Bitcoin download SourceForge.net

Bitcoin Wallet

Everything about bitcoin wallets.
[link]

Bitcoin Canadian Subreddit

Let's talk about Bitcoin in Canada
[link]

Bitcoin Core

Bitcoin Core software’s news and discussion.
[link]

Introducing Bitamp -- an open-source, client-side Bitcoin wallet

Not another Bitcoin wallet, right? Well, actually yes!
With interest in Bitcoin gathering pace once more, against a backdrop of global economic recession and unprecedented fiscal measures, people new to Bitcoin continue to ask: "Isn't there an easy way to use Bitcoin, and still retain control over my funds?"
When creating Bitamp’s Bitcoin wallet, the developers tried to answer that question with a wallet that was:
It's new, it's fresh, and the developers will continue to work at delivering a product that's a breeze to use, yet is secure and keeps the user in control. The way Bitcoin was meant to be!
Questions, comments, feedback are all welcome -- do note restrictions on new accounts (not to mention work and real life) might mean the actual devs take a while to respond!
submitted by growthmonkey to bitamp [link] [comments]

Are there any open source client virtual visa bitcoin cards?

submitted by ctm-8400 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg's comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought "honest" meant "plays by Core rules." [But] there is no "honesty" involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus

The title of this post is a compressed summary combining some important quotes from several recent comments by u/ForkiusMaximus, which I thought were worth highlighting here in a post of their own.
His comments remind us that Bitcoin was already brilliantly designed by Satoshi so that the majority of "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking" miners will always be economically incentivized to use their hashpower to vote for the rule changes which will maximize their (and everyone else's) Bitcoin profits - and they will always do this regardless of any censorship or centralized dev teams.
Meanwhile, Core/Blockstream (and their supporters) totally fail to understand this subtle but vital point: they think that devs somehow control Bitcoin, by forcing people to run certain code... or moderators somehow control Bitcoin, by censoring certain forums... or now non-mining nodes can somehow control Bitcoin by suggesting a futile and pointless "user-activated soft-fork" (UASF) - ie a fork not supported by actual mining hashpower.
This all shows that Core/Blockstream (and their supporters) have a fundamental misunderstanding of the most important aspect of Bitcoin - the fact that:
This is why the 21 million coin cap will never get increased.
And this is why blocksizes will always continue to moderately increase.
Not because some dev team made it "hard" to modify these settings in the code.
And not because some moderator censored some discussion about some alternative clients.
The reason Bitcoin works is simply because the vast majority of miners are "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking".
This is why mining support for Core/Blockstream's centrally-planned blocksize has dropped to 2/3 of network hashpower (despite their big team of "experts" and all their censorship and fiat funding).
And this is why 1/3 of mining hashpower has already started voting for some form of market-driven blocksizes...
... not because BU or Classic suddenly "gave" them this power (after all, they always had this power themselves)...
... but simply because the vast majority of miners are "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking", and they know that bigger blocks will bring higher profits.
So, miners have always been able to use their hashpower (and even modify the Bitcoin client source code if they wanted) in order to vote for rule changes which would support bigger blocksizes and higher Bitcoin profits for everyone - with or without any help from BU, Classic, etc. - and there is nothing that any dev team (or any censored forum) can do to prevent miners from doing this.
So it is inevitable that miners will use their hashpower to vote for bigger blocksizes, because this means much higher Bitcoin profits for them (and also bigger Bitcoin profits for the rest of us :-)... simply because (as Satoshi clearly did understand, but most Core/Blockstream devs clearly do not understand):

The vast majority of miners are "honest" "intelligently profit-seeking".

