XE: XBT / USD Currency Chart. Bitcoin to US Dollar Rates

Dogecoin

The most amazing place on reddit! A subreddit for sharing, discussing, hoarding and wow'ing about Dogecoins. The new innovative crypto-currency.
[link]

Copy of /r/dogecoin

The most amazing place on reddit!
[link]

XE Currency Charts: Bitcoin to Gold

XE Currency Charts: Bitcoin to Gold submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Some Basics Of Bitcoin

For someone not familiar with Bitcoin, the first question that comes to mind is, "What is Bitcoin?" And another common question that is often asked relates to the Bitcoin price. It started out a under 10 cents per Bitcoin upon its introduction in early 2009. It has risen steadily since and has hovered around $4000 per Bitcoin recently. So regarding Bitcoin value or the Bitcoin rate this is a most remarkable appreciation of value and has created many, many millionaires over the last eight years.
The Bitcoin market is worldwide and the citizens of China and Japan have been particularly active in its purchase along with other Asian countries. However, recently in Bitcoin news the Chinese government has tried to suppress its activity in that country. That action drove the value of Bitcoin down for a short time but it soon surged back and is now close to its previous value.
The Bitcoin history chart is very interesting. Its creator was an anonymous group of brilliant mathematicians (using the pseudonym Satoski Nakamoto) who designed it in 2008 to be "virtual gold" and released the first Bitcoin software in early 2009 during the height of the USA economic crisis. They knew that to have lasting value, it like gold had to have a finite supply. So in creating it they capped the supply at 21 million Bitcoin.
Bitcoin mining refers to the process by which new Bitcoin is created. With conventional currency, government decides when and where to print and distribute it. With Bitcoin, "miners" use special software to solve complex mathematical problems and are issued a certain number of Bitcoin in return.
A question that then arises is, is Bitcoin mining worth it. The answer is NO for the average person. It takes very sophisticated knowledge and a powerful computer system and this combination of factors makes it unattainable for the masses. This applies even more to bitcoin mining 2017 than in past years.
Many wonder, who accepts Bitcoin? This question gets asked in various ways, what are stores that accept bitcoin, what are websites that accept bitcoins, what are some retailers that accept bitcoin, what are some places that accept bitcoin and where can I spend bitcoin.
More and more companies are beginning to see the value of accepting cryptocurrencies as a valid payment option. Some major companies that do are DISH network, Microsoft, Expedia, Shopify stores, Newegg, Payza, 2Pay4You, and others.Two major holdouts at this time are Walmart and Amazon.
Ethereum is the strongest rival to Bitcoin in the cryptocurrency market and many wonder at the question of Bitcoin vs Ethereum. Ethereum was created in mid-2015 and has gained some popularity but still ranks far behind Bitcoin in usage, acceptance and value.
A question that often comes up often relates to Bitcoin scam. This author has a friend who made a purchase from a company that promised 1-2% growth per day. The company website listed no contact information and after a couple months the website simply vanished one day and my friend lost all the money he had invested which was several thousand dollars.
One has to know how to buy Bitcoins, how to purchase Bitcoin or how to buy Bitcoin with credit card in order to get started. Coinbase is a very popular site to do this. Their fee is 3.75% and the buying limit is $10,000 per day. This would probably be the easiest way to buy bitcoins.
Others would like to buy Bitcoin with debit card. Coinbase also provides this service and has clear step by step instructions on how to proceed with either your debit or credit card.
There are those who would like to buy Bitcoin instantly. This can be done at Paxful, Inc. and can be done through W. Union or any credit/debit card.
Other common questions that come up are what is the best way to buy Bitcoins, the best way to get bitcoins or where to buy bitcoins online. The easiest way is probably to purchase it through a digital asset exchange like the previously mentioned Coinbase. Opening an account with them is painless and once you link your bank account with them you can buy and sell Bitcoin quite easily. This is quite likely also the best place to buy Bitcoins.
One must know what a Bitcoin wallet is and how to use it. It is simply the Bitcoin equivalent of a bank account. It allows you to receive Bitcoins, store them and send them to others. What it does is store a collection of Bitcoin privacy keys. Typically it is encrypted with a password or otherwise protected from unauthorized access.
There are several types of digital wallets to choose from. A web wallet allows you to send, receive and store Bitcoin though your web browser. Another type is a desktop wallet and here the wallet software is stored directly on your computer. There are also mobile wallets which are designed for use by a mobile device.
A question that occasionally comes up is that of Bitcoin stock or how to buy Bitcoin stock. By far the most common way to proceed in this area is to buy Bitcoin directly and not its stock.
There is one entity called Bitcoin Investment trust which is an investment fund that is designed to track the market flow of Bitcoin. Some analysts however are calling this a risky way to become involved in this marketplace.
The Bitcoin exchange rate USD is a closely watched benchmark both on a daily basis and long term over the last 8 years since its introduction to the world's financial marketplace. A popular company to receive the most current rate in Bitcoin valuation is XE. They show Bitcoin to USD valuation and also the complete Bitcoin price chart, the Bitcoin value chart and the Bitcoin to USD chart. If you ask, "How much is one Bitcoin?" you will always know from their continuously updated charts.
Similar questions that come up in this area relate to the bitcoin rate history, the bitcoin price chart live, the bitcoin to dollar exchange rate, the bitcoin dollar chart and the bitcoin 5 year chart. The previously mentioned website, xe, is also a good source for answers to these questions.
Regarding Bitcoin cash, ie. to get USD from selling Bitcoin, Bitwol is one company that enables you to do this. WikiHow is another company that will take you through this process.
submitted by shomesrobery to BestBitcoinCasinosa [link] [comments]

What would happen if sovereign governments gave bitcoin a gold peg?

This is a totally theoretical post, but I believe it is a really interesting idea and would love to get the Internet's feedback on it, and what you think the ripple effects would be in the scenario described. Am very interested in writing this up and republishing it widely so it can be read by monetary policymakers in all major developed countries - if you know anyone like that, pass it on. In a move that would act like a bridge to a pre-Bretton Woods type of gold peg, (here is a great paper on a history of this in the US: https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41887.pdf) sovereign governments with gold holdings could (again, it is a theoretical idea - I am saying they COULD do this NOT that anyone or any country is doing this that I know of) establish open market operations to purchase bitcoins (partly as a diversification strategy) using their physical gold holdings at a fixed peg rate of 5 ounces per bitcoin. The reason I say 5 is because the current chart here seems to suggest that somewhat of a convergence to 5 oz is already occurring: https://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=XBT&to=XAU&view=10Y
If any government did this and offered to buy physically delivered bitcoins from private holders of bitcoin (no other coins just BTC) in exchange for private delivery of physical gold, then the standard governmental unit of physical gold (held in places like Fort Knox) - known as the Good Delivery Bar which is 400oz of gold - could be procured by any holder of 80 or more coins in a secure and sanctioned exchange with the government in question - the most impactful of course would be if the US did this.
My theory is that any time the exchange rate mechanisms in the forex or crypto markets violated the peg, there would be arbitrage opportunities that would bring the peg back in line. It would not only stabilize BTC, but the stabilization might spread via the 24/7 exchange rate mechanism in the crypto market to stabilize many cryptos that are still somewhat worthy experimental stores of value. Depending on the strength, credit, and depth of gold holdings of whatever governments engaged in this, it would seem that such a strategy could transform bitcoin into a new type of sound money, and also signal that owning bitcoin and gold is a priority of governments as well as their citizens. The gold standard was powerful both because it was tethered to something of limited quantity in the earth's crust with unique properties, but also because pre-Bretton Woods gold standards acted very much like a peg - and the government honored the peg no matter what. So in some sense it was still the "faith and credit of the government" that made that peg work so famously. I was partly inspired by this recent award-winning documentary www.inmoneywetrust.org in formulating this idea, and partly by my own academic interest in cryptocurrency. I believe bitcoin, above all others, because of its deflationary nature and algorithmically fixed quantity, is powerful all in itself - but with a peg from a real government to a real precious metal that many governments do in fact hoard (for whatever reason) - it could become both an international currency, and a form of truly sound money backed by governments' physical gold reserves and a legal or policy commitment to a peg of 5 ounces to 1 bitcoin.
What do you all think would happen if a major government or many major governments did this? Remember the idea is to convince monetary policymakers in governments to willingly and openly bypass completely the fiat currencies of their governments and to make no informational commitment to those free-floating fiat markets for forex - so the bitcoins transacted for in the peg wouldn't be bought with dollars or yen or anything that could be printed by fiat. This would simply be a convertibility guarantee by major governments that 1 bitcoin, transferred to the Treasury by a private citizen or business (again so the Treasury could diversify holdings of sound money), would be convertible and be guaranteed to be convertible to 5 oz of physical, deliverable gold bullion (or 80 bitcoins per bar). Here is a list of the largest physical gold holders on earth who could theoretically engage in this type of operation: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/040715/what-countries-have-largest-gold-reserves.asp
Thanks Reddit! Looking forward to your thoughts!
Alex Kaufman
submitted by emersonian85 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin vs. ₿itcoin: Crypto Signs and Symbols (current BTC/USD price is $7,350.64)

Latest Bitcoin News:
Bitcoin vs. ₿itcoin: Crypto Signs and Symbols
Other Related Bitcoin Topics:
Bitcoin Price | Bitcoin Mining | Blockchain
The latest Bitcoin news has been sourced from the CoinSalad.com Bitcoin Price and News Events page. CoinSalad is a web service that provides real-time Bitcoin market info, charts, data and tools. Follow us on Twitter @CoinSalad.
submitted by coinsaladcom to CoinSalad [link] [comments]

