British Financial Regulator Freezing $128m for Dealing ...

Jiangzhuoer: CSW's Three Extreme Claims - [BitKan 1v1] Craig Wright vs Jiangzhuoer

Jiangzhuoer: CSW's Three Extreme Claims - [BitKan 1v1] Craig Wright vs Jiangzhuoer
Digest from [BitKan 1v1] debate. aggregates all trading depth of Binance Huobi and OKEx. or Try our APP!
Question 2: During the BCH fork to BSV hash war, why do you support BCH? What do you think of the differences between BSV and BCH?
Jiang: First of all, we have to figure out how did some of the key propositions of BSV came about. CSW seems to be the leader of the BSV community, but in fact CSW is just a chess piece. For example, CSW is in name the chief scientist of Nchain, but CSW has no shares in a series of BSV related companies such as Nchain, Coingeek etc. The true boss of BSV and the main backer behind CSW is Calvin Ayre, the casino tycoon.
Zhao Nan wrote two articles, which made the cause and effect of CA's capital layout clear:
"The capital layout of the casino tycoon Calvin Ayre" >>(Chinese)
"The ins and outs of the Calvin Ayre team" >>(Chinese)
Therefore, the ultimate goal of Calvin Ayre is to make money from the Canadian stock market through Coingeek. Coingeek develops its own mining machine, mines itself, controls the chain of BSV, and has the "CSW" as the gimmick, to tell us the story of BSV.

So BCH forks the BSV, which is a step in the entire capital layout of Calvin Ayre. It is not because there is any irreconcilable development direction, but because Coingeek needs to control the BCH. If it cannot be controlled, it will split into a chain that Coingeek can control completely. The whole thing is planned in advance, for example, registration date is July 2, 2018, is August 16, long before CSW began firing shots at ABC team.
CSW’s goal is to split the BSV from the BCH, so he must overstate many of his claims in order to create a split. If he puts forward a reasonable claim and BCH is a rational and pragmatic community, then he can't split. It is important to mention some very extreme claims that the BCH community can't accept, and then incite some community members through extremist claims, just like the Nazis do extreme propaganda and incitement, in order to split from the BCH.

CSW's extreme claims, such as:
1 Super block: BCH advocates large block expansion. What about CSW? He demands to upgrade the oversized block in a short time. The BCH 32MB block is sufficient and does not exceed the network load. CSW exerts that he will upgrade 128MB now. He will not wait till next year, and he intends to upgrade to 2g as well in 2019.
But the result? Don't even talk about 2G, the 100M block has exceeded the current network carrying capacity. After the BSV, because the block is too large, it is too late to spread across the entire network. There have been many deep rollbacks, April 18, 2019. At that time, the 578640 height 128M block resulted in 6 confirmed rollbacks, making the 6 confirmations unreliable.
On April 18, 2019, Beijing time, from 21:00 to 22:00, the deep recombination of up to six blocks occurred in the cobwebs of BSV (block height 578640-578645)
According to BitMEX Research, the BSV chain was rolled back by two blocks in the week. One of the orphaned blocks was about 62.6MB in size. This large block may be the cause of the roll back. In addition, BSV plans to launch an upgraded network called Quasar on July 24. The only change to this upgrade is to increase the default block size limit. It is reported that the expansion of block capacity will increase the probability of block reorganization: the large block has not yet been packaged, and multiple small blocks have made the block height overtaking, which will lead to block reorganization or even fork.

2 Lock-up agreement: A chain must stabilize the agreement. The agreement is greatly changed every time. It definitely affects the above development. If CSW proposes a stable agreement, then everyone agrees that he can't split it. What should he do? CSW is even more extreme, and I am going to set the protocol and lock it, even back to the original version of Bitcoin, which is ridiculous.
The environment has changed, and the agreement must change. For example, if the 0.1 version of Bitcoin is perfect, and the 14-day difficulty adjustment is not a defect, the BSV will not remove the BCH “not original” DDA difficulty adjustment algorithm, and switch back to 14 Day difficulty adjustment? Because once the BSV removes the BCH DDA difficulty adjustment algorithm, it will be directly cut and killed by the big calculation.

