You've probably been hearing a lot about Bitcoin recently and are wondering what's the big deal? Most of your questions should be answered by the resources below but if you have additional questions feel free to ask them in the comments. Some great introductions for new users are My first bitcoin, Bitcoin explained and ELI5 Bitcoin. Also, the following videos are a good starting point for understanding how bitcoin works and a little about its long term potential:
Limited Supply - There will only ever be 21,000,000 bitcoins created and they are issued in a predictable fashion, you can view the inflation schedule here. Once they are all issued Bitcoin will be truly deflationary. The halving countdown can be found here.
Open source - Bitcoin code is fully auditable. You can read the source code yourself here.
Accountable - The public ledger is transparent, all transactions are seen by everyone.
Decentralized - Bitcoin is globally distributed across thousands of nodes with no single point of failure and as such can't be shut down similar to how Bittorrent works.
Censorship resistant - No one can prevent you from interacting with the bitcoin network and no one can censor, alter or block transactions that they disagree with, see Operation Chokepoint.
Push system - There are no chargebacks in bitcoin because only the person who owns the address where the bitcoins reside has the authority to move them.
Low fee scaling - On chain transaction fees depend on network demand and how much priority you wish to assign to the transaction. Most wallets calculate on chain fees automatically but you can view current fees here. On chain fees have risen recently due to network demand however instant micropayments are on the way via the Lightning Network, a second layer scaling solution currently rolling out on the Bitcoin mainnet. You can even run a node on a Raspberry Pi :)
Borderless - No country can stop it from going in/out, even in areas currently unserved by traditional banking as the ledger is globally distributed.
Here is a listing of local ATMs. If you would like your paycheck automatically converted to bitcoin use Bitwage. Note: Bitcoins are valued at whatever market price people are willing to pay for them in balancing act of supply vs demand. Unlike traditional markets, bitcoin markets operate 24 hours per day, 365 days per year. Preev is a useful site that that shows how much various denominations of bitcoin are worth in different currencies. Alternatively you can just Google "1 bitcoin in (your local currency)".
Securing your bitcoins
With bitcoin you can "Be your own bank" and personally secure your bitcoins OR you can use third party companies aka "Bitcoin banks" which will hold the bitcoins for you.
If you prefer to "Be your own bank" and have direct control over your coins without having to use a trusted third party, there are many software wallet options here. If you want easy and secure storage without having to learn computer security best practices, then a hardware wallet such as the Trezor or Ledger is recommended. A more advanced option is to secure them yourself using paper wallets generated offline. Some popular mobile and desktop wallet options are listed below and most are cross platform.
Another interesting use case for physical storage/transfer is the Opendime. Opendime is a small USB stick that allows you to spend Bitcoin by physically passing it along so it's anonymous and tangible like cash.
If you prefer to let third party "Bitcoin banks" manage your coins, try Gemini but be aware you may not be in control of your private keys in which case you would have to ask permission to access your funds and be exposed to third party risk.
Note: For increased security, use Two Factor Authentication (2FA) everywhere it is offered, including email! 2FA requires a second confirmation code to access your account, usually from a text message or app, making it much harder for thieves to gain access. Google Authenticator and Authy are the two most popular 2FA services, download links are below. Make sure you create backups of your 2FA codes.
Mining bitcoins can be a fun learning experience, but be aware that you will most likely operate at a loss. Newcomers are often advised to stay away from mining unless they are only interested in it as a hobby similar to folding at home. If you want to learn more about mining you can read more here. Still have mining questions? The crew at /BitcoinMining would be happy to help you out. If you want to contribute to the bitcoin network by hosting the blockchain and propagating transactions you can run a full node using this setup guide. Bitseed is an easy option for getting set up. You can view the global node distribution here.
Just like any other form of money, you can also earn bitcoins by being paid to do a job.
You can also earn bitcoins by participating as a market maker on JoinMarket by allowing users to perform CoinJoin transactions with your bitcoins for a small fee (requires you to already have some bitcoins)
The following is a short list of ongoing projects that might be worth taking a look at if you are interested in current development in the bitcoin space.
One Bitcoin is quite large (hundreds of £/$/€) so people often deal in smaller units. The most common subunits are listed below:
1,000 per bitcoin
SI unit for milli i.e. millilitre (mL) or millimetre (mm)
1,000,000 per bitcoin
SI unit for micro i.e microlitre (μL) or micrometre (μm)
1,000,000 per bitcoin
Colloquial "slang" term for microbitcoin
100,000,000 per bitcoin
Smallest unit in bitcoin, named after the inventor
For example, assuming an arbitrary exchange rate of $10000 for one Bitcoin, a $10 meal would equal:
For more information check out the Bitcoin units wiki. Still have questions? Feel free to ask in the comments below or stick around for our weekly Mentor Monday thread. If you decide to post a question in /Bitcoin, please use the search bar to see if it has been answered before, and remember to follow the community rules outlined on the sidebar to receive a better response. The mods are busy helping manage our community so please do not message them unless you notice problems with the functionality of the subreddit. A complete list of bitcoin related subreddits can be found here Note: This is a community created FAQ. If you notice anything missing from the FAQ or that requires clarification you can edit it here and it will be included in the next revision pending approval. Welcome to the Bitcoin community and the new decentralized economy!