Where to purchase bitcoin and what to do with it

Others wish to purchase Bitcoin with debit card. Coinbase likewise offers this service and has clear action by action directions on how to continue with either your debit or charge card.
There are those who wish to purchase Bitcoin immediately. This can be done at Paxful, and can be done through W. Union or any credit/debit card.
Other typical concerns that show up are what is the very best method to purchase Bitcoins, the very best method to get bitcoins or where to purchase bitcoins online. The most convenient method is most likely to buy it through a digital possession exchange like the formerly pointed out Coinbase. Opening an account with them is pain-free and as soon as you connect your checking account with them you can purchase and offer Bitcoin rather quickly. This is rather most likely likewise the very best location to purchase Bitcoins.
One need to understand what a Bitcoin wallet is and how to utilize it. You need to be aware of how to tumble bitcoin if you care about your privacy. It is just the Bitcoin equivalent of a checking account. It permits you to get Bitcoins, save them and send them to others. What it does is shop a collection of Bitcoin personal privacy secrets. Generally it is secured with a password or otherwise secured from unapproved gain access to.
There are a number of kinds of digital wallets to pick from. A web wallet permits you to send out, get and keep Bitcoin though your web internet browser. Another type is a desktop wallet and here the wallet software application is saved straight on your computer system. There are likewise mobile wallets which are created for usage by a mobile phone.
A concern that periodically turns up is that of Bitcoin stock or how to purchase Bitcoin stock. Without a doubt the most typical method to continue in this location is to purchase Bitcoin straight and not its stock.
There is one entity called Bitcoin Financial investment trust which is a mutual fund that is created to track the marketplace circulation of Bitcoin. Some experts nevertheless are calling this a dangerous method to end up being associated with this market.
The Bitcoin currency exchange rate USD is a carefully enjoyed criteria both every day and long term over the last 8 years because its intro to the world's monetary market. A popular business to get the most present rate in Bitcoin assessment is XE. They reveal Bitcoin to USD assessment and likewise the total Bitcoin cost chart, the Bitcoin worth chart and the Bitcoin to USD chart. If you ask, "Just how much is one Bitcoin?" you will constantly understand from their constantly upgraded charts.
Comparable concerns that show up in this location connect to the bitcoin rate history, the bitcoin rate chart live, the bitcoin to dollar currency exchange rate, the bitcoin dollar chart and the bitcoin 5 year chart. The formerly discussed site, xe, is likewise a great source for responses to these concerns.
Bitcoin predicted worth is a subject typically talked about. In January of 2015 the rate of one bitcoin was $215. Presently it is around $5000. This is an extraordinary boost and one far beyond what many specialists would have forecasted at that time. Presently in evaluating projections from professionals all over the world a typical response appears to be that the leading worth will settle in at around $10,000 and one specialist even predicted a worth reaching $100,000.
submitted by Eleanor8762 to bitcoinasic [link] [comments]

The Statue of Liberty, Mystery Babylon, Freemasonry and The New Roman Empire / Fourth Reich

The Mother of Exiles and the Destruction of Babylon

I've always thought Mystery Babylon in Revelations was America. Lots of signs point to that. Inanna/Ishtar was known as the Whore of Babylon and Mother of Prostitutes because she supposedly started the practice of sacred prostitution. Inanna was the goddess of love, beauty, sex, desire, fertility, war, combat, justice, and political power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_prostitution
Sacred prostitution, temple prostitution, cult prostitution,[1] and religious prostitution are general terms for a sexual rite consisting of sexual intercourse or other sexual activity performed in the context of religious worship, perhaps as a form of fertility rite or divine marriage (hieros gamos). Some scholars prefer the term sacred sex to sacred prostitution in cases where payment for services was not involved.
But some scholars believe that this practice never existed and has been misunderstood.
The practice of sacred prostitution has not been substantiated in any Ancient Near Eastern cultures, despite many popular descriptions of the habit.[7] Through the twentieth century, scholars generally believed that a form of sacred marriage rite or hieros gamos was staged between the king of a Sumerian city-state and the High Priestess of Inanna, the Sumerian goddess of sexual love, fertility, and warfare, but no certain evidence has survived to prove that sexual intercourse was included. Along the Tigris and Euphrates rivers there was a temple of Eanna, meaning house of heaven[8] dedicated to Inanna in the Eanna District of Uruk.This will be relevant in my next post about the source of Yahweh's narcissism but for now, I'm just using this to illustrate part of the reason I think America is Babylon.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-KlpGZ9JO_d4/U0P2Y-3kfEI/AAAAAAAAMJs/PEwa9mPU67w/s1600/Lady+Liberty+-+Statue+of+Liberty+-+Inanna+-+Ishtar+-+Anunnaki.jpg
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-tSRx02UBNgI/U0P3ep3x4TI/AAAAAAAAMJ0/rtpe2JWA2ew/s1600/Roman+statue+goddess+libertas+-+staue+of+liberty.jpg
The Statue of Liberty is a representation of the Roman goddess Libertas. Which is a goddess that derived from many other goddesses: Inanna, Ishtar, Isis, Aphrodite, Venus, etc. Ultimately this goddess was transformed in a personification of America and liberty called Columbia. And just like Inanna, is it any wonder America seems to have 2 split sides to it? One side that is sexually repressed and all about virtue. And another that is obsessed with sex, violence, war
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_(name)
There's also the fact that the way Babylon is described sounds a lot like America. Getting the whole world drunk on our luxuries and riches, being arrogant and being fools who know nothing. This sounds like America too.
The Sumerians worshipped Inanna as the goddess of both warfare and sexuality. Unlike other gods, whose roles were static and whose domains were limited, the stories of Inanna describe her as moving from conquest to conquest. She was portrayed as young and impetuous, constantly striving for more power than she had been allotted.
Inanna also was depicted as riding a Lion and she associated with the planet Venus.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/fc/b2/6e/fcb26ee6c838d85f53dada348b1d9863.jpg
http://www.mesopotamiangods.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/3a-Anu-Inanna-1.jpg
https://goddessinspired.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/inanna-descent.jpg
Regulus is a part of the constellation Leo and considered "the heart of the lion". Considering Regulus is a very important star in Trump's birth chart apparently, and that star was known as The King in Babylon (known as the little king as well in other places), that would make Trump the King of Babylon.
In 2014, Regulus was eclipsed by an asteroid for 14 seconds right over New York.
https://www.nymetroweather.com/tag/regulus/
An asteroid will pass directly in front of Regulus, one of the brightest stars in our night sky, next Wednesday — briefly blacking out the star in what astronomers are calling a “once in a lifetime” event. Better yet, New York City falls directly within the viewing path which is literally paper-thin on the earths scale. The event is so small, and so brief, that it will only be visible over a sliver of area. And this area happens to encompass millions of people in New York City, Northeast NJ and Long Island.
https://www.space.com/25084-regulus-star-lion-constellation-leo.html
On Thursday, March 20 2014, Regulus will participate in a rare celestial event when an asteroid passes directly in front of the star, as seen from Earth. The asteroid in question is 163 Erigone. Asteroid 163 Erigone is about 45 miles (72 km) wide, but its "shadow" slanting to Earth's surface will be 67 miles (108 km) wide.
Erigone's shadow will move on a southeast-to-northwest trajectory and will extend from New York City as well as western and central Long Island to Oswego in New York State, and then continues northwest, the length of Ontario to the Hudson Bay shore of Manitoba. Those who are within the shadow path and watching at just the right moment with just their eyes will see an amazing sight: Regulus will seem to abruptly disappear as if a switch had been thrown, blotted out by the tiny invisible asteroid.
Regulus will remain invisible for up to 14 seconds (for those situated along the center of the path); an incredible, albeit very brief occurrence.
This "once in a lifetime event" eclipsing right over New York. Where the Statue of Liberty is.
Revelations 17
There I saw a woman sitting on a scarlet beast that was covered with blasphemous names and had seven heads and ten horns. 4 The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet, and was glittering with gold, precious stones and pearls. She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries. 5 The name written on her forehead was a mystery:
15 Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages. 16 The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority, until God’s words are fulfilled. 18 The woman you saw is the great city that rules over the kings of the earth.”
America's colors are red, white and blue. Red+Blue = Purple. Purple apparently represents royalty as well as vanity. Scarlet represents the blood of Christ and martyrs.
The woman was dressed in purple and scarlet
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple
The color purple is also associated with royalty in Christianity, being one of the three traditional offices of Jesus Christ, i. e. king, although such a symbolism was assumed from the earlier Roman association or at least also employed by the ancient Romans.
In Europe and America, purple is the color most associated with vanity, extravagance, and individualism. Among the seven major sins, it represents vanity. It is a color which is used to attract attention
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scarlet_(color)
In the Roman Catholic Church, scarlet is the color worn by a cardinal, and is associated with the blood of Christ and the Christian martyrs, and with sacrifice.
According to this, the creator wanted the Statue of Liberty to be covered in gold.
and was glittering with gold
https://parade.com/311395/viannguyen/10-things-you-didnt-know-about-the-statue-of-liberty-she-was-almost-gold/
**8.Bartholdi planned for the statue to be covered in gold.**In order to make the statue visible after dark, Bartholdi proposed that Americans raise the money to gild her. However, given how daunting and arduous a task it had been to gather even enough money to place the statue in New York harbor, no one followed through on paying the enormous cost of covering the massive statue in gold.
Not to mention this little interesting fact that brings the 2nd Beasts actions that are spoken of to mind.
:The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed.
:**9. Thomas Edison once had plans to make the statue talk.**When Edison introduced the phonograph to the public in 1878, he told the newspapers that he was designing a “monster disc” for the interior of the Statue of Liberty that would allow the statue to deliver speeches that could be heard up to the northern part of Manhattan and across the bay. Thankfully, no one pursued that strange promise, which would have led to the odd experience of walking in New York and suddenly hearing the Statue of Liberty “talking.”
precious stones and pearls.
http://justfunfacts.com/interesting-facts-about-the-statue-of-liberty/
There are 25 windows in the crown which symbolize gemstones found on the earth and the heaven’s rays shining over the world.
https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/10/that-time-the-statue-of-liberty-almost-got-a-glowing-wrist-watch/504110/
The sculptor Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi designed the statue to be fully illuminated, a feature that’s suggested in its official name, “La Liberté Eclairant le Monde,” or “Liberty Enlightening the World.” (At first the Statue of Liberty doubled as a lighthouse, given its position in the New York Harbor, but that didn’t last: It was decommissioned as such in 1902.)
Originally the lighting scheme was to be red, white, and blue—with a giant searchlight trained on the statue’s face and shoulders. Officials claimed in 19th-century newspaper accounts that they would make the statue so bright as to cast a glow on the clouds of the night sky 100 miles away. The statue’s face was to be lit by a reflector so bright that newspapers described it as “4 million candle power.” Her diadem was meant to sparkle with electric light. These were lofty goals in the dawn of the electrical age, and they carried symbolism that has lost much of its potency now that electricity is taken for granted.
https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/torch-statue-liberty-closeup-isolated-white-background-56181619.jpg
She held a golden cup in her hand, filled with abominable things and the filth of her adulteries.
In the torch, the flames are covered in gold. Looks enough like a cup. Also, in Isaiah 14:12 (another prophecy detailing the fall of Babylon that I didn't bother copying and pasting all of here) it refers to Babylon (or it's king) as "Lucifer, son of the morning". Lucifer means "light bringer" (hence the torch and the statue's original name being Liberty Enlightening the World) or "morning star" which is another name for the planet Venus which is associated with Inanna/Ishtar.
How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
https://twistedsifter.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/statue-of-liberty-from-above-aerial-satellite-photo.jpg
Notice how that star shape has 11 points? Seems like a strange number.
The beast and the ten horns you saw will hate the prostitute. They will bring her to ruin and leave her naked; they will eat her flesh and burn her with fire. 17 For God has put it into their hearts to accomplish his purpose by agreeing to hand over to the beast their royal authority
The 10 kings + the beast = 11.
The seven heads are seven hills on which the woman sits. They are also seven kings.
It has 7 spikes coming out of the head.
https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/01_00240318.jpg?quality=85
We're a very diverse country and Lady Liberty represents us taking in people from all countries. We pretty much control the world (for now) as the 7 hills represents the 7 continents, which is literally what is said they represent. Plus she's literally sitting on an island in the water.
Then the angel said to me, “The waters you saw, where the prostitute sits, are peoples, multitudes, nations and languages.
The creator of the Statue of Liberty, Frédéric Auguste Bartholdi, was a Freemason and they placed this plaque at the base of the statue.
https://untappedcities-wpengine.netdna-ssl.com/wp-content/uploads/iyftc1oqf704bytwz45ub151.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/Statue-of-Liberty-Freemason-Cornerstone-NYC.jpg
Masonic theories abound about the Statue of Liberty’s connection to the masons. Those who do ascribe to the theory cite Bartholdi’s and Eiffel’s membership in the Freemasons, that many original plans for the statue demonstrate the link and that many elements of the statue carry symbolic meaning.
In addition, the masons presided over the cornerstone laying for the Statue of Liberty, a moment commemorated in a 1984 plaque in dedication to the masons on the 100th anniversary. In 1884, the grand master William A. Brodie laid the cornerstone with grand lodge members present. Brodie is reported to have said, “Why call upon the Masonic Fraternity to lay the cornerstone of such a structure as is here to be erected? No institution has done more to promote liberty and to free men from the trammels and chains of ignorance and tyranny than has Freemasonry.”
Then there's the poem that is inside the base.
The New Colossus
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,With conquering limbs astride from land to land;Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall standA mighty woman with a torch, whose flameIs the imprisoned lightning, and her nameMOTHER OF EXILES. From her beacon-handGlows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes commandThe air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries sheWith silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
The Mother of exiles.