The original comments by u/ForkiusMaximus providing an explanation of these important (but often subtle) concepts are shown below - with some text bolded & italicized for empahsis.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5z3hv5/bloomberg_antpool_will_switch_entire_pool_to/dev7drt/?context=3
We don't have to trust [miners] to be "honest" as Satoshi unfortunately worded it.
Replace the term honest with "intelligently profit-seeking."
Bitcoin assumes miners are intelligently profit-seeking, meaning that they have a decent enough read on what the ecosystem wants that they can and will make any necessary changes to please the ecosystem and thus boost their own bottom line.
Greg's recent comments on BU totally discredited him, as he revealed himself to have no friggin' idea how Bitcoin works.
He actually thought "honest" meant something like "plays by Core rules." That's a completely broken understanding of Bitcoin, and implies centralization.
It's the kind of misconception I'd expect from a run-of-the-mill nobody on a forum, not from the mighty leader of Core/BS. I'm kinda pissed I wasted mental clock ticks trying to debate this guy without realizing he has not just a flawed understanding, but zero understanding of how Bitcoin works at all. And of course all his supporters parrot his nonsense view of how Bitcoin supposedly works.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5yxreu/classic_fearmongering_example_by_bitcoin_core/dev0x5d/?context=3
Mining control is the key invention of Bitcoin. It's how it doesn't just devolve into yet another failed subjective monetary scheme. If you don't like it, you should figure out another scheme. Perhaps proof of stake is more your thing?
Also, it's pretty amazing that you think just because BU makes it more convenient for miners to do what they always could do, that that somehow dooms Bitcoin. If that dooms it, it was already a dead man walking.
How do you propose to stop miners from altering their own blocksize settings?
If you have no answer, you have no grounds to attack BU without falling into the category of being a Bitcoin skeptic.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zoywt/the_largest_problem_of_bitcoin_is_that_most/df0jutk/
It's actually fairly subtle: mining IS how you vote for rule changes, BUT miners have every incentive to vote with the market, so they DON'T have any meaningful ability to push rules on the community (even under BU).
There is no trust or "honesty" involved, as Satoshi unfortunately worded it. There is only the underlying assumption that makes Bitcoin work: the assumption that the vast majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING.
The only way this system can break is if the majority of miners seek something other than profit (say a government took the major mining pools over and somehow hashers couldn't switch away in time), or the miners misjudge what the market wants (due to a failure of market communication).
However, in this case and on these timescales it is obvious the current crop of miners are generally profit-seeking. And if they are misjudging the market, we have a remedy: we can resolve that through fork futures trading on the exchanges.
Note that this is just moving the decision from the first kind of investors (miners) to the general investing public. Miners are a first-line proxy for investors in general. If they fail to reflect investor will, investors are free to take it to the market by forking and trading the two sides of the fork (preferably as futures so as to avoid scrambling to upgrade urgently).
Also important would be to maximize freedom of discussion so that market communication is not distorted. Finally, the whole idea of the UASF people, that we would poll the ecosystem somehow to prove the economic majority wants some change, already means that merely showing this proof to the miners should convince them, as they are intelligently profit-seeking. But that obviates the need for a UASF in the first place (!).
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5yyotu/if_blockstream_core_offchain_solutions_are_any/deu0hpn/
I used to think they don't understand markets, but in fact they are stuck at an even more basic level than that.
I took a spin through the wreckage of /Bitcoin today for the first time in weeks. It was pleasantly surprising to see how with the ramping up of miner support for BU, the Core arguments have been reduced to obvious fundamental misunderstandings of Bitcoin that are now trivial to rebut.
In a word, they haven't actually grasped the concept of incentives.
This goes all the way to the top, not just the supporters but the key Core devs themselves. They don't understand markets, yes, but it's not like they are even close. They lack the understanding of even the fundamental building blocks of markets.
When you think about it, governance by incentives is pretty subtle. Even if one reads the whitepaper and goes, "Oh yeah I see, miners would be motivated not to kill the golden goose in that situation," it is quite another matter to fully internalize the fact that the only reason Bitcoin is a thing at all is because of the assumption that miners are not idiots. Or more accurately, that miners as a group will never have a gross failure to correctly apprehend the wishes of the market.
