (Visa and Mastercard) to help businesses grow faster, whether they simply want to accept domestic cryptocurrency payments, cross-border payments, or even create their own stock exchange. Needless to say the possibilities of the service are extensive thanks to an architecture based around a wide range of individual settings that allow companies to adapt the technology to the needs of any project.
Currently, CryptoProcessing generates about 5,000 new addresses and receives more than 300,000 requests to the API daily. Hundreds of developers and companies are already using the service as a one stop shop to provide worldwide payments, settlements, and clearing.
Andrew Chaboh, CTO of Embily Payment Service, says that “Thanks to CryptoProcessing, we have reduced development costs by 40% and launched 4 months ahead of schedule. Such web services massively simplify the complexity of interacting with applications that run on multiple blockchains. A flexible system of partnership with CryptoProcessing facilitates the integration of our product with other businesses.”
Now CryptoProcessing provides blockchain startups with special conditions for the fast-launching of MVPs - free trial access for 3 months. In addition to the service, you get access to Cryptoprocessing TestNet - a specially developed software environment for conducting test transactions.
For more information about CryptoProcessing, visit cryptoprocessing.io!
submitted by bounsygurl to cryptodevs [link] [comments]

Cryptoprocessing.io Announces Simple And Effective Tool for Blockchain Applications Creation

DUBLIN SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
With the complexity of entering the blockchain market it is no surprise that many companies steer clear, but if they were offered a simple solution through which they could launch ICOs, startups, and blockchain related services would it change their mind?
With its roots in global infrastructure, CryptoProcessing is no stranger to fintech projects and the intense work they require to be successful. That success is built upon solid programming, talented teams, and an understanding of the market. It can be daunting for companies to enter into the blockchain market, but CryptoProcessing provide step-by-step programming to create blockchain-applications for companies that don’t have the resources or time to do so on their own.
“The use of created solutions to enable the fast-launching of products allows you to focus on the development of your company. To help, we’ve created a packaged solution: integration with our service is a matter of several hours. Using our prefabricated infrastructure saves your company time and money in blockchain development.” - Eugene Khashin, founder and CTO of CryptoProcessing.
The service is comprised of a set of simple, easy implementable methods to build almost any blockchain project focused business framework:
In more simple terms, businesses will find solutions presented in the form of an API-interface that provides an opportunity to open accounts, track balances, and integrate cryptocurrencies payments through a single service. To ensure infrastructure simplicity each user receives a generated, unique address in Bitcoin and Ethereum. Сorporate clients have access to many other popular cryptocurrencies: BCH, BTG, LTC, ETC, and other ERC-20 based tokens.
Aside from cryptocurrencies, platform also allows for fiat integration (Visa and Mastercard) to help businesses grow faster, whether they simply want to accept domestic cryptocurrency payments, cross-border payments, or even create their own stock exchange. Needless to say the possibilities of the service are extensive thanks to an architecture based around a wide range of individual settings that allow companies to adapt the technology to the needs of any project.
Currently, CryptoProcessing generates about 5,000 new addresses and receives more than 300,000 requests to the API daily. Hundreds of developers and companies are already using the service as a one stop shop to provide worldwide payments, settlements, and clearing.
Andrew Chaboh, CTO of Embily Payment Service, says that “Thanks to CryptoProcessing, we have reduced development costs by 40% and launched 4 months ahead of schedule. Such web services massively simplify the complexity of interacting with applications that run on multiple blockchains. A flexible system of partnership with CryptoProcessing facilitates the integration of our product with other businesses.”
Now CryptoProcessing provides blockchain startups with special conditions for the fast-launching of MVPs - free trial access for 3 months. In addition to the service, you get access to Cryptoprocessing TestNet - a specially developed software environment for conducting test transactions.
For more information about CryptoProcessing, visit cryptoprocessing.io!
submitted by bounsygurl to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Cryptoprocessing.io Announces Simple And Effective Tool for Blockchain Applications Creation