3 Computing power determines everything: Why does CW have the power to decide everything? Because the extremes did not dominate the community at the time, but CA's coingeek deployed a lot of mining machines to mine, which is very computationally intensive, so he advocated Force to decide everything, of course, he did not know that my calculations were more than him. I will talk about this later.
Because these claims are created for splitting, not natural development, so these claims will be internal contradictions. For example, CSW said that the agreement is to be locked, and that the computing power determines everything. Even decided to increase the total amount of 21 million, then who has the final say?

Why don't I support the development path of BSV? Because these extreme claims of CSW are all for the purpose of splitting, purposefully proposed, whether it is a large block, lock-up agreement, power calculation determines everything, in fact, it can not be implemented, of course, Will not support these extreme claims that can't actually fall.
In addition, these extreme claims will become a heavy liability for the development of BSV in the future. It is necessary to develop according to these extreme claims. In fact, we cannot do this. We must revise these extreme claims. The members of the community who were incited by these extreme claims will definitely not do it. Then, how do you say that BSV is still developing?

Digest from [BitKan 1v1] debate. aggregates all trading depth of Binance Huobi and OKEx. or Try our APP!
submitted by BitKan to btc [link] [comments]

Since Bitcoin's value grew at 20000x over the past 10 years while it only went through 2.5 halvenings there is no danger of a lack of incentive.

Additionally, as usage grows, even the minimum fee will need to fall.
Don't believe me?
In our wildest dreams, bitcoin could handle 5 transactions for per day for every person in the world. This would be peer-to-peer electronic cash. Well, what would the fees be at just the minimum fee?
5 transactions per day per person for 10 Billion people, we'd need 50 Billion tx per day, which would be 5 terabyte of block data per day at 100 bytes per transaction. This is 21GB per block on average. At 1 sat/byte, this would be 21 billion satoshis per block on average. That's 210 Bitcoin per block.
So at some level Bitcoin's minimum fee will need to drop if it really becomes global cash. But can we get an idea when this will be a problem?
Bitcoin started 2013 at 20k transactions/day and doubled every year from 20k, 40k, 80k, 160k, and the 300k for the start of 2017. This metric later fell over the long term for the first time in it's history to 150k-200k per day by this time last year. Today, it's mixed with Veriblock and running into the ceiling, so it's usefulness as a metric is basically done, but for those curious it's around 400k/day.
BCH, on the other hand, has been at a sad 10k/day for the past year. But in the past 3 months, has grown from an average of ~10k/day to ~40k/day. This is now suddenly Jan 2014 level.
If we assume BCH later grows like BTC or BTC increase the blocksize(lul), then we can extrapolate from Bitcoin's original growth to get some idea. We get to 1M, 2M, 4M, 8M, 16M, 32M, 64M, 128M, 256M, and ~512M tx/day 10 years from today at ~500k. That's still far from 50B per day, but we'd already have 2.133 Bitcoin in fees at 1 sat/byte. That's only 2 or 3 more halvenings away.
BTW, since I know it's going to come up, 1GB blocks are possible on commodity hardware today, so the feasibility of 21GB blocks is not only high, it's downright impossible the imagine it won't happen. Networking throughput per dollar and storage per dollar both grow exponentially, this is not really debatable. 21GB are not only possible, they're downright inevitable. But anyway...
submitted by braclayrab to btc [link] [comments]

Is it feasible to attain a price of Bitcoin of $1M in 10 years?