This is the source of all the weird claims about miners controlling or not controlling Bitcoin.
Core and Blockstream dev Matt Corallo thinks that if miners were allowed to (not mentioning how they could be disallowed to), they would mine extra coins for all the "extra profits." Again this goes beyond failing to understand markets, all the way down to failing to understand or take seriously incentives as a concept at all. I'm not blaming him, he's a coder; I blame those who take his commentary on non-coding matters seriously, merely by dint of his coding skill.
A constant refrain from Core supporters as BU gain hashpower is that "miners don't control Bitcoin." This is actually correct: miners don't control Bitcoin, they won't act against the economic majority. But not because they can't. They certainly can, just like oncoming traffic can swerve toward you on the freeway. But they don't, because that would destroy them as well.
Thus is the subtlety of governance by incentives. Miners have control, but they won't use it to do anything that displeases the ecosystem, on balance. Or they might, but in that case Bitcoin is a failed concept as its fundamental assumption is then proven to be broken.
Many or most anti-BU arguments unwittingly take that form: they start with the premise that Bitcoin is broken [i.e., miners are idiots or that they grossly fail to read the market] and reason from there to conclude that BU is broken. Examples include the median EB attack, the various big block attacks, and the bizarre claim that BU has a "new security model" because it "lets miners do something they couldn't before" (ironically implying Core has snuck in a new security model where they try to restrain miners by making it inconvenient for them to change a blocksize setting).
Hence we see that it isn't merely a matter of Core and Blockstream people having initially dismissed Bitcoin and then later seeing the light when the price rises forced them to look deeper. They in fact still haven't seen the light. They never fully understood the basic dynamic that makes Bitcoin tick, let alone understanding higher level concepts like markets. This is why they so easily fall into the central planning mindset, seeing Bitcoin as a fragile little thing that must be defended by their wise paternalistic guidance.
The Core devs have replaced the fundamental assumption in the whitepaper, that most miners are honest (I prefer "most miners are not idiots" as it is harder to misinterpret), with the fundamental assumption that the right set of people (or the right repository governance structure) is in charge of the "reference implementation."
This manifests as a kind of envy toward the miners and comes with all the other curious trappings of the Core worldview: the code is the spec, hard forks are dangerous, Core = Bitcoin, anything that deviates from Core diktats is an "altcoin," it doesn't count as censorship to delete discussion of alternative clients as they are "off topic," nodes > miners, anything that makes it a bit easier for miners to do something Core doesn't like is an "attack" on Bitcoin, centralized control by Core is necessary to preserve decentralization, UASF is a viable idea, Segwit has consensus among "the Bitcoin experts," and so on.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5yvtrn/new_atl_alltime_low_for_bitcoin_core_client/detpkdj/
Estimated Core hashrate down below 2/3 already.
Core has lost supermajority status, even with all the historical inertia, miner conservatism, and crackerjack programmers they are reported to have on their side. Even with the "consensus" of "the experts."
Even with two years of mindbendingly extreme censorship in their favor on the two biggest Bitcoin discussion forums.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5yvuw7/while_nobody_was_paying_attention/detqbnd/?context=3
The Core devs have directly created this situation by keeping the blocksize cap locked down long after it became controversial. The logic of how users make needed changes to the protocol, as mentioned in the whitepaper, requires that users be able to easily adjust any settings that are controversial, so as to be able to "vote with their CPU" power in a smooth manner.
Core tries to leverage their waning "reference implementation" status to rig the vote by deliberately leaving the now maximally controversial blocksize limit hard-coded, forcing the user to venture out into relatively new dev team offerings if they want to cast a vote. This is exactly how you create the conditions for a contentious split. They have brought this upon themselves entirely.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5z6w2u/bitcoin_on_linux_should_be_a_virtual_package/dewjwlh/
Adam implies BU is pre-alpha, yet it is winning in the only arena where people actually put their money where their mouths are.
How pathetic does it make Core that they are losing to a pre-alpha client?
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Never Forget, Dec 20 2017, When "Bitcoin Jesus" told the world that Bitcoin can fail, just like that. @2:23 , Then at 3:11 Brian Kelly points out that Bitcoin Cash is also not ready to handle visa level trx, and Roger Ver goes off blaming the devs, that created the source code for 99% ofABC Client.