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
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:
wealthy individuals trying to preserve and transport their wealth across space and across time
iPhone and Android users who want to buy a latte on their smartphone at Starbucks
Venezuelans and Argentinians and Cypriots and Russian oligarchs and Greeks and anyone else whose state-backed currency sucks
unbanked Africans who will someday be texting around money via SMS messages on their cellphones
online content providers who will finally be able to get paid via micropayments
smart contracts and stock brokering and lawyering and land deeding and the refrigerator calling out to order more milk and distributed anonymous corporations (DACs) automatically negotiating and adjusting driverless taxicab fares in the Uber-future of the Internet of Things
...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:
separating the compact (and easy-to-check) statement of a theorem from the messy (and hard-to-check) details of its proof(s);
separating the specification of a system from its implementation(s); and
being able to prove that an implementation does indeed satisfy its specification.
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".
The InziderX decentralized exchange based on wallet is possible because of two technologies that have recently proved their value. Atomic swap and the Lightning Network. Atomic Swap A decentralized platform based solely on user wallet (Dapp) that allows the exchange of assets between these wallets have an ingenious feature: the atomic swap between blockchain. An atomic swap is the exchange between two digitals assets without the intervention of a third party. Previously, in all situations of exchange between two parties, it was necessary to use the services of a third party to establish a relationship of trust between users. None of them wants to send their assets first without the assurance that the other party will fulfill its promise. Since all users trust the third party in their task of transmitting funds between participants only if all conditions are met, they have no hesitation in trading on their exchange. However, as discussed earlier, the latest hacks on centralized exchanges have eroded this trust to the point of being non-existent. Using these platforms is putting yourself in a hostage position. The atomic swap avoids this situation with a process called “time hash lock contract”. This option is activated by basic functions written in the code of Bitcoin and most other altcoins. In action, if Alice wants to sell 50 LTC for 1 BTC and Bob accepts the transaction, a transaction on each of the blockchains is processed. Bob sends 1 BTC into a mulsignatures address to Alice and Alice sends 50 LTC to Bob into a mulsignatures address. However, the trick is that Alice can only claim 1 BTC if she reveals a secret code (hash). And it’s the same for Bob, so he can only access Alice’s 50 LTC if he reveals his secret code (hash). In the opposite case, each one recovers his assets after a short time (time-lock). In this way, Alice and Bob can make a safe transaction between themselves without the intervention of a third party and without having to trust each other. Because even if the transactions are carried out on different blockchains, they are in fact interrelated by mutual conditions. Recap : 1-Alice generates a secret code (hash) and initiates the transaction by sending the LTC into a mulsignatures address that can not be claimed without the secret code. 2-Bob generates a secret code (hash) and initiates the transaction by sending the BTC into a mulsignatures address which can not be claimed without the secret code. 3-At this point, Alice can not claim the BTC and Bob can not claim the LTC. 4-In order to cash the BTC, Alice reveals her secret code (hash) and when Bob uses this code, automatically his hash is transmitted to Alice which releases the BTC. The secret code (hash) is included in the output of a transaction and then requested in the input to release the funds. The exchange is atomic because it only occurs if the two transactions are processed, otherwise the exchange is canceled. This is what the atomic swap allows : an exchange without third parties where the parties do not have to trust each other to negotiate between them. All they are missing is a market place to meet and make known their intention of exchange. InizderX will be this agora. Available pairs Another advantage is the fact that it is possible to negotiate between them any digital assets listed on the exchange. So that users are not limited to the pairs usually listed. For example, on a centralized exchange, if the pair BTC / ETH and XRP / BTC are listed, it is not certain that it’s possible to trade the ETH / XPR pair if the centralized exchange does not offer it. On a decentralized exchange with atomic swap, it is possible to negotiate all the digital assets listed on the exchange between them. Considering that the InziderX exchange intends to list the twenty digital assets with the most large caps, this makes 180 pairs of digital assets available for trading. https://preview.redd.it/16gllf0zanp11.png?width=180&format=png&auto=webp&s=b647b46c7a79bcffcef76462ba8a1c7ef9265887 Lightning Network The Lightning Network is a two-way payment protocol that operates separately from the blockchain, in parallel. This payment channel allows : Instant payments on the blockchain without having to worry about block confirmation times. Security is enforced by smart contracts without creating a blockchain transaction for individual payments. Capable of millions to billions of transactions per second across the network. Cheap transactions. By performing transactions separately from the blockchain (off-chain), the Lightning network allows exceptionally low fees, allowing instant micropayments. The transfer between blockchains. Cross-atomic exchanges can occur off-line instantly with