So I was watching the short Wallstreet Journal interview with the CEO of Xapo (Wences Casares ) and invariably at the end of the interview the journalist asked Wences what his projection was for the price of Bitcoin in 10 years.
Without skipping a beat he said between $500K to $1M. I couldn't help but to laugh out loud and think to myself there is no way a price point like that could ever be attained in a 10 year period but what struct me odd was how convinced and assured Wences was when throwing out such an outlandish (or so I thought) price prediction.
His unwavering confidence in his prediction got me thinking. I thought to myself how can he say such an outlandish prediction when he is obviously so knowledgeable in the industry having started and run Xapo these past few years.
I then put pen to paper in trying to figure out how he came up with such an outlandish price prediction and came up with this scenario:
Let's say the average price of Bitcoin is $500 in 2014. Now let's double that price (year 1). You get $1,000. Now double that price year 2 = $2,000, now double that price again for year 3 = $4,000, continue this approach....year 4 = $8,000, year 5 = $16,000, year 6 = $32,000, year 7 = $64,000, year 8 = $128,000, year 9 = $256,000, year 10 = $512,000.
So Wences asserts that if Bitcoin just doubles in price each year we'll be over $500,000 in 10 years. Then I thought to myself how likely is this to happen? Weeeelllll, I think it's safe to say that the price of Bitcoin is somewhat positively correlated to the number of Bitcoin users. As the user base grows so does the price of Bitcoin. Thus, let's take Wences same approach for factoring the number of users of Bitcoin each year.
Let's just estimate that a total of 4M people own Bitcoin now. Thus, let's double that each year. End of year 1 = 8M. End of year 2 = 16M End of year 3 = 32M End of year 4 = 64M End of year 5 = 128M End of year 6 = 256M End of year 7 = 512M End of year 8 = 1B End of year 9 = 2B End of year 10 = 4 Billion people.
Thus, is it feasible that in 10 years 4 Billion people will be transacting in Bitcoin? Weeeellllll, if you consider that nearly 6 Billion people in the world are unbanked/underbanked. Then take into account that cell phone companies are working on a $25 smart phone which could be in the hands of a good portion of these underbanked.
Than it's not inconceivable to think that 2/3rds of the under banked population could be utilizing Bitcoin in 10 years. Thus, i was stunned in realizing it's not that impossible that if the above level of adoption takes place, that the Bitcoin price prediction that Wences made was not as preposterous as I had originally thought.
Makes you think.....
submitted by coyntoss to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Why is does it take so long to shut down an node used only as a JSON-RPC server?

I'm trying to sync a full node that will only be used as a JSON-RPC server (no mining). I tried to modify the config file and added a service unit, so that the node can run in a low-end VPS with minimum RAM and CPU capabilities. The problem is that the server takes too long to stop, and it's terminated by the system, so it always start rewinding blocks that have been already downloaded.
Here is my configuration file:
server=1 daemon=1 #debug=mempool debug=rpc # If run on the test network instead of the real bitcoin network # testnet=1 # You must set rpcuser and rpcpassword to secure the JSON-RPC api # Please make rpcpassword to something secure, `5gKAgrJv8CQr2CGUhjVbBFLSj29HnE6YGXvfykHJzS3k` for example. # Listen for JSON-RPC connections on  (default: 8332 or testnet: 18332) rpcuser=myuser rpcpassword=pypassword rpcport=8332 # Enable blocks pruning #prune=550 # Limit dbcache=50 maxconnections=4 rpcthreads=2 
And the service unit:
# It is not recommended to modify this file in-place, because it will # be overwritten during package upgrades. If you want to add further # options or overwrite existing ones then use # $ systemctl edit bitcoind.service # See "man systemd.service" for details. # Note that almost all daemon options could be specified in # /etc/bitcoin/bitcoin.conf [Unit] Description=Bitcoin daemon [Service] ExecStart=/usbin/bitcoind -daemon=0 -datadir=/home/jsonrpc/bitcoin -conf=/home/jsonrpc/bitcoin/settings.conf ExecStop=/usbin/bitcoin-cli -datadir=/home/jsonrpc/bitcoin -conf=/home/jsonrpc/bitcoin/settings.conf stop # Creates /run/bitcoind owned by bitcoin #RuntimeDirectory=/home/jsonrpc/bitcoin WorkingDirectory=/home/jsonrpc/bitcoin User=jsonrpc Group=jsonrpc TimeoutStopSec=15m #CPUQuota=4% #MemoryLimit=128M #IOReadIOPSMax=10 #IOWriteIOPSMax=10 Type=simple #Restart=on-failure # Hardening measures #################### # Provide a private /tmp and /vatmp. PrivateTmp=true # Mount /usr, /boot/ and /etc read-only for the process. ProtectSystem=full # Disallow the process and all of its children to gain # new privileges through execve(). NoNewPrivileges=true # Use a new /dev namespace only populated with API pseudo devices # such as /dev/null, /dev/zero and /dev/random. PrivateDevices=true # Deny the creation of writable and executable memory mappings. # Commented out as it's not supported on Debian 8 or Ubuntu 16.04 LTS #MemoryDenyWriteExecute=true [Install] 
submitted by rraallvv to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Estimating the marginal cost of a transaction on the Bitcoin (Cash) network