Prophecies of the Destruction of Babylon / America / New York

Jeremiah 51
45 “Come out of her, my people!Run for your lives!Run from the fierce anger of the Lord.46 Do not lose heart or be afraidwhen rumors are heard in the land;one rumor comes this year, another the next,rumors of violence in the landand of ruler against ruler.47 For the time will surely comewhen I will punish the idols of Babylon;her whole land will be disgraced
Well, we're definitely hearing of rumors of violence here in America and if there aren't rumors of ruler against ruler, we're going hear them soon.
The Bible details the destruction of Babylon a few different times. Mystery Babylon seems to be a new Babylon, different than the one in Biblical times, that gets destroyed at the end. Everything described here sounds like America and the King of Babylon being Trump. The capital being New York.
With the eclipse of Regulus in 2014 for 14 seconds right over New York. I think they might get hit with something major. Maybe a hurricane. This season is suppose to be bad and FEMA is saying they are completely unprepared. I'm sure that wasn't on purpose or anything. I think maybe a big earthquake might happen soon too in the next month. Seeing a lot of weird shit. A lot of polarity with the planets and asteroids. I think it's all connected to our polarity as the Trump Delusion continues. You seeing these reports and videos of these racist people just saying mean shit to people all over the place now for no reason? They're lashing out because they're scared their delusion bubble might burst so they're acting out. It's only going to escalate until both sides completely lose their fucking minds.
OLD TESTAMENT, ISAIAH, JERMEMIAH
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+13&version=NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+14&version=NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Isaiah+21&version=NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+50&version=NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Jeremiah+51&version=NIV
NEW TESTAMENT, BOOK OF REVELATIONS
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+17&version=NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+18&version=NIV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+19&version=NIV

The New Roman Empire / Fourth Reich & The Double Headed Eagle of Lagash

http://watchmanscry.com/?p=6230
Welcome to General Election 2016 – The Transition
The Hegelian Dialectic is the transition of things. And the Illuminati loves to use it. We have been expecting it.
We have read about it. And now it is here, in front of our faces. And many are IGNORING it.
Folks, we are witnessing Hegelian logic on display.
How we got here is an aside, but here we are. The disease is Hillary, and the medicine is Trump. For most folks, that’s all that matters. Case closed. What most citizens do not realize is that this is all a ruse. A mirage.
It is being carried by, “they.”
“They” are using the illusion, because America was stationary and stubborn.
“You can’t New World Order me!” Americans said, “…Because we know about you.”
Did the globalists go away and cry in their beer? Nope. They knew this would happen. It was expected. Butsome of the citizens heard a few radio shows that told them, “we’re gonna win.”
Hegel’s dialectic utilizes the “mirage.” And then steers the people through its house of mirrors with scary monsters. In America’s case, the monster is a short woman with a trucker’s voice named Hillary. Their task is simple. Globalism. But how do they get there?
Simple:
Scare them with the Thesis – Hillary / the Enemy of Freedom.
And offset her with the Anti-thesis – Donald the Lion-Hearted / Champion of the People.
…Next stop – the Synthesis. Ashes with a rising phoenix.
It's right there in front of us. Do you see it folks?
This is also known as
Problem > Reaction > Solution
Ultimately this is leading to:
Problem: Trump vs Deep State
Reaction: Global Disaster
Solution: One world government and one world currency
They say this is a double headed eagle, it's not. It's a double headed Phoenix. And it's the symbol of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonary.
http://uscnjpha.org/history/double-headed-eagle/
http://uscnjpha.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/F.png
“The Double Headed Eagle of Lagash” is the oldest Royal Crest in the World… No emblematic device of today can boast of such antiquity. Its origin has been traced to the ancient city of Lagash. It was in use a thousand years before the Exodus from Egypt and more than two thousand years before the building of “King Solomon’s Temple.”
“As time rolled on, it passed from the Sumerians to the men of Akkad, from the men of Akkad to the Hittites, from the denizens of Asia Minor to the Seljukian Sultans from whom it was brought by the Crusaders to the Emperors of the East and West, whose successors were the Hapsburgs and the Romanoffs.”
“In recent excavations, the city-emblem of Lagash was disclosed also as a lion headed eagle sinking his claws into the bodies of two lions standing back to back. This is evidently a variant of the other eagle symbol”.
“The city of Lagash is in Sumer in Southern Babylonia, between the Euphrates and the Tigris and near the modern Shatra in Iraq, Lagash had a calendar of twelve lunar months, a system of weights and measures, a banking and accounting system and was a center of art, literature, military and political power, five thousand years before Christ”.
“In 102 B.C. the Roman Consul Marius decreed that the Eagle be displayed as a symbol of Imperial Rome. Later, as a world power, Rome used the Double-Headed Eagle, one head facing the East the other facing the West, symbolizing the universality and unity of the Empire. The Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire continued its use and the symbol was adopted later in Germany during the halcyon days of conquest and imperial power”.
So far as is known, the Double-Headed Eagle was first used in Freemasonry in 1758 by a Masonic Body in Paris – the Emperors of the East and West. During a brief period the Masonic Emperors of the East and West controlled the advanced degrees then in use and became a precursor of the “Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite”.
The Latin caption under the Double-Headed Eagle – “Spes Mea in Deo Est” translated is “My Hope Is In God”.
A part of this sounds familiar
“In recent excavations, the city-emblem of Lagash was disclosed also as a lion headed eagle sinking his claws into the bodies of two lions standing back to back. This is evidently a variant of the other eagle symbol”.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/6f/a6/cb/6fa6cb2757061c76d7aa6ea211e2868c.jpg
https://goddessinspired.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/inanna-descent.jpg
In 102 B.C. the Roman Consul Marius decreed that the Eagle be displayed as a symbol of Imperial Rome. Later, as a world power, Rome used the Double-Headed Eagle, one head facing the East the other facing the West, symbolizing the universality and unity of the Empire. The Emperors of the Holy Roman Empire continued its use and the symbol was adopted later in Germany during the halcyon days of conquest and imperial power”.
So far as is known, the Double-Headed Eagle was first used in Freemasonry in 1758 by a Masonic Body in Paris – the Emperors of the East and West. During a brief period the Masonic Emperors of the East and West controlled the advanced degrees then in use and became a precursor of the “Ancient Accepted Scottish Rite”
So it represented the universality and unity of the Empire of Rome and was later adopted by Germany during their days of conquest and imperial power. For these Freemasons, it represents two emperors, one from the east and one from the west coming together to create one empire. Hmm.. I wonder if that has any significance to today's world.
https://st2.depositphotos.com/8575830/12480/i/950/depositphotos_124801418-stock-photo-russian-two-headed-eagle-coat.jpg
https://www.rbth.com/history/327634-why-is-double-headed-eagle-a-symbol-of-russia
The imperial bird with two heads simultaneously facing East and West has been Russia’s official coat of arms for centuries, with only a break during the Soviet era. The emblem, however, is far older than the country, with roots dating to ancient civilizations.
An eagle on a country’s coat of arms is quite common – this bird is as popular a national symbol as the lion. “He is the king of birds; just like the lion is believed to rule all animals, and he is associated with the cult of the sun,” Georgy Vilinbakhov, head of Russia’s Heraldic Council, explains.
http://www.deadlinenews.co.uk/2012/01/17/donald-trump-at-last-awarded-the-scottish-coat-of-arms/
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3f/Coat_of_Arms_of_Donald_Trump.svg/2000px-Coat_of_Arms_of_Donald_Trump.svg.png
http://revelationtimelinedecoded.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/phoenix3.jpg
So Trump's new coat of arms has the same symbol as Russia which symbolizes 2 empires, one from the east and one from the west, combining into one.
Does the way they dress look familiar to anyone?
http://uscnjpha.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/uscnj.png