heterogeneous blockchains consensus rules. As long as blockchains can support the same cryptographic hash function, it is possible to perform transactions on a blockchains without having to trust a third party. With the functions CheckSequenceVerify (CSV), that blocks the assets for a specific number of blocks and the one of the secret hash, the cryptographic aspect, that atomic exchange, all this is possible. Liquidity The advantage of this technology for the InziderX exchange is the liquidity it provides. The exchange InziderX proposes to create is a marketplace where all other exchanges can connect. With BIP65 and BOLT, which standardizes the protocols used by network users, all this is possible and will be the reality of tomorrow. In a way, there will only be one market left. A market connected to markets. Wallets will be just an exchange window to access them. That’s the vision of InziderX! Create a wallet that is by itself an exchange that is connected to all exchanges using the same protocols and create a “world order book”. A relay that integrates the Lightning Network and allows everyone to participate and form a decentralized network of liquidity. In this way, any liquidity provider, whether it’s another exchange or a private institution that has a market maker program, will be able to connect to our exchange. The benefits for these liquidity providers are obvious : a new clientele. The standardization of the protocols used by the users of the networks will allow this ingenious technological advance and will guarantee an unparalleled liquidity to our exchange. InziderX will be in touch at the opening of its exchange with private liquidity providers and will offer them plans for reduced transaction fees for a defined period that can be renewed if necessary. We will also establish relays with centralized exchanges whose volume is the largest. Other network participants who want to connect to our exchange and use the same protocols will have the possibility to add their volume to the order book. Market Maker Program The InziderX exchange will establish from its launch a program that favors market makers. Reduced fees Limit orders are orders that provide volume to the order book and will be processed with a reduced transaction fee. For example 0.1% instead of 0.02%. These transaction fees will also be reduced according to the volume of transactions of the user. Here is an example : Volume in last 30 days Fees $ 0 and up 0.1% $ 100,000 and up 0.08% $ 250,000 and up 0.07% $ 500,000 and up 0.06% $ 1,000,000 and over 0.05% $ 2,000,000 and over 0.04% $ 5,000,000 and up 0.0175% $ 7,000,000 and over 0.00% Reward Taking the example of the stock market where high-frequency traders receive a premium for placing orders, a portion of the transaction fees charged to all users will be redistributed through a reward program to traders who have the largest volume of transactions. For example, an institution that maintains a volume of more than $ 10,000,000 of volume executed in the last 60 days will receive a return of 0.01% on placed orders. This will be a strong motivation for liquidity providers to maintain a volume on our exchange. Arbitrage Arbitrage is the purchase of an asset at a lower price on an exchange and the sale of the same asset at a higher price on another exchange. Previously, in order to take advantage of these price differences between centralized exchanges, it was necessary to maintain a portfolio in each of those exchanges and to have twice the negotiated power. For example, if the price of the BTC is $ 8000 on exchange A and $ 8,500 on exchange B, the trader buys 1BTC in his account on exchange A and sells 1 BTC in his account on exchange B in order to enjoy a gain of $ 500. With the new technology and protocol standardization, it will be possible for a trader to buy on an exchange and instantly transfer it to another exchange for sale. You do not need to have twice the exchange value. This will result in a terribly efficient marketplace with tight spreads and reduced slippage. The InziderX exchange API with its clear and varied controls will automatically manage this type of trades. So that a negotiator will be able to automate all this process from predefined actions in his code and make an instant exchange between them. https://preview.redd.it/kgxnzwyfbnp11.png?width=1446&format=png&auto=webp&s=e87ba6961d6e3a16a952bebb4713d7915048b9b6 Wallet The wallet is one of the important elements of a decentralized exchange because it is the tool on which the exchange is based. It is also the first window that the novice user will have on the world of digital assets. It must be easy to use and intuitive in its design. Beyond these considerations, it must include the basic and advanced options necessary to support the exchange. Basic options - Multicurrency - Send / receive / contact list - Historic - Estimation and adjustment of transfer fees - Segwit2 Technology Account value history A section will display the value of the account according to a given history. It will be possible to establish a chart by selecting the set of digital assets in the portfolio if not one or some. This will be handy for assessing which assets should be prioritized for diversification. Stacking An interesting option in this portfolio is stacking. It allows you to make margin financing and thus make your funds work to accumulate a passive return. The funds are still safe in the wallet. Mining In addition to the “stacking” it will be possible to mine directly in the portfolio the digital asset INX that supports our exchange. A miner pool will be created and it will be possible to allocate a mining power from your computer to this task. HD wallets Integration With the latest advanced blockchain technology revolution such as atomic swap and Lightning Network, it is possible to perform instant transfers that are without risk for both parties. It is therefore possible to integrate in our exchange other