Recently, the mempool has not been clearing with every block found. Should we immediately raise the block-size? Perhaps put plans to make the easy relay of sub satoshi/byte transaction on hold?
Step 1: find the price of storing a transaction
Searching NCIX:
Calculate the price per TB, assuming 1 is 6 drives are used for parity (30 bays usable storage)
Estimate the UTXO premium:
As you can see. miners have a strong incentive to offer free UTXO consolidation transactions: and require bulk UTXO fanning transaction to pay a fee of 494.86sat/kB -- about 0.5 sat/byte. ((0.01249USD/kB)/(2523.96USD/BCH)*100,000,000sat/BCH)
Fees are no where near that high due to the block subsidy. For an 8MB block: 1,250,000,000 satoshies/ 8000 kB -> 156,250sat/kB; or more conventionally: 157satosies/byte.. Note that the block subsidy per kB goes down with larger block-sizes.
Step 2: Estimate Bandwidth costs
Disclaimer: I am not too familiar with commercial bandwidth plans
Exercise to the reader:
Re-do these calculations for hobbyist hardware and internet connections. You probably have to assume a smaller block size: such as 100MB.
Disclaimer: I later learned the site I was using for prices (NCIX) was bankrupt. Not sure how much that would skew prices.
submitted by phillipsjk to btc [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork Debate Reconvenes After the Stress Test

Over the last few weeks, there’s been a heated discussion within the Bitcoin Cash (BCH) community concerning the scheduled November 15 hard fork. There’s a strong disagreement between the BCH development teams, Bitcoin ABC, Nchain, and Bitcoin Unlimited in regard to the hard fork’s upcoming consensus changes. Fast forward to this week as Nchain has published the Bitcoin SV beta release, Coingeek’s Calvin Ayre speaks out against chain splitting rumors, and there have also been a few insightful studies done on Bitcoin ABC’s proposed canonical transaction ordering (CTOR) upgrade.

Also read: Korean Banks to Limit Services for Crypto Traders Without Real-Name Verification
Nchain Launches Bitcoin SV Beta Version

Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork Debate Reconvenes After the Stress TestLast week’s BCH Stress Test Day took everyone’s minds off of the ongoing upgrade debate taking place within the Bitcoin Cash community. It all started during the last week of July when Bitcoin ABC revealed the team’s roadmap and published the 0.18 ABC codebase in the second week of August. Nchain’s chief scientist Craig Wright was one of the first to oppose the upgrades proposed by the ABC team. Wright explained he was vehemently against adding the opcode called OP_CHECKDATASIG (CDS), and the implementation of canonical transaction ordering (CTOR). Wright detailed his team Nchain would create their own BCH full node client that would entail completely different upgrades within the codebase. Nchain disclosed the new client would be called Bitcoin SV (Satoshi’s Vision) and the full node client will restore the Satoshi opcodes OP_MUL, OP_LSHIFT, OP_RSHIFT, OP_INVERT, remove the 201 opcode script limit, and increase the base block size to 128MB.

Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork Debate Reconvenes After the Stress TestAbout a week and a half ago BCH miners, developers, and industry leaders met in Bangkok to try and hash out the differences, but the meeting didn’t pay off with any compromise between the disagreeing camps. At the time Nchain also launched the Bitcoin SV alpha release and revealed a new mining pool dedicated to the SV codebase. Now, this week Nchain has released the Bitcoin SV beta version on Github. Observers have noted that there was some newly added code related to the 128M increase, some revised release documentation, and some other minor changes.
Coingeek & Calvin Ayre: We Will Fight Any Attempts by Anyone That Cause a Chain Split
Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork Debate Reconvenes After the Stress Test
Coingeek’s Calvin Ayre.