The Rise of The Phoenix and One World Currency

https://socioecohistory.wordpress.co...mist-magazine/
Source: Economist; 01/9/88, Vol. 306, pp 9-10
https://socioecohistory.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/theeconomist-phoenix_get_ready_for_world_currency_by_2018.jpg
Title of article: Get Ready for the Phoenix
THIRTY years from now, Americans, Japanese, Europeans, and people in many other rich countries, and some relatively poor ones will probably be paying for their shopping with the same currency. Prices will be quoted not in dollars, yen or D-marks but in, let’s say, the phoenix. The phoenix will be favoured by companies and shoppers because it will be more convenient than today’s national currencies, which by then will seem a quaint cause of much disruption to economic life in the last twentieth century.At the beginning of 1988 this appears an outlandish prediction. Proposals for eventual monetary union proliferated five and ten years ago, but they hardly envisaged the setbacks of 1987. The governments of the big economies tried to move an inch or two towards a more managed system of exchange rates – a logical preliminary, it might seem, to radical monetary reform. For lack of co-operation in their underlying economic policies they bungled it horribly, and provoked the rise in interest rates that brought on the stock market crash of October. These events have chastened exchange-rate reformers. The market crash taught them that the pretence of policy co-operation can be worse than nothing, and that until real co-operation is feasible (i.e., until governments surrender some economic sovereignty) further attempts to peg currencies will flounder
The new world economyThe biggest change in the world economy since the early 1970’s is that flows of money have replaced trade in goods as the force that drives exchange rates. as a result of the relentless integration of the world’s financial markets, differences in national economic policies can disturb interest rates (or expectations of future interest rates) only slightly, yet still call forth huge transfers of financial assets from one country to another. These transfers swamp the flow of trade revenues in their effect on the demand and supply for different currencies, and hence in their effect on exchange rates. As telecommunications technology continues to advance, these transactions will be cheaper and faster still. With unco-ordinated economic policies, currencies can get only more volatile.
In all these ways national economic boundaries are slowly dissolving. As the trend continues, the appeal of a currency union across at least the main industrial countries will seem irresistible to everybody except foreign-exchange traders and governments. In the phoenix zone, economic adjustment to shifts in relative prices would happen smoothly and automatically, rather as it does today between different regions within large economies (a brief on pages 74-75 explains how.) The absence of all currency risk would spur trade, investment and employment.
The phoenix zone would impose tight constraints on national governments. There would be no such thing, for instance, as a national monetary policy. The world phoenix supply would be fixed by a new central bank, descended perhaps from the IMF. The world inflation rate – and hence, within narrow margins, each national inflation rate- would be in its charge. Each country could use taxes and public spending to offset temporary falls in demand, but it would have to borrow rather than print money to finance its budget deficit. With no recourse to the inflation tax, governments and their creditors would be forced to judge their borrowing and lending plans more carefully than they do today. This means a big loss of economic sovereignty, but the trends that make the phoenix so appealing are taking that sovereignty away in any case. Even in a world of more-or-less floating exchange rates, individual governments have seen their policy independence checked by an unfriendly outside world.
As the next century approaches, the natural forces that are pushing the world towards economic integration will offer governments a broad choice. They can go with the flow, or they can build barricades. Preparing the way for the phoenix will mean fewer pretended agreements on policy and more real ones. It will mean allowing and then actively promoting the private-sector use of an international money alongside existing national monies. That would let people vote with their wallets for the eventual move to full currency union. The phoenix would probably start as a cocktail of national currencies, just as the Special Drawing Right is today. In time, though, its value against national currencies would cease to matter, because people would choose it for its convenience and the stability of its purchasing power.
The alternative – to preserve policymaking autonomy- would involve a new proliferation of truly draconian controls on trade and capital flows. This course offers governments a splendid time. They could manage exchange-rate movements, deploy monetary and fiscal policy without inhibition, and tackle the resulting bursts of inflation with prices and incomes polices. It is a growth-crippling prospect. Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes.
https://medium.com/@torrmara/1988-crypto-prophesy-from-the-economist-e201ab28aa26
So it was a random Sunday: bed, eat, repeat until I went online and I saw a link by a new user called @limon. There was a small introduction to a YouTube video which at first glance didn’t look interesting, but what the hell? Lets read this.
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...lLpi-xYDCw.png
He talked about an article from The Economist, year 1988, coin, phoenix and then Zoin… wtf?
Anyways, I opened the link (don’t open links from strangers) and watched the video in Youtube, (it’s in Spanish)
@limon claims in the video (minute 5) that he actually found a not so well know cryptocurrency (yet) by doing some research on an article from 1988 and he is somehow convinced it’s going to be huge. Yes, @limon saw the writing and thought maybe I should check this and find out which is the coin of the future.
As crazy as it seems, finding a cryptocurrency by doing research on a 1988 magazine its quite incredible. Is it a coincidence or is it a prediction? Not even @limon knows, but there’s a few things that can blow up your mind here.
This is the article from 1988. It claims that there will be a currency (referred as “phoenix”) that will be used by everybody in several countries in 2018.
So yes, you all might say “the coin is called the Phoenix”. There’s actually a coin called Phoenixcoin but that didn’t seem to convince @limon once he checked it out in www.coinmarketcap.com (it sucked even for @limon who wanted to believe with all his heart)
But @limon didn’t give up, he thought what if its hidden? So he decided to take a closer look at the magazine cover.
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...LKufsoJVug.png
He noticed that he could read the letters backward (um…interesting)
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...Ir1KSVOMbw.png
He got XIN3ONd NET by reading the cover letter backwards and he said well, XIN is Chinese, and found out in google translator that XIN meant NEW.
Then 3ONd he looked at it and thought this is Russian… and it was. That weird word that would not mean anything to someone meant something for @limon so he decided to google translate it.
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...uui5nS3hFg.png
Well yeah 3ONd is Russian and means ZOI, but wait is this a coin? @Limon decided to search “ZOI” in www.coinmarketcap.com.
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...LN2UCCLQwg.png
WOW, Zoin existed. He ended up with the sentence NEW ZOI NET, in which Zoi was an actual currency.
He starting searching now all about Zoin (DYOR) and liked everything he saw. The team, the community and development its very much updated.
Got even more carried away when he saw Zoin’s logo:
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...4CV6Ln5sFQ.png
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/...y75KEGoyHQ.png
And when he researched even deeper, he found out that ZOIN was left by its first developer and got taken over by its community from all over the world.
Yes, Zoin emerged from the ashes. What? wait. Zoin is also a Phoenix.
Anyways, @limon found all the signs of a prophecy from 1988.
He couldn’t wait so he joined Zoin’s community and shared his video.
By the way he bought some Zoin. After finding the last lost prophecy he had no plans on missing out.
Check all about Zoin in the following links.
You can reach out to the team on Discord, website address is www.zoinofficial.com and their twitter @zoinofficial
You better don’t miss it. Its a prophecy.
Thank you limon.
@torrmara
Notice the year on the coin and at the end of the article, 2018. "Pencil in the phoenix for around 2018, and welcome it when it comes". Trump and Russia both have a double headed Phoenix signifying the union of an Empire. This article talks about a one world currency called "Phoenix" coming in 2018. The number 10 upside down is 01. It's a bit on a coin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_(currency))
I posted about an Israeli company that can do things with blockchain and DNA in my previous postings on this topic. I think that this will have something to do with the Mark of the Beast.
https://techstartups.com/2018/05/10/genetic-blockchain-startup-dnatix-releases-first-blockchain-based-open-source-dna-compression-tool/
https://www.dnatix.com/
https://nulltx.com/carverr-wants-to-embed-bitcoin-private-keys-into-strands-of-dna/

Trump is the Tip of the Spear for the NWO Plan

Notice the spear tip coming out of the Phoenix's head on the cover of the Economist magazine? Trump. has a spear on top of both of his coat of arm. Trump is the tip of the sphere. I think once he's fulfilled his purpose in wrecking everything and nuking North Korea, I think they might have someone take him out. Then things would get even crazier.
https://i0.wp.com/www.show-notes.info/thisisit4321/gallery3/vaalbums/SPECIAL-PROJECTS/Welcome-to-the-World-of-Good-and-Evil/TRUMP/TRUMP%20-%20D2.jpg
https://i0.wp.com/www.show-notes.info/thisisit4321/gallery3/vaalbums/SPECIAL-PROJECTS/Welcome-to-the-World-of-Good-and-Evil/Album-number-7/Donald%20Trump%20Tip%20of%20the%20Spear.jpg
https://thelightinthedarkplace.files.wordpress.com/2018/03/donald20trump20front20and20center.jpg?w=816
https://thelightinthedarkplace.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/trump20tower201.jpg?w=816

My Other Posts on This Topic

https://www.reddit.com/conspiracy/comments/8tuwr1/what_do_these_2_very_obvious_signs_say_to_you/
https://www.reddit.com/conspiracy/comments/8vth1i/trumps_space_force_nesara_and_the_mark_of_the/
submitted by Oblique9043 to conspiracy [link] [comments]

Have another perspective about Electroneum supply and decimal points! (RE-POST/reformat)