portfolios that use the same technologies. We are therefore studying the possibility of integrating portfolios such as LedgerNano S and Metamask into our exchange. For those who know the security level of a Nano S key, this is another layer of security to our exchange. So in addition to being decentralized, the user can use a technology that prevents his private keys are held directly on his computer and rather in cold storage with air gap. This wallet, which includes several modules, will be available in Native — Full node mode or in Electrum mode — light node version which does not oblige the user to download all the transaction history of the assets they wish to negotiate. Instant and Untraceable Encrypted Message The wallet includes an anonymous and untraceable encrypted email system based on the blockchain. Knowledge groups can be formed to share real-time insights into the price action of a particular asset. https://inziderx.io/docs/InziderX.io-Economics.pdf — #InziderX #Exchange #ico https://preview.redd.it/1ehcfzjobnp11.png?width=128&format=png&auto=webp&s=045cef7f06a536df30f899c86929040a160e7a1c
https://medium.com/mit-media-lab-digital-currency-initiative/the-importance-of-layer-2-105189f72102 By Neha Narula, the Director of theDigital Currency Initiativeat theMIT Media Lab. Last weekend we held aLayer 2 SummitatFidelity Labsand theMIT Media Lab. This post is based on my opening statements from the conference and is about what Layer 2 is, why it’s important, and what I learned at the summit. I think the most pressing issue in cryptocurrency and blockchain technology right now is, how are we going to achieve the original vision of blockchains as open, decentralized networks while scaling to reach a billion people? At the summit, we gathered practitioners who are working on projects that address that question from a particular angle: Layer 2. Why is scaling such an important problem right now? Well, how many of you have ever played Cryptokitties? Cryptokitties was by far the most popular application on Ethereum, and when it launched, it slowed Ethereum to a crawl. Gas prices skyrocketed, people were waiting days for transactions. It was half of all the gas used on the network. People said Cryptokitties “broke” Ethereum. At its peak, Cryptokitties had 14K daily active users and 130K transactions a day. That’s nothing. Now, you can argue CryptoKitties doesn’t “need” to operate in a decentralized fashion, or on Ethereum, and I am very sympathetic to that argument. But it is a real example of the limits of this technology. The team has so much more that they want to build and try, but they simply can’t because the underlying platform can’t support it. Bitcoin’s peak is around 425K transactions per day and Ethereum’s is 1.4 million. But Twitter has 150 million daily active users, and Facebook has 1.4 billion. The financial system is much larger than even that. If you believe that one goal of this technology is to democratize access to the financial system, we have a very long way to go.
The scaling challenge for blockchain technology is what first got me interested in this space. I had finished research at MIT where I worked on scaling multi-core databases, and I was interested in techniques to scale distributed databases. It’s a challenging problem which is very workload-dependent. Often the techniques you use to scale actually make things slower overall, or don’t work in a generalized way. They certainly add a lot of complexity. This was 2015, and I kept hearing in the news how there was this big debate raging about the blocksize and how to scale Bitcoin — in fact, there was a conference happening in Montreal literally called “Scaling Bitcoin”. I decided to take a look at why it might be so hard to scale blockchains, and then I went down a rabbit hole and never came out. You see, fundamentally, blockchains just don’t scale. There are different ideas on how to increase the capacity of the underlying blockchains behind cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin and Ethereum — faster consensus protocols and sharding being the most well-known — but I believe they are all going to reach their limits before we get to the scale we want to achieve. Scalability is defined as getting a proportional increase in the amount of work you can do in a system by adding more resources. But the security of blockchains is based on as many participants as possible verifying and validating every transaction or, in the case of Ethereum, every step of every smart contract. What this means is that you don’t reduce the amount of work per node when you add more nodes — they all still have to verify everything, and the new nodes cannot do new, useful work. The design doesn’t scale. Faster consensus protocols will certainly help increase the amount of transactions per second up to a point, but they do not help with scalability. One potential solution proposed for scalability is sharding, or dividing the network of nodes into multiple partitions which each process a subset of transactions. I’m not optimistic about this solution because in distributed databases, sharding solutions are quite complex and the cost of cross-shard transactions, even if there are only a few of them, can dominate the cost of the overall system. Money is not a perfectly partitionable workload, so I imagine there will be a significant number of cross-shard transactions. One way to try to circumvent this issue is to create a new blockchain for each application. This is essentially partitioning by application, which cannot help scale within an application. Also, it makes one question the need for a blockchain in the first place — why can’t the application creator just manage the application? — and it affects interoperability and reduces security. Cryptokitties is building their own blockchain. Will it be less interesting for people to build things like KittyHats if it’s on an AxiomZen blockchain? Will they even be able to?