Never Forget, Dec 20 2017, When submitted by ClintRichards to btc [link] [comments]

Through our platform users will be able to: get convenient access to the widest possible range of crypto assets; crypto exchanges will be able to multiply their client base and get additional sources of income.#SwapZilla #ico #crypto #bitcoin #ethereum #blockchain #btc

Through our platform users will be able to: get convenient access to the widest possible range of crypto assets; crypto exchanges will be able to multiply their client base and get additional sources of income.#SwapZilla #ico #crypto #bitcoin #ethereum #blockchain #btc submitted by valenta5 to ICOAnalysis [link] [comments]

crypto exchanges will be able to multiply their client base and get additional sources of income.#SwapZilla #ico #crypto #bitcoin #ethereum #blockchain #btc https://www.swapzilla.co/

submitted by afilazka to ico [link] [comments]

Google engineer releases open source Bitcoin client

submitted by piratesahoy to programming [link] [comments]

Deutsche Bank has uncovered shortcomings in its ability to fully identify clients and the source of their wealth, internal documents seen by Reuters show, more than a year after it was fined nearly $700 million for allowing money laundering. (But they say Bitcoin is for criminals).

Deutsche Bank has uncovered shortcomings in its ability to fully identify clients and the source of their wealth, internal documents seen by Reuters show, more than a year after it was fined nearly $700 million for allowing money laundering. (But they say Bitcoin is for criminals). submitted by Jumpingcords to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Where can I find the source code of the scripts "OP_" of the different bitcoin cash (client / node) implementations?

I hope the question is clear enough. The github repository have many files and it's not difficult to get lost. Thanks.
submitted by btc_ideas to btc [link] [comments]

re Fast Bitcoin. There seem to be three exchanges listed that allow deposits [source: https://btcdiv.com/#] but anyone know a link to a wallet client that is usable on Windows please? Then I can claim and send to dump these.

submitted by Aeons337fw0 to BitcoinAirdrops [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash clients (core-forked-only) open source activity comparison

Bitcoin Cash clients (core-forked-only) open source activity comparison submitted by gubatron to btc [link] [comments]

Open-source, client-side, Bitcoin wallet generator made w/ React 🚀 Tell me what you think.

submitted by speedtreammanga to javascript [link] [comments]

Head of Decentralized Identity @ Microsoft: By default, all #Bitcoin full nodes and clients used in Microsoft's open source decentralized identity implementations will signal for #UASF

Head of Decentralized Identity @ Microsoft: By default, all #Bitcoin full nodes and clients used in Microsoft's open source decentralized identity implementations will signal for #UASF submitted by slacker-77 to btc [link] [comments]

Deutsche Bank has uncovered shortcomings in its ability to fully identify clients and the source of their wealth, internal documents seen by Reuters show, more than a year after it was fined nearly $700 million for allowing money laundering. (But they say Bitcoin is for criminals).

Deutsche Bank has uncovered shortcomings in its ability to fully identify clients and the source of their wealth, internal documents seen by Reuters show, more than a year after it was fined nearly $700 million for allowing money laundering. (But they say Bitcoin is for criminals). submitted by ABitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Going open source: decided work on my old bitcoin trade client collaboratively. Who wants to join me? (Java devs needed)

Going open source: decided work on my old bitcoin trade client collaboratively. Who wants to join me? (Java devs needed) submitted by 0dd_b1t to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Where can I find the source code of the scripts "OP_" of the different bitcoin cash (client / node) implementations? /r/btc

Where can I find the source code of the scripts submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Open-source YouTube client NewPipe accepts Bitcoin donations.

Open-source YouTube client NewPipe accepts Bitcoin donations. submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Bitcoin Cash clients (core-forked-only) open source activity comparison

Bitcoin Cash clients (core-forked-only) open source activity comparison submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

04-12 00:42 - 'Open-source YouTube client NewPipe accepts Bitcoin donations.' (github.com) by /u/exab removed from /r/Bitcoin within 30-40min

Open-source YouTube client NewPipe accepts Bitcoin donations.
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: exab
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Open-source, client-side, Bitcoin wallet generator made w/ React. Tell me what you think.

submitted by speedtreammanga to webdev [link] [comments]

GreenAddress releases open-source Bitcoin client for Android

GreenAddress releases open-source Bitcoin client for Android submitted by monkeyseemonkeydoodo to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[OC] Which front offices and agents are the 3 major newsbreakers connected to? I went through 6000+ tweets to find out!