Argument 1: It is wrong that less number of decimals = less supply
Let starts with the background of the debate:
Hypothesis 1: Electroneum (ETN) has less supply than Bitcoin (BTC)
Hypothesis 2: BTC has less supply than ETN
The argument of Hypothesis 1 is that BTC has 8 “decimal points” and ETN only 2 “decimal points” which bring the argument to something like this:
1 satoshi = 0.00000001 BTC
1 mETN = 0.01 ETN
Max supply of BTC is 21 Million, which is equal to 21 * 1014 satoshi.
Max supply of ETN is 21 Billion which is equal to 21 * 1011 mETN.
Which means ETN’s total supply is 1/1000 of BTC’s.
The argument of Hypothesis 2 is that the “decimal points” is just “fractional notation” and it is not significant in the calculation of supply.
Max supply of BTC is 21 Million BTC
Max supply of ETN is 21 Billion ETN
Which means BTC’s total supply is 1/1000 of ETN’s.
At the beginning when Richard Ells explain about the 2 decimal points, I immediately thought: “No, you can’t do that!” “The fraction is insignificant; how can you include that into the calculation of total supply?”
So, for quite a while, just the same as other people I tend to believe Hypothesis 2 is right and this is quite disturbing to think that ETN has this “flaw”.
Then I came to a realization that I am thinking in technical/engineering formula concept and try to forced it into a dynamic currency calculation.
This is a big flaw in hypothesis 2 argument, because we are using Math (as in pure Math calculation) perspective instead of the understanding of how Currency behaves or works.
In Math, the unit of numbers is a standard, where 1 (100) is the lowest denominator, and decimal points are just the “fraction of the unit”, which gives the argument that no matter what is the length of the fraction, 21 Million will still be less than 21 Billion.
But we are not talking/discussing about “just numbers” here, we are talking about a Currency.
Currency has what is called as “circulating denomination unit”, and every currency has the lowest circulating denomination unit. For US Dollar and UK Pound, it is 1 cent or a penny. In Australian Dollar and Canadian Dollar, it is 5 cents (5 cents coin).
So, when we talk about BTC has 8 decimal points and ETN has 2 decimal points, we are not just talking about fraction of unit, we are talking about the “lowest circulating denomination unit” of a currency.
Consider this:
Let say that ETN and BTC mining is getting harder and harder. The lowest unit a miner can earn is 0.01 ETN in Electroneum supply and 0.00000001 BTC in Bitcoin supply (we are not talking about price at the moment, but focus on supply).
With 0.01 as the lowest unit that can be mined in ETN, that means for ETN to reach max supply is 21 Billion/0.01 or 21 * 1011.
With 0.00000001 as the lowest unit that can be mined in BTC, that means for BTC to reach max supply is 21 Million/0.00000001 or 21 * 1014.
Which simply means ETN will reach max supply faster, hence lower supply (or vice versa).
If we are talking about token, then arguably Hypothesis 2 can be right, because tokens are just token; and they are not designed to be a currency, there are significant differences.
Electroneum is designed as a currency and projected to be the “de-facto mass adopted” currency. So, think about it as a currency, NOT token.
Let’s get further into this with some examples of “real” (i.e.: fiat) currencies.
We know that currently US Dollar is one of the most (if not the most) dominant and popular currencies (fiat currencies). At the time of writing, these are the exchange rates of USD (US Dollar) to some other currencies (source: xe.com):
1 IDR (Indonesian Rupiah) = 0.0000736762 USD (US Dollar)
1 USD = 13572.90414000722 IDR
1 VND (Vietnamese Dong) = 0.0000440036 USD (US Dollar)
1 USD = 22725.4133752693 VND
Argument 2: The 2 decimal point in Electroneum is a flaw?
Now, let’s talk about the lowest transactional/circulating denomination unit of USD. It is $0.01 USD, which is represented by a penny or 1 cent coin.
Have you ever heard anyone say: “Hey, because USD lowest denomination unit is $0.01, this doesn’t make sense, this is a flaw. How am I going to exchange 100 IDR to USD? Because based on the exchange rate, 100 IDR is 0.0073762, it is not even 1 cent USD.
The answer is you don’t. People (currency users) behaviour change, and they adjust to it.
Currency is dynamic and involves people’s behaviour, not a static Math numbers.
If you go to Bali (Bali is in Indonesia), the most common lowest denomination unit of IDR in circulation is Rp.500 (IDR). There might be 200, 100, 50 IDR in circulation, but people don’t use them much. I saw some drivers (Taxi or Uber) using 500 IDR as “parking fee” or as “small change”, some “parking operators” even say that 500 IDR is not enough for parking fee, it has to be 1000 or 2000 IDR or even more.
Let say you come back from Bali with 10000 IDR left in your pocket. So, you go to bank to convert 10000 IDR to USD. You will get a weird looking face from the Teller trying to say “Are you serious?”
Why? Because it is not practical or common practice to exchange 10000 IDR to USD (in cash), as it is less than 1 USD (not including fee/commission). They EXPECT you to exchange a much larger amount of IDR.
Argument 3: The 2 decimal point will limit the price of Electroneum to something like $100, so 0.01 ETN will still be $1
Consider this:
I never heard anyone say: “Oh no, this 2 decimal points in USD will limit the price of USD, so 1 USD will never go beyond 100 or 1000 IDR.
The fact is, in the 90’s, 1 USD was around 1000 IDR or maybe even less, and now it is more than 13000 IDR.
How can a 2 decimal points affect the price or limit the price of a currency? I cannot understand the argument.
And this is just a fiat currency, as we all know that crypto currency is more “explosive” in creating price trend.
Borrowing some examples from fiat currency again, does this mean that people will never use calculation that is beyond 2 decimal points (like 3 or more decimal points)?
No, not necessarily, I believe more decimal points (something like 4 decimal points or even finer) are used in calculation of interest, loans, in exchanges, etc. Yet, it doesn’t deny the fact that the circulating denomination unit only has 2 decimal point.
Currency is dynamic, people and businesses will find one way or another to adjust with the price and denomination unit.
For example, in the old days when cash was king, when someone buy something in a shop with price of 80 cents, paid with 1 dollar bill. Then, the owner of the shop realized that he/she runs out of 20 cents coin and other less value coins. The owner of the shop will try to offer candy or chocolate or other cheap items as replacement for the change. The buyer might actually be happy with that because the buyer might appreciate candy or chocolate more than the spare change or coins.
In some payment systems, they mathematically rounded the number to the closest denominator units, like 5 cents or 10 cents.
In term of ETN, if necessary, when the price is skyrocketing. I believe, there will be some options, including creating “sub-currency”, akin to “Dollar coins”. You can buy something in ETN and get the “sub-currency” as a change. The sub-currency can either be pegged to ETN value or not, that can be defined later in the dynamic.
Argument 4: Technology affects the price of currency. Really?
Consider this article or infographic: https://illicittrade.com/infographics/worlds-most-counterfeited-currencies/
US Dollar is considered as the one of the world’s most counterfeited currency.
Then, consider another article: https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0412/the-most-counterfeit-proof-currencies.aspx
“ International Association of Currency Affairs (IACA) holds an awards ceremony for currencies and individuals that have made great leaps in protecting the integrity of currencies and the technologies that go into creating and manufacturing them. In 2011, the IACA voted the Bank of Uganda as the winner of the best new banknote.”
Yet, 1 UGX = 0.000277417 USD. How come? Based on some arguments, that the more advanced the technology a currency has, the more valuable is the currency. Then, it supposed to be 1 USD = 0.000277417 UGX, not the opposite, right?
How about Bitcoin? At the moment, BTC has relatively the least technological advantage to other coins. Then why its price is the top of the chart?
Yes, you don’t want a currency that is very easily counterfeited that it is become “public secret” that everyone can counterfeit the currency at will. But you also don’t need the most secure anti-counterfeit technology to give value to the currency or make the currency as the most valuable currency.
Consider this:
  • US Dollar, EU Euro, Japanese Yen, UK Pound, Australian Dollar, Canadian Dollar and Swiss Franc, why are they perceived as valuable currency to people, investor and trader?
Because they are the most traded currency in the world. I understand there are fundamentals factors affecting the value, but it cannot be denied that people perceived the most traded currencies are more stable and valuable.
“Analyst says 94% of bitcoin's price movement over the past four years can be explained by one equation”.
That equation is about mass adoption or network effect. Put it simply, it shows that the success of Bitcoin and its price are NOT because it is the first, it is the most advanced technologically, it has the most unique features, etc. But because it gets the biggest mass adoption among other crypto currencies, at least for the time being.
  • Currency is dynamic. It involves people and people’s behaviour, not a static Math numbers or Technology features.
  • There are significant differences between crypto that is projected to be just token and the one that is projected to be currency.
When we talk about currency, people give value to currency because of “the fundamentals” value (because currency relates to the fundamentals of a country, policies and its users) and because it is the top traded/used currency in the world.
But when we talk about crypto currency, I think many people agreed it is hard to understand “the fundamentals”, so I believe the easiest to understand the value is how it will be mass adopted. The fundamentals values, I believe, will be easier to see at later stages as they will become more tangible.
These include relationships/partnerships, networks, how it will scale, how the team will keep progressing and keep making improvements (including technological improvements), the progression and manifestation of the planned roadmap, how agile is the team to respond to changes and challenges, and for ETN specifically, is the “ETN Community”. ETN community is a big asset for Electroneum like no other crypto currency has.
So, what’s the deal with 2 decimal points?
At the beginning, I thought this “2 decimal points” can be a drawback for ETN, but now I think it is a brilliant idea. Consider the following advantages of using 2 decimal points for ETN:
  • Easy to understand, human friendly notation.
Why is this important? In order for a currency to be widely adopted, people need to be comfortable enough to use it and understand the transaction quickly and easily. People are already accustomed to 2 decimal points in currency. People mindset are already trained to calculate in cents as in 0.01 and not more decimal points. Thus, this will greatly help mass adoption
  • Businesses’ accounting or business model are setup around this mindset of 2 decimal points or cents of currency.
So, if the business community wants to adopt a crypto currency like ETN, it is “just natural” adoption.
For examples, some little things like, how are you going to invoice customer with a number that has 8 decimal points? It will take longer for the business to adapt and adjust with 8 decimals. It looks like simple thing, but if you try to implement it in the business model, then it can be huge.
Another example, Businesses don’t need to adjust the format in their receipt/docket, because their current format is already 2 decimal points, just change the currency name to ETN, compare this with if the Business has to change the format of the purchase docket/receipt in 8 decimals. I am quite sure it will be quite chaotic in the first few weeks of implementation.
Then how about the data format in the database, reconciliation process, etc, etc. The list can be very long just trying to adapt with 8 decimals.
  • When Electroneum tries to create business partnerships and relationships with other big Enterprise, entity, organisation, network, etc. They don’t need to “overhaul” their system for ETN to be included in their systems.
Thanks to 2 decimal points, which comes natural in every system that uses fiat currency, these integrations can be done faster and more easily.
I think most IT people and developers understand how mind blogging it can be to change whole system just because we need to adapt with 8 decimal points and 2 decimal points at the same time.
The key here is the integration of the systems can be done faster and easier.
  • One of the target of Electroneum is to be adopted by the unbanked people, which means ETN will become one of the main currency for the payment system, which might involves, at least at early stage, features for exchanging between ETN and local currency.
You can see as ETN comes naturally with 2 decimal points, just like other fiat currencies. Integration of payment system and legacy point of sale (POS) systems can be done much easier, because ETN behaves similar to other fiat currency in term of calculation (decimal points).
The only differences (or benefits) are ETN is a crypto currency with faster transaction settlement, cheaper transaction fees, no country boundary (cheaper transfer fees), with no “middle man” like banks, no complicated registration to bank accounts, and has privacy features.
So, Electroneum community and ETN HODLers, we can look forward to the full realization of Electroneum’s potentials in the near future. I got the “feeling” that Electroneum community will play significant roles like in no other crypto currency.
Cheers,
PS: In using some currencies as examples, I am not undermining the currencies or users of the currencies. I have some friends and relatives from some of these countries whom I know are richemuch richer than average people in developed countries (in terms of Dollar wealth). It is just for the sake of example. I hope no one get offended by this.
Disclaimer: I am not affiliated with Electroneum, but I am an ETN ICO investor and HODLer. This is my personal opinion and perspective regarding the matter and NOT to be seen/taken as advise or suggestion in any kind.
submitted by CryptoDeluge to Electroneum [link] [comments]

An attempt at a fully comprehensive look at how to scale bitcoin. Lets bring Bitcoin out of Beta!