So far, the only viable solutions I’ve seen to address scalability are Layer 2 solutions. The idea behind these projects is to achieve amortized costs: the more transactions, the lower the cost per transaction. Right now in cryptocurrencies the more transactions, the higher the cost per transaction, because there is limited space, processing capacity, and bandwidth, and the increased competition for these limited resources makes fees go up. We want to get lower costs per unit of work the more work we do. One way to do that is to use the blockchain as an anchor of trust instead of as a generalized state machine which processes everything. Layer 2 encompasses many different techniques and projects. This post does an excellent job describing many Layer 2 solutions, but I want to broaden the definition. The most well-known and advanced Layer 2 solution so far is the Lightning Network, which uses payment channels; the counterparts in Ethereum use state channels. But Layer 2 is also off-chain computation and hiding complex scripts inside signatures, or using zero-knowledge contingent payments, because we can achieve amortization using these techniques too: a signature validation is the same cost no matter the complexity of the off-chain script. It’s also about interoperability between different blockchains. Ultimately, it’s designing applications that anchor to the blockchain as a root of trust, instead of executing every step on the chain.
Unfortunately, it’s not at all clear how to directly apply Layer 2 solutions to a complex application. Writing a contract that executes entirely on-chain is a much easier task for an application developer than reasoning about Layer 2 solutions. There are many questions that will need to be answered as Layer 2 development proceeds: How can you effectively divide up an application into these pieces, the piece that anchors on the blockchain and is as small and cheap as possible, and the pieces that execute off-chain? Where should one run these off-chain bits, and how can one achieve fault-tolerance and decentralization in this context? Payment channels are by far the most advanced Layer 2 implementations, in particular those of the Lightning Network. But even though people are making Lightning transactions on Bitcoin’s mainnet, it’s still unclear exactly how to effectively run a Lightning hub and protect your private keys, or what the right fees are. At the summit, Alex Bosworth had a great presentation on his experience running Y’alls where he detailed these issues. The state channels panel was fascinating because I realized that there is currently no standard way of using state channels on Ethereum. I’m looking forward to seeing more of the work L4 is doing and Patrick McCorry’supcoming work on a new model for outsourcing arbitration. Even if these issues get solved, Layer 2 solutions can greatly affect the incentives of the underlying blockchains. And it’s not clear what classes of applications can benefit from Layer 2 solutions and what classes cannot. Despite these challenging problems, I’m excited — we’ve started the conversation. The summit marked an important step in that process, gathering people who work on Layer 2 projects on many different platforms and cryptocurrencies. The participants often attend different conferences and talk in different channels, but last weekend they took the time to listen to people who might be approaching things from a completely different perspective. We had presentations on Lightning, Truebit, Raiden, Interledger, scriptless scripts, Discreet Log Contracts, and more. I know we missed many exciting projects that are doing important work in this space; please reach outto get in touch so we can invite you next time. We will need funding for these projects of course. So, if you’re a VC or funder, I encourage you to invest in people working on this. The returns aren’t as immediate or obvious as for people doing ICOs, but your investment will ultimately create more value and be more impactful. If you are a non-cryptocurrency company, you should know about this set of technologies and know that within the next year, we’re going to have cheap, plentiful micropayments using cryptocurrency. There are many daunting challenges but I think Layer 2 is the best hope we have of scaling blockchain technology. Now it’s time to build.