If this sounds somewhat familiar, that's because I did a 2019-2020 version and posted it back in March.
In terms of changes from that post:
TL;DR
Tracked tweets of Woj, Shams and Haynes from 2018-2020 to see whether any of them report on a certain team or a certain agent's players more than their counterparts. Here is the main graph concerning a reporter's percentage of tweets per team separated into three periods (2019 season, 2020 offseason, 2020 season). Here is a separate graph with the Lakers and Warriors, because Haynes's percentages would skew the first graph.

During times like the NBA trade deadline or the lifting of the NBA free-agency moratorium, it’s not uncommon to see Twitter replies to (or Reddit comments about) star reporters reference their performance relative to others.
Woj is the preeminent scoop hound, but he is also notorious for writing hit pieces on LeBron (sources say it’s been widely rumoured that the reason for these is that Woj has always been unable to place a reliable source in LeBron’s camp). On the other end of the spectrum, it has been revealed that in exchange for exclusive intel on league memos and Pistons dealings, Woj wrote puff pieces on then-GM Joe Dumars (see above Kevin Draper link). Last summer, Woj was accused of being a Clippers shill on this very discussion board for noticeably driving the Kawhi Leonard free agency conversation towards the team.
This is the reason I undertook this project: to see whether some reporters have more sources in certain teams (and certain agencies) than other reporters.
First I’ll explain the methodology, then present the data with some initial comments.

Methodology

To make this manageable on myself, I limited myself to tracking the 3 major national reporters: Shams Charania of the Athletic, Chris Haynes of Yahoo Sports and the aforementioned Adrian Wojnarowski of ESPN.
The time period I initially tracked for was from January 1, 2020 to the end of the regular season March, but after finding a Twitter scraping tool on GitHub called Twint, I was able to easily retrieve all tweets since September 27, 2018. However, a month ago, Twitter closed their old API endpoints, and Twint ceased to work. I used vicinitas.io but the data loading became more time-consuming. Therefore, the tweets are up to the date of October 15 2020.
How I determined information was by manually parsing text tweets by the reporter (no retweets):
Now, I didn’t take every single text tweet:
Next, I had to assign possible teams to each tweet:
With all the methodology out of the way, here’s the data! (Here’s a link to a full Google Sheet)

Teams

Here's a graph of number of tweets per team per period, with the colours denoting reporter.
On a quick glance, here's which teams saw a significant period-over-period increase in number of tweets:
And here's which teams saw decreases over a period-by-period basis:
The problem with just using number of tweets is that it's not close on totals between Haynes vs. Woj or Shams. Here's a graph showing total number of tweets in each period for all three reporters. Haynes's most reported period doesn't even stack up to the least reported period of Woj or Shams.
Instead, let's look at percentage of tweets per team per period.
Now, you'll notice that there's two teams missing from the above graph: the Golden State Warriors and the Los Angeles Lakers. Here's the graphs for those two teams. As you can see, they would skew the previous graph far too much. During the 2019 NBA season, 27% of Chris Haynes's qualifying tweets could be possibly linked to the Warriors, and 14% of his qualifying tweets could be possibly linked to the Lakers.