 
WARNING THIS IS GOING TO BE A REALLY REALLY LONG POST BUT PLEASE READ IT ALL. SCALING BITCOIN IS A COMPLEX ISSUE! HOPEFULLY HAVING ALL THE INFO IN ONE PLACE SHOULD BE USEFUL
 
Like many people in the community I've spent the past month or so looking deeply into the bitcoin scaling debate. I feel there has never been a fully comprehensive thread on how bitcoin could scale. The closest I have seen is gavinandresen's medium posts back in the summer describing the problem and a solution, and pre-emptively answering supposed problems with the solution. While these posts got to the core of the issue and spawned the debate we have been having, they were quite general and could have used more data in support. This is my research and proposal to scale bitcoin and bring the community back together.
 
 
The Problem
 
There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution;
  • 'node distribution',
  • 'mining decentralisation',
  • 'network utility',
  • 'time',
  • 'adoption'.
 
 
Node Distribution
Bandwidth has a relationship to node count and therefore 'node distribution'. This is because if bandwidth becomes too high then fewer people will be able to run a node. To a lesser extent bandwidth also effects 'mining decentralisation' as miners/pool owners also need to be able to run a node. I would argue that the centralisation pressures in relation to bandwidth are negligible though in comparison to the centralisation pressure caused by the usefulness of larger pools in reducing variance. The cost of a faster internet connection is negligible in comparison to the turnover of the pools. It is important to note the distinction between bandwidth required to propagate blocks quickly and the bandwidth required to propagate transactions. The bandwidth required to simply propagate transactions is still low today.
New node time (i.e. the time it takes to start up a new node) also has a relationship with node distribution. i.e. If it takes too long to start a new node then fewer people will be willing to take the time and resources to start a new node.
Storage Space also has a relationship with node distribution. If the blockchain takes up too much space on a computer then less people will be willing to store the whole blockchain.
Any suitable solution should look to not decrease node distribution significantly.
 
Mining Decentralisation
Broadcast time (the time it takes to upload a block to a peer) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing broadcast time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Validation time (the time it to validate a block) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing validation time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Any suitable solution should look to not increase mining centralisation significantly.
 
Network Utility
Network Utility is one that I find is often overlooked, is not well understood but is equally as important. The network utility force acts as a kind of disclaimer to the other two forces. It has a balancing effect. Increasing the network utility will likely increase user adoption (The more useful something is, the more people will want to use it) and therefore decreasing network utility will likely decrease user adoption. User adoption has a relationship with node count. i.e. the more people, companies and organisations know about and use bitcoin, the more people, companies and organisations that will run nodes. For example we could reduce block size down to 10KB, which would reduce broadcast time and validation time significantly. This would also therefore reduce mining centralisation pressures significantly. What is very important to realise though is that network utility would also be significantly be reduced (fewer people able to use bitcoin) and therefore so would node distribution. Conversely, if we increased the block size (not the limit) right now to 10GB, the network utility would be very high as bitcoin would be able to process a large number of transactions but node distribution would be low and mining centralisation pressures would be high due to the larger resource requirements.
Any suitable solution should look to increase network utility as time increases.
 
Time
Time is an important force because of how technology improves over time. Technology improves over time in a semi-predicable fashion (often exponential). As we move through time, the cost of resources required to run the bitcoin network (if the resource requirements remained static) will decrease. This means that we are able to increase resource requirements proportional to technological improvements/cost reductions without any increase in costs to the network. Technological improvements are not perfectly predictable though so it could be advantageous to allow some buffer room for when technological improvements do not keep up with predictions. This buffer should not be applied at the expense of the balance between the other forces though (i.e. make the buffer too big and network utility will be significantly decreased).
 
 
Adoption
Increasing adoption means more people using the bitcoin/blockchain network. The more people use bitcoin the more utility it has, and the more utility Bitcoin has the more people will want to use it (network effect). The more people use bitcoin, the more people there that have an incentive to protect bitcoin.
Any suitable solution should look to increase adoption as time increases.
 
 
The Solution Proposed by some of the bitcoin developers - The Lightning Network
 
The Lightning Network (LN) is an attempt at scaling the number of transactions that can happen between parties by not publishing any transaction onto the blockchain unless it is absolutely necessary. This is achieved by having people pool bitcoin together in a "Channel" and then these people can transact instantly within that channel. If any shenanigans happen between any of the parties, the channel can be closed and the transactions will be settled on the blockchain. The second part of their plan is limit the block size to turn bitcoin into a settlement network. The original block size limit of 1MB was originally put in place by Satoshi as an anti-DOS measure. It was to make sure a bad actor could not propagate a very large block that would crash nodes and increase the size of the blockchain unnecessarily. Certain developers now want to use this 1MB limit in a different way to make sure that resource requirements will stay low, block space always remains full, fees increase significantly and people use the lightning network as their main way of transacting rather than the blockchain. They also say that keeping the resource requirements very low will make sure that bitcoin remains decentralised.
 
Problems with The Lightning Network
The LN works relatively well (in theory) when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions to the network are kept low. Unfortunately, when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions on the blockchain become high, the LN's utility is diminished. The trust you get from a transaction on the LN comes only from the trustless nature of having transactions published to the bitcoin network. What this means is that if a transaction cannot be published on the bitcoin network then the LN transaction is not secured at all. As transactions fees rise on the bitcoin blockchain the LN utility is diminished. Lets take an example:
  • Cost of publishing a transaction to the bitcoin network = $20
  • LN transaction between Bob and Alice = $20.
  • Transaction between Bob and Alice has problem therefore we want to publish it to the blockchain.
  • Amount of funds left after transaction is published to the blockchain = $20 - $20 = $0.
This is also not a binary situation. If for example in this scenario, the cost to publish the transaction to blockchain was $10 then still only 50% of the transaction would be secure. It is unlikely anyone really call this a secure transaction.
Will a user make a non-secured/poorly secured transaction on the LN when they could make the same transaction via an altcoin or non-cryptocurrency transaction and have it well secured? It's unlikely. What is much more likely to happen is that transaction that are not secured by bitcoin because of the cost to publish to the blockchain will simply overflow into altcoins or will simply not happen on any cryptocurrency network. The reality is though, that we don't know exactly what will happen because there is no precedent for it.
Another problem outside of security is convenience. With a highly oversaturated block space (very large backlog of transactions) it could take months to have a transaction published to the blockchain. During this time your funds will simply be stuck. If you want to buy a coffee with a shop you don't have a channel open with, instead of simply paying with bitcoin directly, you would have to wait months to open a channel by publishing a transaction to the bitcoin blockchain. I think your coffee might be a little cold by then (and mouldy).
I suggest reading this excellent post HERE for other rather significant problems with the LN when people are forced to use it.
The LN is currently not complete and due to its high complexity it will take some time to have industry wide implementation. If it is implemented on top of a bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network economy it will likely have very little utility.
 
Uses of The LN
The LN is actually an extremely useful layer-2 technology when it is used with it's strengths. When the bitcoin blockchain is fast and cheap to transact on, the LN is also extremely useful. One of the major uses for the LN is for trust-based transactions. If you are transacting often between a set of parties you can truly trust then using LN makes absolute sense since the trustless model of bitcoin is not necessary. Then once you require your funds to be unlocked again it will only take a short time and small cost to open them up to the full bitcoin network again. Another excellent use of LN would be for layer-3 apps. For example a casino app: Anyone can by into the casino channel and play using real bitcoins instantly in the knowledge that is anything nefarious happens you can instantly settle and unlock your funds. Another example would be a computer game where you can use real bitcoin in game, the only difference is that you connect to the game's LN channel and can transact instantly and cheaply. Then whenever you want to unlock your funds you can settle on the blockchain and use your bitcoins normally again.
LN is hugely more powerful, the more powerful bitcoin is. The people making the LN need to stick with its strengths rather than sell it as an all-in-one solution to bitcoin's scaling problem. It is just one piece of the puzzle.
 
 
Improving Network Efficiency
 
The more efficient the network, the more we can do with what we already have. There are a number of possible efficiency improvements to the network and each of them has a slightly different effect.
 
Pruning
Pruning allows the stored blockchain size to be reduced significantly by not storing old data. This has the effect of lowering the resource requirements of running a node. a 40GB unpruned blockchain would be reduced in size to 550MB. (It is important to note that a pruned node has lower utility to the network)
 
Thin Blocks
Thin blocks uses the fact that most of the nodes in the network already have a list of almost all the same transactions ready to be put into the blockchain before a block is found. If all nodes use the same/similar policy for which transactions to include in a block then you only need to broadcast a small amount of information across the network for all nodes to know which transactions have been included (as opposed to broadcasting a list of all transactions included in the block). Thin Blocks have the advantage of reducing propagation which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks.
 
libsecp256k1 libsecp256k1 allows a more efficient way of validating transactions. This means that propagation time is reduced which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. It also means reduced time to bootstrap the blockchain for a new node.
 
Serialised Broadcast
Currently block transmission to peers happens in parallel to all connected peers. Obviously for block propagation this is a poor choice in comparison to serial transmission to each peer one by one. Using parallel transmission means that the more peers you have, the slower the propagation, whereas serial transmission does not suffer this problem. The problem that serial transmission does suffer from though is variance. If the order that you send blocks to peers in is random, then it means sometimes you will send blocks to a peer who has a slow/fast connection and/or is able to validate slowly/quickly. This would mean the average propagation time would increase with serialised transmission but depending on your luck you would sometimes have faster propagation and sometimes have slower propagation. As this will lower propagation time it will also lower the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Serialised Broadcast Sorting
This is a fix for the variance that would occur due to serialised broadcast. This sorts the order that you broadcast a block to each peer into; fastest upload + validation speed first and slowest upload speed and validation speed last. This not only decreases the variance to zero but also allows blocks to propagation to happen much faster. This also has the effect of lowering the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Here is a table below that shows roughly what the effects these solutions should have.
Name Bandwidth Broadcast Time Validation Time New Node Time Storage Space
Pruning 1 1 1 1 0.014
Thin Blocks 0.42 0.1 0.1 1 1
libsecp256k1 1 1 0.2 0.6 1
Serialised Broadcast 1 0.5 1 1 1
KYN 1 0.75 1 1 1
Segregated Witness 1 1 1 0.4 1
TOTAL 0.42 0.0375 0.02 0.24 0.014
Multiplier 2.38 26.7 50 - 70
(The "multiplier" shows how many times higher the block size could be relative to the specific function.)
 
 
The Factors in Finding a Balanced Solution
 
At the beginning of this post I detailed a relatively simple framework for finding a solution by describing what the problem is. There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution; 'node distribution', 'mining decentralisation', 'network utility', 'time' and 'adoption'. The optimal solution needs to find a balance between all of these forces taking into account a buffer to offset our inability to predict the future with absolute accuracy.
To find a suitable buffer we need to assign a set of red line values which certain values should not pass if we want to make sure bitcoin continues to function as well as today (at a minimum). For example, percentage of orphans should stay below a certain value. These values can only be a best estimate due to the complexity of bitcoin economics, although I have tried to provide as sound reasoning as possible.
 