DUBLIN SEPTEMBER 17, 2018
With the complexity of entering the blockchain market it is no surprise that many companies steer clear, but if they were offered a simple solution through which they could launch ICOs, startups, and blockchain related services would it change their mind?
With its roots in global infrastructure, CryptoProcessing is no stranger to fintech projects and the intense work they require to be successful. That success is built upon solid programming, talented teams, and an understanding of the market. It can be daunting for companies to enter into the blockchain market, but CryptoProcessing provide step-by-step programming to create blockchain-applications for companies that don’t have the resources or time to do so on their own.
“The use of created solutions to enable the fast-launching of products allows you to focus on the development of your company. To help, we’ve created a packaged solution: integration with our service is a matter of several hours. Using our prefabricated infrastructure saves your company time and money in blockchain development.” - Eugene Khashin, founder and CTO of CryptoProcessing.
The service is comprised of a set of simple, easy implementable methods to build almost any blockchain project focused business framework:
In more simple terms, businesses will find solutions presented in the form of an API-interface that provides an opportunity to open accounts, track balances, and integrate cryptocurrencies payments through a single service. To ensure infrastructure simplicity each user receives a generated, unique address in Bitcoin and Ethereum. Сorporate clients have access to many other popular cryptocurrencies: BCH, BTG, LTC, ETC, and other ERC-20 based tokens.
Aside from cryptocurrencies, platform also allows for fiat integration (Visa and Mastercard) to help businesses grow faster, whether they simply want to accept domestic cryptocurrency payments, cross-border payments, or even create their own stock exchange. Needless to say the possibilities of the service are extensive thanks to an architecture based around a wide range of individual settings that allow companies to adapt the technology to the needs of any project.
Currently, CryptoProcessing generates about 5,000 new addresses and receives more than 300,000 requests to the API daily. Hundreds of developers and companies are already using the service as a one stop shop to provide worldwide payments, settlements, and clearing.
Andrew Chaboh, CTO of Embily Payment Service, says that “Thanks to CryptoProcessing, we have reduced development costs by 40% and launched 4 months ahead of schedule. Such web services massively simplify the complexity of interacting with applications that run on multiple blockchains. A flexible system of partnership with CryptoProcessing facilitates the integration of our product with other businesses.”
Now CryptoProcessing provides blockchain startups with special conditions for the fast-launching of MVPs - free trial access for 3 months. In addition to the service, you get access to Cryptoprocessing TestNet - a specially developed software environment for conducting test transactions.
For more information about CryptoProcessing, visit cryptoprocessing.io!
submitted by bounsygurl to ethdev [link] [comments]

KCN The bitcoin mempool is clogged with transactions The Waiting Game: The Mempool and Transaction Fees Why is Bitcoin mempool empty? This week in Bitcoin- 5-22-2020- Fake Satoshi coins, Pizza day, Mempool, Lightning, BTC 365-day avg. BTC Video on Blockchain TX Fees and Mempool 2019.05.13

After making a strong recovery from $3,775 to $6,450, Bitcoin’s (BTC) price has traded in a tight range which has seen the price struggle to push above resistance at $6,400 and $6,850. Despite the current pullback, technical indicators like the Stock-to-Flow model and the network’s consistent growth in hash rate show that investors have regained […] Market Overview Analysis by Mati Greenspan covering: Dow Jones Industrial Average, NASDAQ Composite, United States 10-Year, CBOE Volatility Index. Read Mati Greenspan's latest article on Investing.com Stock Trading; Forex Trading; About; Contact; Terms; FAQS; Welcome to Mempool Forex Trading and Capital Investment Solution for all business and individual who refused to settle for average investing. People who demand better. People like You.. Join Now. A Secure And Easy Way To Invest In Forex At Mempool Forex Trading and Capital Investment we show you how to invest and earn smartly with no ... The relationship between Bitcoin price and its mempool size was negative in most scenarios where BTC lost more than 20%. After making a strong recovery from $3,775 to $6,450, Bitcoin’s price has traded in a tight range which has seen the price struggle to push above resistance at $6,400 and $6,850.Despite the current pullback, technical indicators like the Stock-to-Flow model and the network ... On 15 November, the Bitcoin mempool saw its biggest flood since January 2018, with the mempool size hitting 94 MB at one point. However, it only took two days for the mempool to completely clear out in this case. This situation is a testament to the efficiency of the Bitcoin network. The mempool is all of the transactions that are unconfirmed, meaning they have not been included in a block yet ...

[index] [50985] [31536] [35426] [3613] [3693] [24218] [22293] [19852] [2575] [39202]

KCN The bitcoin mempool is clogged with transactions

AMAZING trading system with two alt coins https://youtu.be/P7XDpbhng2w Part One of Trading Series https://youtu.be/M8iKAxdAEQ0 BITCOIN (BTC) wallet 371sY35Jk... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue 🔴 Bitcoin and Stocks LIVE : BTC Hit $7000! Triple Witching! 🔴 Ep. 908 Crypto Technical Analysis ... Do you REALLY understand the Bitcoin Mempool? Programmer explains. - Duration: 6:38. Ivan ... Juan, Guy, and Gigi are here to talk about Bitcoin and more. Back in May we experienced major Satoshi coin FUD, a new 365-day moving average ATH, a crowded Mempool, BlockFi's issue, and much more. The Bitcoin mempool is the pool of unconfirmed Bitcoin transactions on the Bitcoin network. Once a Bitcoin transaction happens on Bitcoin’s blockchain, it is not immediately added; instead, it ...

#