Development Update: ATMChain Development News Collection (October)
ATMChain Protocol development update October 9th Github open source community created at: https://github.com/ATMChain Twitter account for developers created at: https://twitter.com/ATMChainDev October 10th ATM token smart contract source code uploaded to github Implementation requirement on multi-party value distribution discussed with DECENT October 11th Discussion on monthly plan of ATM protocol layer development October 12th Implementation on ATM smart contract automation test platform October 13th Review of ATM smart contract automation test platform ATM smart contract automation test source code uploaded to github October 15th Technical discussion with ATM Swiss community October 16th Design of ATM micropayment solution Design of ATM media file distribution solution October 18th ATM monthly vesting execution and data check October 19th Assessment and brainstorming on Raiden Network development status October 20th Discussion on ATMChain explorer development plan October 23rd Integration of micro-Raiden to ATMChain October 24th Technical preparation for listing ATM on exchanges Design of ATM media file distribution solution October 25th Study on smart contract built on plasma platform Integration of micro-Raiden to ATMChain October 27th Finish integration of micro-Raiden to ATMChain Assessment on micro-Raiden test data and future limitations October 30th Forecast on ATM evolution roadmap: Mid-term, interoperability with service chain and token chain Long term, new media economy based on multi-chain interconnection and unified ATM cryptocurrency October 31st Top down architecture design and key technology research of ATM long term roadmap Enterprise application development update October 8th CunChain project team received the customer visit of D-SHORE Information technology CO.,LTD. About the demand of agricultural products traceability, CunChain team provided the technology solution based on CunChain Proof of existence platform and IOT technology. October 9th The CunChain project team output the 《Construction scheme of rural comprehensive property rights trading platform in Shunyi District”》document. On the basis of the CunChain PoE platform, through the smart contract, it supports the transaction into the blockchain ,traceability, non tampering, document PoE and other requirements of the land rights trading platform. October 13th The function list of CunChain’s new iteration which is called “Gemini” is completed, as the input of the Gemini iteration ,it will support fabric block chain, support the state cipher algorithms and provide better user experience. October 15th Complete the internal review and finalization of the document 《Construction scheme of rural comprehensive property rights trading platform in Shunyi District》. The document will beused for the project negotiations. October 16th Swiss Telecom medicine traceability needs and solutions discussion.The demand will be developed based on the CunChain PoE platform.The CunChain project team began to analyzhe the demand and output the scheme. October 17th The key technical points of 《Construction scheme of rural comprehensive property rights trading platform in Shunyi District》 are detailed analysis, and we plan to develope a demo version, both as a project pre research, and easy to follow similar block chain based certificat transaction circulation project’s effect display and exchange. October 18th 《Swiss Telecom medicine traceability scheme》’s refinement and output, Sorting out specific Use Cases,as well as the key business processes, after internal review, it will be used for the scheme communication with Swiss Telecom customes. October 19th Begin to translate the 《Swiss Telecom medicine traceability scheme》doc to English to prepare for the visit and communication of Swiss Telecom clients. October 20th About 《Swiss Telecom medicine traceability scheme》, we discussed the scope of the prototype, the prototype design and the project plan. We planed to develop one demo program next week for the Swiss Telecom client to visit to ensure the communication effect. October 23th We start the Medicine traceability Demo project. October 24th For the Medicine traceability Demo project, we finished the development of Scan Code and the UI design of PC client and Mobile. October 26th For the Medicine traceability Demo project, we finish the code of PC client、 mobile、backend、blockchain。 October 27th For the Medicine traceability Demo project, we started to do the integrated test. October 30th 1.The function list and project plan of the CunChain’s new iteration “Gemini” are finished, we will start it on November 1st. 2.For the Medicine traceability Demo project, we continued to do the integrated test and bug fix. October 31th We finished the integrated test and bug fix of the Medicine traceability Demo project.The demo functions are complete and available which can demonstrathe scan code of the medicine’s delivery, storage, sale,traceability record information into the block chain,mobile phone scnanning code tracing source, tracing medicine circulation records, etc.. ATMChain Global operation update The ATMChain Foundation has been involved in a large number of activities and project resources docking in the past October. First two weeks(Oct.1-Oct.13) This month with the international community of Norway, Japan, Malaysia, Britain and other countries of the community leaders from time to time to determine the possible docking in November summit. It is now clear that in mid-November we will attend the Norwegian Innovation Week Summit and the UK Local Leaders Summit. Specific schedule negotiations, please keep an eye on ATMChain official website and various international community social tools. Middle of Month(Oct.14-20) The ATMChain Foundation has been involved in a large number of activities and project resources docking in the past October. we are pleased to announce that this month, the ATMChain community was invited to the China-France Electric Merchants Summit, at the summit ATMChain chairman Usama conducted a speech on the theme of ATMChain. Usama also improved understanding of ATMChain in the French community and docked the electricity industry application of the relevant resources landing. Rest of Month(Oct.21-31) Swiss Telecom, a key partner in the Swiss community, ATMChain has done a lot of programs and technical docking which provided a solid foundation for both of us following collaboration. We believe that we could trigger more sparks next month. Technical strategy partner Decent also done a lot of docking work this month, especially in the introduction of the latest public chain version of ATMChain consider the cooperation of the docking program. We are looking forward to this matter at the next Decent meeting. Finally, thanks to all the support of ATMChain enthusiasts around the world, you are our biggest driving force. ATMChain The Exchange update With the help of the European community, the Nordic community, the Asian community and the Korean community and the relevant person in charge, the number of ATMs currently listing is now more than ten which surpassed our expectations this month. The following is the specific situation of the ATM list exchange. 