Propagation time
It seems a fair limit for this would be roughly what we have now. Bitcoin is still functioning now. Could mining be more decentralised? Yes, of course, but it seems bitcoin is working fine right now and therefore our currently propagation time for blocks is a fairly conservative limit to set. Currently 1MB blocks take around 15 seconds to propagate more than 50% of the network. 15 second propagation time is what I will be using as a limit in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Orphan Rate
This is obviously a value that is a function of propagation time so the same reasoning should be used. I will use a 3% limit on orphan rate in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $200 in the near-term and $600 in the long-term. I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for a business or enthusiast to pay to run a full node. As the number of transactions increases as more people use bitcoin the number of people willing to pay a higher price to run a node will also increase although the percentage of people will decrease. These are of course best guess values as there is no way of knowing exactly what percentage of users are willing to pay what.
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $3 in the near-term (next 5 years) and $9 in the long-term (Next 25 years). I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for normal bitcoin user to pay. In fact this cost will more likely be zero as almost all users have an amount of storage free on their computers.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 10% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Downstream is generally a much more valuable resource to a user than upstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 25% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Upstream is generally a much less valuable resource to a user than downstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
My limit for this value is at 5 days using 50% of downstream bandwidth in the near-term and 30 days in the long-term. This seems like a reasonable number to me for someone who wants to start running a full node. Currently opening a new bank account takes at least week until everything is set up and you have received your cards, so it seems to me people would be willing to wait this long to become connected. Again, this is a best guess on what people would be willing to do to access the blockchain in the future. Most users requiring less security will be able to use an SPV wallet.
It is important to note that we only need enough nodes to make sure the blockchain is distributed across many places with many backups of the full blockchain. It is likely that a few thousand is a minimum for this. Increasing this amount to hundreds of thousands or millions of full nodes is not necessarily that much of an advantage to node distribution but could be a significant disadvantage to mining centralisation. This is because the more nodes you have in the network, the longer it takes to propagate >50% of it.
 
Storage Cost Price Reduction Over Time
Storage cost follows a linear logarithmic trend. Costs of HDD reducing by 10 times every 5 years, although this has slowed over the past few years. This can be attributed to the flooding in South East Asia and the transition to SSD technology. SSD technology also follows the linear logarithmic trend of costs reducing 10 times every 5 years, or roughly decreasing 37% per year.
 
Average Upload and Download Bandwidth Increases Over Time
Average upload and download bandwidth increases in a linear logarithmic trend. Both upload and download bandwidth follow the same trend of doubling roughly every two years, or increasing 40% per year.
 
Price
I was hesitant to include this one here but I feel it is unavoidable. Contrary to what people say (often when the price is trending downwards) bitcoin price is an extremely important metric in the long-term. Depending on bitcoin's price, bitcoin's is useful to; enthusiasts->some users->small companies->large companies->nations->the world, in roughly that order. The higher bitcoin's price is the more liquid the market will be and the more difficult it will be to move the price, therefore increasing bitcoin's utility. Bitcoin's price in the long-term is linked to adoption, which seems to happen in waves, as can be seen in the price bubbles over the years. If we are planning/aiming for bitcoin to at least become a currency with equal value to one of the worlds major currencies then we need to plan for a market cap and price that reflect that. I personally think there are two useful targets we should use to reflect our aims. The first, lower target is for bitcoin to have a market cap the size of a major national currency. This would put the market cap at around 2.1 trillion dollars or $100,000 per bitcoin. The second higher target is for bitcoin to become the world's major reserve currency. This would give bitcoin a market cap of around 21 trillion dollars and a value of $1,000,000 per bitcoin. A final, and much more difficult target is likely to be bitcoin as the only currency across the world, but I am not sure exactly how this could work so for now I don't think this is worth considering.
 
As price increases, so does the subsidy reward given out to miners who find blocks. This reward is semi-dynamic in that it remains static (in btc terms) until 210,000 blocks are found and then the subsidy is then cut in half. This continues to happen until all 21,000,000 bitcoins have been mined. If the value of each bitcoin increases faster than the btc denominated subsidy decreases then the USD denominated reward will be averagely increasing. Historically the bitcoin price has increased significantly faster than subsidy decreases. The btc denominated subsidy halves roughly every 4 years but the price of bitcoin has historically increased roughly 50 fold in the same time.
 
Bitcoin adoption should happen in a roughly s-curve dynamic like every other technology adoption. This means exponential adoption until the market saturation starts and adoption slows, then the finally is the market becomes fully saturated and adoption slowly stops (i.e. bitcoin is fully adopted). If we assume the top of this adoption s-curve has one of the market caps above (i.e. bitcoin is successful) then we can use this assumption to see how we can transition from a subsidy paid network to a transaction fee paid network.
 
Adoption
Adoption is the most difficult metric to determine. In fact it is impossible to determine accurately now, let alone in the future. It is also the one of the most important factors. There is no point in building software that no one is going to use after all. Equally, there is no point in achieving a large amount of adoption if bitcoin offers none of the original value propositions. Clearly there is a balance to be had. Some amount of bitcoin's original value proposition is worth losing in favour of adoption, and some amount of adoption is worth losing to keep bitcoin's original value proposition. A suitable solution should find a good balance between the two. It is clear though that any solution must have increased adoption as a basic requirement, otherwise it is not a solution at all.
 
One major factor related to adoption that I rarely see mentioned, is stability and predictability. This is relevant to both end users and businesses. End users rely on stability and predictability so that they do not have to constantly check if something has changed. When a person goes to get money from a cash machine or spend money in a shop, their experience is almost identical every single time. It is highly dependable. They don't need to keep up-to-date on how cash machines or shops work to make sure they are not defrauded. They know exactly what is going to happen without having to expend any effort. The more deviation from the standard experience a user experiences and the more often a user experiences a deviation, the less likely a user is going to want to continue to use that service. Users require predictability extending into the past. Businesses who's bottom line is often dependent on reliable services also require stability and predictability. Businesses require predictability that extends into the future so that they can plan. A business is less likely to use a service for which they do not know they can depend on in the future (or they know they cannot depend on).
For bitcoin to achieve mass adoption it needs a long-term predictable and stable plan for people to rely on.
 
 
The Proposal
 
This proposal is one based on determining a best fit balance of every factor and a large enough buffer to allows for our inability to perfectly predict the future. No one can predict the future with absolutely certainty but it does not mean we cannot make educated guesses and plan for it.
 
The first part of the proposal is to spend 2016 implementing all available efficiency improvements (i.e the ones detailed above) and making sure the move to a scaled bitcoin happens as smoothly as possible. It seems we should set a target of implementing all of the above improvements within the first 6 months of 2016. These improvements should be implemented in the first hardfork of its kind, with full community wide consensus. A hardfork with this much consensus is the perfect time to test and learn from the hardforking mechanism. Thanks to Seg Wit, this would give us an effective 2 fold capacity increase and set us on our path to scalability.
 
The second part of the proposal is to target the release of a second hardfork to happen at the end of 2016. Inline with all the above factors this would start with a real block size limit increase to 2MB (effectively increasing the throughput to 4x compared to today thanks to Seg Wit) and a doubling of the block size limit every two years thereafter (with linear scaling in between). The scaling would end with an 8GB block size limit in the year 2039.
 
 
How does the Proposal fit inside the Limits
 
 
Propagation time
If trends for average upload and bandwidth continue then propagation time for a block to reach >50% of the nodes in the network should never go above 1s. This is significantly quickly than propagation times we currently see.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction (i.e. bandwidth does not increase as quickly as predicted) by 15% absolute and 37.5% relative (i.e. bandwidth improves at a rate of 25% per year rather than the predicted 40%) and we would still only ever see propagation times similar to today and it would take 20 years before this would happen.
 
Orphan Rate
Using our best guess predictions the orphan rate would never go over 0.2%.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative, orphan rate would never go above 2.3% and it would take over 20 years to happen.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a non-pruned full node would never exceed $40 with blocks consistently 50% full and would in fact decrease significantly after reaching the peak cost. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the maximum cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $90.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $100 by 2022 and $300 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $230 by 2022 and $650 in 2039. It is important to note that for storage costs to be as high as this, bitcoin will have to be enormously successful, meaning many many more people will be incentivised to run a full node (businesses etc.)
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a pruned full node would never exceed $0.60 with blocks consistently 50% full. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the max cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $1.30.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $1.40 by 2022 and $5 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $3.20 by 2022 and $10 in 2039. It is important to note that at this amount of storage the cost would be effectively zero since users almost always have a large amount of free storage space on computers they already own.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 0.3% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would still only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 4% (average).
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 1.6% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 24% (average) and this would take over 20 years to occur.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
Using our best guess predictions bootstrapping a new node onto the network should never take more than just over a day using 50% bandwidth.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and it would take one and 1/4 days to bootstrap the blockchain using 50% of the download bandwidth. By 2039 it would take 16 days to bootstrap the entire blockchain when using 50% bandwidth. I think it is important to note that by this point it is very possible the bootstrapping the blockchain could very well be done by simply buying an SSD with blockchain already bootstrapped. 16 days would be a lot of time to download software but it does not necessarily mean a decrease in centralisation. As you will see in the next section, if bitcoin has reached this level of adoption, there may well be many parties will to spend 16 days downloading the blockchain.
 
What if Things Turn Out Worse than the Worse Case?
While it is likely that future trends in the technology required to scale bitcoin will continue relatively similar to the past, it is possible that the predictions are completely and utterly wrong. This plan takes this into account though by making sure the buffer is large enough to give us time to adjust our course. Even if no technological/cost improvements (near zero likelihood) are made to bandwidth and storage in the future this proposal still gives us years to adjust course.
 
 
What Does This Mean for Bitcoin?
 
Significantly Increased Adoption
For comparison, Paypal handles around 285 transactions per second (tps), VISA handles around 2000tps and the total global non-cash transactions are around 12,400tps.
Currently bitcoin is capable of handling a maximum of around 3.5 transactions every second which are published to the blockchain roughly every 10 minutes. With Seg Wit implemented via a hardfork, bitcoin will be capable or around 7tps. With this proposal bitcoin will be capable of handling more transactions than Paypal (assuming Paypal experiences growth of around 7% per year) in the year 2027. Bitcoin will overtake VISA's transaction capability by the year 2035 and at the end of the growth cycle in 2039 it will be able to handle close to 50% of the total global non-cash transactions.
When you add on top second layer protocols( like the LN), sidechains, altcoins and off-chain transactions, there should be more than enough capacity for the whole world and every possible conceivable use for digital value transfer.
 