Agents

Here's the top 10 agents in terms of number of potential tweets concerning their clients.
Agent Haynes Shams Woj Total
Rich Paul 15 28 24 67
Mark Bartelstein 4 16 30 50
Jeff Schwartz 3 10 25 38
Bill Duffy 2 13 14 29
Leon Rose 1 12 15 28
Aaron Mintz 2 9 15 26
Juan Perez 5 10 8 23
Aaron Goodwin 11 8 1 20
Steven Heumann 1 6 12 19
Sam Permut 1 13 5 19
Woj has the most tweets directly connected to agents by far. It wasn't uncommon to see "Player X signs deal with Team Y, Agent Z of Agency F tells ESPN." The agents that go to Woj (and some of their top clients):
One thing I found very intriguing: 15/16 of tweets concerning an Aaron Turner client were reported on by Shams. Turner is the head of Verus Basketball, whose clients include Terry Rozier, Victor Oladipo and Kevin Knox. Shams also reported more than 50% of news relating to clients of Sam Permut of Roc Nation. Permut is the current agent of Kyrie Irving, after Irving fired Jeff Wechsler near the beginning of the 2019 offseason. Permut also reps the Morris brothers and Trey Burke.
As for Chris Haynes, he doesn't really do much agent news (at least not at the level of Woj and Shams). However, he reported more than 50% of news relating to clients of Aaron Goodwin of Goodwin Sports Management, who reps Damian Lillard and DeMar DeRozan.
Here are the top 10 free agents from Forbes, along with their agent and who I predict will be the first/only one to break the news.
Player Agent Most Likely Reporter
Anthony Davis Rich Paul Too close to call, leaning Shams
Brandon Ingram Jeff Schwartz Woj
DeMar DeRozan Aaron Goodwin Haynes
Fred VanVleet Brian Jungreis Limited data
Andre Drummond Jeff Schwartz Woj
Montrezl Harrell Rich Paul Too close to call, leaning Shams
Gordon Hayward Mark Bartelstein Woj
Danilo Gallinari Michael Tellem Woj
Bogdan Bogdanovic Alexander Raskovic, Jason Ranne Limited data, but part of Wasserman, whose players are predominantly reported on by Woj
Davis Bertans Arturs Kalnitis Limited data
Thanks for reading! As always with this type of work, human error is not completely eliminated. If you think a tweet was mistakenly removed, feel free to drop me a line and I’ll try to explain my thought process on that specific tweet! Hope y’all enjoyed the research!
submitted by cilantro_samosa to nba [link] [comments]

BITCOIN BREAKOUT!!!? Goldman Sachs BTC Client Call LEAKED ... Matthieu Riou on How to Create a Custom Bitcoin Client in Go How To Use Bitcoin Testnet - Getting Free Testcoins - YouTube Bitcoin Core Client vs BitMEX? Programmer explains. Bitcoin Wallet - Download, Encrypt, Backup, & Use - YouTube

Verify release signatures Download torrent Source code Show version history. Bitcoin Core Release Signing Keys v0.11.0+ 01EA5486DE18A882D4C2684590C8019E36C2E964 ... The Satoshi client or the Satoshi code refers to bitcoind, bitcoin-client, bitcoin-qt and Bitcoin Core.This is in honor of Satoshi Nakamoto for creating Bitcoin.. In the most widest sense: All releases of bitcoin-x.y.z (starting 2009) and future official releases by the "bitcoin core developers". In the narrow sense: Bitcoin Core ist ein Bitcoin-Client, der Nutzer mit dem Bitcoin-Netzwerk verbindet und das Senden und Empfangen von Bitcoins ermöglicht. Download Bitcoin for free. A software-based online payment system. Bitcoin is a decentralized P2P electronic cash system without a central server or trusted parties. Users hold the crypto keys to their own money and transact directly with each other, with the help of the network to check for double-spending. Bitcoin Core ist ein gemeinschaftliches, freies Software-Projekt, veröffentlicht unter der MIT-Lizenz. Release-Signaturen überprüfen Download über Torrent Quelltext Versionshistorie anzeigen. Bitcoin Core Release Signierschlüssel v0.8.6 - 0.9.2.1 v0.9.3 - 0.10.2 v0.11.0+ Oder wählen Sie Ihr Betriebssystem . Windows exe - zip. Mac OS X dmg - tar.gz. Linux (tgz) 64 bit. ARM Linux 64 bit ...

[index] [42327] [10464] [32847] [659] [16530] [292] [15462] [34614] [25830] [11871]

BITCOIN BREAKOUT!!!? Goldman Sachs BTC Client Call LEAKED ...

A special thanks to this week's Sponsor: Bityard, a simple and fast exchange to trade crypto with high leverage. See more details about the 258 USDT bonus Bi... How to start using the bitcoin testnet and how to earn free testcoins. The bitcoin testnet is always useful if you want to try out how to use bitcoins withou... #Bitcoin surprises everyone with a small pump on the day of the Goldman Sachs client call! $BTC bears call for typical last Friday CME expiry sell-off, India... Start trading Bitcoin and cryptocurrency here: http://bit.ly/2Vptr2X IMPORTANT!! This method only illustrates how mining works. You will not make any money f... Ivan on Tech is all about cryptocurrencies and the technology behind Bitcoin, Ethereum, Litecoin, Ripple, IOTA. We also cover Bitcoin price, altcoin price, investing, analytics, different altcoins.

#