1.RFinex (community partner exchange) RFinex is the digital currency exchange that our partner RFintech introduced. We are very pleased in the ATMChain which has its own strength to build our ATMChain ecology with our partners .Indispensable part of the exchange. According to the ecological panorama of the intellectual chain, we can see that the economic model put forward by the exchange in the intellectual chain plays a vital role, Thanks to our Swiss partner RFintech for providing such an important build, thank them. 2.HitBTC (the top 6 in the global exchange) We are delighted that HitBTC, as one of our very important partner which has a full range of cooperation as the Nordic First Digital Currency Exchange, both in terms of transaction support, currency issuance, information sharing and community building. Thanks to the world's leading exchange HitBTC as our trading partners to join the intellectual chain chain ecology, but also thanks to the Christian chain of the Nordic community to make contributions. 3.EYA LABS (Community Partner Exchange) EYA LABS as a well-known Korean digital exchange was promoted by our South Korean community leaders Mr. Cui who have the Korean community fans . Cui also push the collaborate with EYA LABS of South Korea's well-known digital currency exchange further. There is no rose-like gorgeous modifier but honest and frank and constantly enrich and develop, and now the most perfect posture in Korea to gorgeous flags. EYA LABS In the Korean community's ATMChain would make a great contribution in three years. Thanks to the fan of ATMChain Korean community communities. 4.LiveCoin (the top 30 of the global exchange) Livecoin is a modern encrypted currency trading platform that provides you with a comfortable, practical and profitable encrypted currency trading platform. The exchange is the ATMChain European communities via the introduction, after a brief communication, in understanding the strong global ATMChain ,LiveCoin decided to the fastest on listing ATM. For the ATMChain Eastern European community, the Russian community enthusiasts , Livecoin provided a convenient and convenient trading channel and also could create the core of the global economic environment to lay a solid foundation. Thank you for the ATMChain Eastern European communities for bring well-known channels, thank you.
Yobit (the top 20 of the global exchange)
Yobit as a well-known platform to exchange encrypted currency platform, Yobit.net in the market play a role in the collection of market participants. Its as the world's top 20 heat to Russia, India, French ATMChain community enthusiasts to make a positive recommendation. The ATMChain responded positively to the community's voice, and finally succeeded in communicating and listing on Yobit. Thanks to the ATMChain European and South Asian communities for your good advice and suggestions. 6.Etherdelta (the top 30 of the global exchange) As the well-known to the Center Square to the central exchange, whether it is Twitter or facebook have a lot of ATMChain community enthusiasts to do a positive recommendation. The ATMChain Foundation has responded to these voices with the fastest speed to list ATM. At the same time, the Etherdelta exchange is also popular with community enthusiasts, so far contributed a lot of trading volume. thank you. 7.RBEX (Community Partner Exchange) Recol Bitcoin Exchange, as part of the R fintech Group, its OTC trading offers more trading options. Thanks the RFintech Group again for providing projects and technical. 8.Mercatox(the top 80 in the global exchange) Our partner mercatox would like to present universal market platform mercatox.com. It is a unique creation in the world of digital money, based on multi-language platform. It combines automated trading, payment service, Peer-to-Peer sharing based on "smart contracts" and many other features. We are planning to provide not just a service with different abilities, but create a new financial market in the digital world.We are happy to collaborate with Mercatox for ATM/ETH, ATM/BTC trade. 9.DECENTREX(the top 100 in the global exchange) Decentralized exchange for Tokens and Ethereum cryptocurrency. Open source, based on public Ethereum smart contract, with no registration, no limits and no barriers. Decentralized P2P blockchain trading right in your browser, on any OS and device. ATMChain is happy to collaborate with DWCENTREX for listing ATM. 10.Openledger (the top 100 in the global exchange) Thanks to Belarusian community enthusiast Yukhniuk who helped us contact Openledger.info and was very active in promoting the process of our ATM listing. Thanks for her free time on weekends.We believe that Openledger will be able to help the Eastern European community and even the world of intellectual media chain ATM enthusiasts. Thanks to Yukhniuk. 