On Monday, September 10 Calvin Ayre, owner of the blockchain firm and mining pool Coingeek, explained in a recent post that his company will not allow a hash war to split the BCH chain. Ayre emphasizes that his firm has never had the intention of splitting the true version of Bitcoin (BCH).

“We will fight any attempts by anyone else to cause a chain split,” Ayre details. “Coingeek and friends believe in the Satoshi Vision for the evolution of Bitcoin and that means all disputes should be settled by Nakamoto consensus and miner hash elections.”

Nakamoto consensus dictates that at all times the longest chain (with the most Proof-of-Work) shall prevail and this will be respected at all times by Coingeek media and mining.

Ayre believes other “contentious, untested and unnecessary protocol changes” have recently been introduced to the BCH community, placing a lot of blame on the Chinese mining firm Bitmain Technologies. The Coingeek owner says Bitmain seeks “to constantly experiment with the protocol creating constant instability and driving corporate investment away.” Bitmain has denied all of the Wormhole security issues and CTOR allegations in a recent blog post addressing these accusations. Ayre says he and Coingeek are quite confident that in the end, smart miners will not follow a path towards their own annihilation.

Coingeek is confident that no miners are stupid enough to support a path that leads to their own destruction so we are also confident that this election will be won by the miners and will prove the wisdom of Satoshi Vision.

Some Examinations of CTOR

Lastly, there’s been a lot of insightful studies concerning the CTOR upgrade proposed for November. A post on btc gives a comprehensive technical dive into the implementation of canonical transaction ordering. Many developers such as Andrew Stone, Peter Rizun, and Amaury Sechet discussed the topic within the post’s comment section.

According to the study, CTOR could theoretically benefit ideas like Graphene and possibly help with the mempool bottleneck. The author of the post explains, “In the last stress test, we also saw limitations on mempool performance (tx acceptance and relaying). I hope both of these fronts see optimizations before the next stress test, so that a fresh set of bottlenecks can be revealed.”
Bitcoin Cash Hard Fork Debate Reconvenes After the Stress Test
Many people including BU’s lead developer Andrew Stone, and the mining pool Rawpool have released studies on CTOR this week. Bitcoin ABC published the “Benefits of Canonical Transaction Order” on August 17.

Further, the BCH mining pool Rawpool has also published a review of CTOR this week. Rawpool’s study is insightful and details that the mining pool has been testing the new upgrade. Essentially Rawpool details that the current method the Bitcoin protocol uses right now is topical transaction ordering (TTOR). However, the study says that in time it “cannot be denied” that “traditional TTOR sorting will inevitably face problems such as rising memory overhead and increasing computing time.”

“On the other hand, the fully optimized CTOR ordering should be a completely new data maintenance system, which is bound to have considerable complexity,” Rawpool’s translated research explains.

Rawpool will continue to communicate with the development teams of Bitcoin ABC and Nchain. The deployment of test nodes has been completed and will actively participate in the testing of new upgrades and stress testing throughout the network.

For Now, the BCH November Upgrade Debate Still Remains Unsettled

There’s been a lot of discussions and debates regarding the November 15th BCH upgrade. Bitcoin Unlimited’s lead developer has also critiqued canonical ordering in a post that declares “ABC’s CTOR will not scale.” Stone says that there are two significant problems with CTOR and he explains the sharding proposal (scaling by distributing data to multiple machines) “will not work,” and “lexicographical transaction ordering is unnecessary.” Moreover, Nchain’s Craig Wright has been writing a lot of long-form posts about this subject and generalized Bitcoin topics concerning the technology’s economics nearly every single day.

For now, it seems the debate will continue, and Bitcoin Cash proponents will have to wait to find out what will happen when it gets closer to the upgrade. will be sure to keep our readers informed every step of the way.

What do you think about the BCH November upgrade debate? Do you think the disagreeing parties will come to a compromise? Let us know in the comment section below.

Images via Shutterstock, Twitter, Coingeek, and Pixabay.