11.C-CEX (the top 60 in the global exchange) C-CEX exchange has an active community who share tips and information in our chat box. After ATMChain enthusiasts recommended , we had contacted C-CEX with their help and reached a consensus on listing ATM. After the end of the coin listing queue ,will be list ATM. Hope that C-CEX can bring more supporters and strength to our global ecological construction. The above ten exchange that the Foundation had now cooperated and list ATM. After communicating with the above exchange partners, we decided to open a lot of transactions that had already been supported on Sunday. Before that the Foundation will launch a staff to test the tokens trading for ensuring that ATMChain community enthusiasts in a safe and fast trading environment for ATM transactions. In addition, ATMChain will continue to follow the recommendations and recommendations of community enthusiasts, in November and December to seek the world's relatively well-known exchanges to continue list on ATM. Ultimately, further improve the mobility of the entire ATMChain ecology. ATMChain 58wallet development update October 11th For the 1.0.0 version, we fixed some bugs, UI adjustment, optimize the user experience. October 12th The technical details of the Bitcoin system are analyzed October 13th Sort out the micro-service architecture, clear the service function boundaries. October 14th Release 1.1.0 version, add English language support, and fix some BUG. The technical details of Zcash and other systems are analyzed. Design the new architecture solution for the solution October 16th Study the issue of bitcoin hard fork, identify the risk range. Finishing BTC wallet flow chart, timing diagram. October 17th The next stage of demand feasibility analysis. New version of mobile infrastructure discussion. Bitcoin wallet technology program confirmation. October 18th We improved our system to analysis the transaction called from a contract. And we can discover new assets automatically now. October 19th determine mobile-side infrastructure solution, write documents. October 20th Fit the new UI style. October 21 Message push technical program confirmation Litecoin, Ripple, Monero and other currency technology research October 23rd BTC wallet creation, import, export and other functions October 25th Tokens automatic discovery APIs. Mobile-side integrated message push function. October 26th Zcash, Litecoin and other currency technology research October 30th BTC wallet transfer, transaction history and other functions. The back-end system extracts a unified business model for different tokens systems and uses this to extend more tokens. ATMChain Application development update October 9th ATMChain POC practice summarization and development discussion. ATMChain POC practice report. October 10th ATMChain POC performance improvement discussion. ATMChain POC practice product data analyze. ATMChain area hotspot framework discussion. October 11th Discussion with DECENT team. ATMChain VOD solution drafting and oversea product discussion. ATMChain performance improvement discussion. October 12th ATMChain separated chain and business solution discussion. Business solution with Zhongke discussion. ATMChain performance improvement. October 13th ATMChain Japan community communication. ATMChain performance improvement. October 16th ATMChain Ad solution draft. ATMChain performance improvement and multi-language solution October 17th ATMChain Ad solution draft and English translation. ATMChain performance improvement and multi-language solution. October 18th ATMChain Ad solution internal discussion. ATMChain Japan Community communication. Swisscom cooperation info discussion. ATMChain performance improvement and multi-language solution October 19th Swisscom Itinerary discussion. ATMChain Japan Community solution discussion. Telecom solution designation. ATMChain performance improvement and multi-language Solution. October 20th ATMChain Japan Community solution discussion. Telecom solution designation. ATMChain performance improvement and multi-language Solution. October 23th ATMChain domestic ad union proposal discussion. Performance & architecture improvement. Siwsscom visit material preparation. October 24th Telecom solution designation. October 25th Telecom solution designation. Business practice research. October 27th Telecom solution designation. Business practice research. October 30th Blockchain camp in Tokyo discussion. Business practice research. October31th Blockchain camp in Tokyo apply discussion. Blockchain camp in Tokyo document preparation. Kickoff meeting with Zhongke Solution. Technical discussion with Zhongke.
Micropayment channels enable all of this, greatly reducing uncertainty in whether a fair deal was achieved in all cases. One particular use case that stands out is payment for digital content. By reducing payment friction, bitcoin micropayment channels can make it easy for consumers to pay small amounts to artists and providers directly. Users ... Once a channel is closed, a final transaction containing end balances will be sent out to the Bitcoin network. This is the base implementation of micropayment channels; a more evolved implementation is the lightning network , which allows bidirectional payment channels. A recently published paper proposed a novel layer that intervenes between the blockchain and micropayment channels. This innovative layer can improve bitcoin network’s scalability issues via permiting trustless off-blockchain channel funding. This layer is comprised of shared accounts of specific groups of nodes across the network that ... There is no disputing the fact that the Bitcoin network has scalability problems. Micropayment channels are a solution to increase the transaction rate and speed. This New Scaling Layer Could Make Payment Channels Ten Times More Effective The paper mentions two challenges: “Micropayment channel networks create new problems, which have not been solved in the original papers. We identify two main challenges — the blockchain capacity and locked-in funds.” Before we go any further into this proposed solution, it is essential to understand the concept of micropayment channels. Bitcoin’s blockchain network doesn’t allow you ...
Bitcoin Micropayment Revolution? -- Bitcoin Free Speech -- 500,000 trades per second
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube. In this video you will find Bitcoin or BTC Historical Price Chart and Bitcoin Chart Analysis and Indicator 2019 , will Bitcoin Crash again? There are some tr... August 6, 2013 -- Ontario, Canada -- I've got a dead cat bounce in my currency basket and this has drastically improved my well-being. Here are Today's MadBits: Bitcoin Prices continued to range ... Live Bitcoin Chart Liquidation Watch: August 9 2020 TAWS GAMEPLAY 21 watching Live now Connect To Your Ascended Masters ꩜ 3333Hz 333Hz 33Hz 3Hz Super Consciousness 432Hz Divine Meditation ... Dr. Christian Decker talks about Duplex Micropayment Channels at a Bitcoin Meetup in Zurich, April 2016