Verify and track bitcoin cash transactions on our BCH Block Explorer, the best of its kind anywhere in the world. Also, keep up with your holdings, BCH, and other coins, on our market charts at Satoshi Pulse, another original and free service from
submitted by jamesbrongkol to u/jamesbrongkol [link] [comments]

Running bitcoind on a VPS, how can I lower disk usage? Ultraprune?

I've got a linux (Ubuntu 10.04) VPS, and I've installed the official bitcoind 0.8. Unfortunately, my VPS only has about 10GiB of disk space, and the blockchain doesn't fit in what I have available: My disk is almost full, and the chain is only up to 2012-11-04.
I'd like to be a full-node on the network, not using an eWallet, but I don't want to keep buying more disk space. I was under the impression that ultraprune was in 0.8 now, and that this would minimise the size of the stored blockchain, but this doesn't seem to be the case.
What can I do to shrink it down? Here's how it is now:
~/.bitcoin$ du -h 128M ./chainstate 28M ./blocks/index 3.9G ./blocks 11M ./database 4.2G . 
EDIT: I've bought an extra 15GiB, which should be at least enough. Once I get into production usage, I will look into moving the bitcoind instance to a different server.
submitted by mishagale to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Questions about LN cost structure

So, assuming LN displaces on-chain transactions for the majority of user transactions (or at least the majority of every-day retail commercial transactions), I'm wondering what the cost structure will look like.
Assuming a typical bitcoin user will spend $1000/month, or $12000/year spread out over 120 transactions, will LN be able to match the current transaction fees of 120 x $0.04 = $4.8 per year, or will it cost something like 0.5% x $12000 = $60?
How much will running a LN node cost? Assuming that in 5 years time the throughput rises to 100 TPS or 3.2B/year, will $0.04 x 3.2B = $128M/year be enough to support the network?
submitted by 1BitcoinOrBust to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Thistlegorm  Nightdive  Wreckdive  30 Meters Down fortnite no-scope 128m XGODY iOutdoor T1  The most high-quality and durable bodies for $ 35 Lake Eland Suspension Bridge.wmv Se puede Jugar con MI PC DEL 2009? (2GB DE RAM) - YouTube

Global motherboard manufacturer. Carries some unusual motherboard concepts. Bitcoin SV (BSV) 128M: SHA256: ASIC: N: 21 Million: N. The first major Bitcoin hard fork that took place, as we can see above, was Bitcoin Cash. The top-3 hard forks by market size are: Bitcoin ... What does 128M mean? Ask Question Asked 6 years, 4 months ago. Active 6 years, 4 months ago. Viewed 3k times 1. Reading configuration files, like, I am seeing this: This is for a system with little memory (32M - 64M) where MySQL plays. What does the M mean in general, and what kind of measurement unit is it in? Does it refer to a megabyte which has the value of 1024? If a machine has 1 ... Mystery of the yacht-owning 30-year-old Bitcoin genius who died on his honeymoon in India months before auditors discovered his $128m stored in locked hard-drives had simply VANISHED Fresh mystery ... It says its bitcoin futures trading venue handles $1.5bn in transactions per day. “I hope my withdrawal will be fixed soon,” one user said in an official OKEx support forum.

[index] [4617] [19167] [976] [21172] [46805] [20770] [49641] [31244] [15606] [21984]

Thistlegorm Nightdive Wreckdive 30 Meters Down - Buy at a discount XGODY ioutdoor T1 2 g Features phone IP68 shockproof CEP telefonu 2.4 '' 128M + 32 m GSM 2MP rear camera FM phone Celular 2 g ... We visit one of the world's most expensive listings! It's owned by John Hendricks, Founder of the Discovery Channel. Currently on the market for $280 Million... This video is unavailable. Watch Queue Queue. Watch Queue Queue Buy Bitcoin With Credit Card Uk 2018 - Rating ★★★★ - Uk Card Payments - Using Cr ... - Duration: 7:33. Luis Teixeira Recommended for you. 7:33. the 128m suspension bridge at Monkeyland ... -----2048----- HELLO Playing 2048 with 8x8 part 24 2048 8x8 from normal, what theme pack should i use Subscribe for New 2048 theme pack Stream Starts: 10:35PM We are playing 2048 8x8 2048 Type ...