Transitioning from a Subsidy to a Transaction Fee Model
Currently mining is mostly incentivised by the subsidy that is given by the network (currently 25btc per block). If bitcoin is to widely successful it is likely that price increases will continue to outweigh btc denominated subsidy decreases for some time. This means that currently it is likely to be impossible to try to force the network into matching a significant portion of the subsidy with fees. The amount of fees being paid to miners has averagely increased over time and look like they will continue to do so. It is likely that the optimal time for fees to start seriously replacing the subsidy is when bitcoin adoption starts to slow. Unless you take a pessimistic view of bitcoin (thinking bitcoin is as big as it ever will be), it is reasonable to assume this will not happen for some time.
With this proposal, using an average fee of just $0.05, total transaction fees per day would be:
  • Year 2020 = $90,720
  • Year 2025 = $483,840.00
  • Year 2030 = $2,903,040.00
  • Year 2035 = $15,482,880.00
  • Year 2041 = $123,863,040.00 (full 8GB Blocks)
Miners currently earn a total of around $2 million dollars per day in revenue, significantly less than the $124 million dollars in transaction fee revenue possible using this proposal. That also doesn't include the subsidy which would still play some role until the year 2140. This transaction fee revenue would be a yearly revenue of $45 billion for miners when transaction fees are only $0.05 on average.
 
 
Proposal Data
You can use these two spreadsheets (1 - 2 ) to see the various metrics at play over time. The first spreadsheet shows the data using the predicted trends and the second spreadsheet shows the data with the worst case trends.
 
 
Summary
 
It's very clear we are on the edge/midst of a community (and possibly a network) split. This is a very dangerous situation for bitcoin. A huge divide has appeared in the community and opinions are becoming more and more entrenched on both sides. If we cannot come together and find a way forward it will be bad for everyone except bitcoin's competition and enemies. While this proposal is born from an attempt at finding a balance based on as many relevant factors as possible, it also fortunately happens to fall in between the two sides of the debate. Hopefully the community can see this proposal as a way of making a compromise, releasing the entrenchment and finding a way forward to scale bitcoin. I have no doubt that if we can do this, bitcoin will have enormous success in the years to come.
 
Lets bring bitcoin out of beta together!!
submitted by ampromoco to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Leverage the best coin exchange with advanced features

Leverage the best coin exchange with advanced features
ZedXe is the best coin exchange that offers its customers with a secure trading environment and advanced charts as well as data analysis tools. The platform allows its users to trade cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Litecoin, Ethereum, Zuflo and more.
https://preview.redd.it/wrywplzzpu431.jpg?width=930&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=446b0c2c7e4bbe3e9f568835232565f51f80ffec
submitted by jessmehta to u/jessmehta [link] [comments]

Let’s All Admit that the Bitcoin Price Bubble Has Popped

Has bitcoin bottomed yet? And, what does the aftermath of major bubbles bursting look like and its implications for price?
Thursday, bitcoin had a relief rally in sympathy with most other commodities as the Swiss National Bank (SNB) de-pegged the Swiss Franc from the Euro. This was a surprise move by the SNB but was necessary as being pegged to the Euro has been killing the Franc as the Euro has been sinking against a strong dollar due to Eurozone economic malaise.
http://i.imgur.com/x0N089k.jpg
A previous article written on this subject can be found here. There is a lot of speculation as to why they did this now and the prevailing sentiment is twofold: the SNB expects the European Central Bank (ECB) to launch massive QE and this will further weaken the Euro so they wanted to get ahead of the curve as the SNB has had to purchase a ton of Euros to protect the Franc and their threshold has been reached.
As a result, the Swiss Franc surged and the Euro weakened, while the USD strengthened. All commodities (gold, oil, copper, silver, bitcoin etc.) also saw a sharp rise in anticipation of QE coming.
Has bitcoin bottomed yet?
The simple answer is no, not yet. As mentioned above, bitcoin had a relief rally yesterday in due to the SNB news in combination with an extremely oversold chart. A relief rally generally occurs in a downtrend, when buyers show up and shorts cover but it is nothing more than a countertrend move and is fleeting at best. As the chart below shows, the downtrend is still intact and yesterday on the daily chart shows a failed attempt to put in a bottom in the form of a Bullish Engulfing Pattern (see here).
As a result, there is more downside. Price discovery is a process, but its looking likely at the very least we get a retest of the 160 level, with an eye on 133, which is the Mt. Gox low as mentioned previously. Volume has picked up along with volatility, so the bottoming process continues.
http://i.imgur.com/GPTaRIj.jpg
Generally, price precedes news. With this downtrend strongly in place, one can assume whatever news comes out will be bad. As we continue to bottom, the bad news can be assumed to be in the price and will not lead to a leg lower. In other words, it will be “priced in.”
What the news will be is anyone’s guess, but certainly something is overhanging Bitcoin. In fact, one sign of a bottom will be when bad news comes out and price doesn’t react to it or reacts in an opposite than most people expect.
What happens in the aftermath of bubbles? The bitcoin price bubble has burst — that can not be denied. This is a major bubble that has popped as bitcoin has broke through many major support levels on its way down, and is still sinking. Below are charts of other major bubbles and unless one is visually impaired the similarities should be striking. The reason I display these charts is because the aftermath of price bubbles is similar for all of them, and bitcoin should be no different.
This is the Japanese real estate bubble:
http://i.imgur.com/JWL1ZRI.jpg
This is the Dutch East India Company:
http://i.imgur.com/c6c5fsv.jpg
This is the Dot-Com (1999–2000) bubble:
http://i.imgur.com/d9xtq5D.jpg
This is Silver in 1980:
http://i.imgur.com/zdjG71k.jpg
And finally this is bitcoin:
http://i.imgur.com/f8hH5nw.jpg
Let’s all admit that the bitcoin price bubble has popped. But what we can expect as price searches for a bottom?
For now, we can expect volatility to hold up since the bottom isn’t locked in yet. Right now, it looks like we are seeing bottom fishing happening. This is when people are looking for a bottom without being presented of any evidence of such. It’s a sort of front-running for a bottom in anticipation of prices going higher at some point.
Once again, bottoming is a process and takes time. History shows that as a bottom forms, volatility dies off as buying and investment interests wane. Traders also move away from the asset as volatility dies in search of better returns elsewhere. Fundamentals start to matter and price just doesn’t begin a massive upside move.
In fact, it remains range bound for long periods of time. Within this range, I would expect to see large moves, though the price should not to go back to its highs for quite a long time. During this time, companies will continue building on the protocol with the price becoming ancillary as innovation moves forward, which in turn could lead to surges in price as well as many macro economic factors down the road.
In an interconnected global world, things change rapidly and the price is no different. This is a model based on past bubbles and could be different with bitcoin for a variety of reasons, but generally the pattern fits and I would expect a range bound price and a period of low volatility for a while once the bottom is established.
Below is a chart that shows the stages of a bubble bursting and the aftermath:
http://i.imgur.com/FTA5YbQ.png
Written by George Samman, former Wall Street Portfolio Manger and Co-Founder and COO of BTC.sx. BTC.sx is a bitcoin trading platform offering up to 10x leverage to go long or short in bitcoin for bitcoin.
submitted by BTC_sx to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

An attempt at a fully comprehensive look at how to scale bitcoin. Lets bring Bitcoin out of Beta!

 
WARNING THIS IS GOING TO BE A REALLY REALLY LONG POST BUT PLEASE READ IT ALL. SCALING BITCOIN IS A COMPLEX ISSUE! HOPEFULLY HAVING ALL THE INFO IN ONE PLACE SHOULD BE USEFUL
 
Like many people in the community I've spent the past month or so looking deeply into the bitcoin scaling debate. I feel there has never been a fully comprehensive thread on how bitcoin could scale. The closest I have seen is gavinandresen's medium posts back in the summer describing the problem and a solution, and pre-emptively answering supposed problems with the solution. While these posts got to the core of the issue and spawned the debate we have been having, they were quite general and could have used more data in support. This is my research and proposal to scale bitcoin and bring the community back together.
 
 
The Problem
 
There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution;
  • 'node distribution',
  • 'mining decentralisation',
  • 'network utility',
  • 'time',
  • 'adoption'.
 
 
Node Distribution
Bandwidth has a relationship to node count and therefore 'node distribution'. This is because if bandwidth becomes too high then fewer people will be able to run a node. To a lesser extent bandwidth also effects 'mining decentralisation' as miners/pool owners also need to be able to run a node. I would argue that the centralisation pressures in relation to bandwidth are negligible though in comparison to the centralisation pressure caused by the usefulness of larger pools in reducing variance. The cost of a faster internet connection is negligible in comparison to the turnover of the pools. It is important to note the distinction between bandwidth required to propagate blocks quickly and the bandwidth required to propagate transactions. The bandwidth required to simply propagate transactions is still low today.
New node time (i.e. the time it takes to start up a new node) also has a relationship with node distribution. i.e. If it takes too long to start a new node then fewer people will be willing to take the time and resources to start a new node.
Storage Space also has a relationship with node distribution. If the blockchain takes up too much space on a computer then less people will be willing to store the whole blockchain.
Any suitable solution should look to not decrease node distribution significantly.
 
Mining Decentralisation
Broadcast time (the time it takes to upload a block to a peer) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing broadcast time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Validation time (the time it to validate a block) has a relationship with mining centralisation pressures. This is because increasing validation time increases the propagation time, which increases the orphan rate. If the orphan rate it too high then individual miners will tend towards larger pools.
Any suitable solution should look to not increase mining centralisation significantly.
 
Network Utility
Network Utility is one that I find is often overlooked, is not well understood but is equally as important. The network utility force acts as a kind of disclaimer to the other two forces. It has a balancing effect. Increasing the network utility will likely increase user adoption (The more useful something is, the more people will want to use it) and therefore decreasing network utility will likely decrease user adoption. User adoption has a relationship with node count. i.e. the more people, companies and organisations know about and use bitcoin, the more people, companies and organisations that will run nodes. For example we could reduce block size down to 10KB, which would reduce broadcast time and validation time significantly. This would also therefore reduce mining centralisation pressures significantly. What is very important to realise though is that network utility would also be significantly be reduced (fewer people able to use bitcoin) and therefore so would node distribution. Conversely, if we increased the block size (not the limit) right now to 10GB, the network utility would be very high as bitcoin would be able to process a large number of transactions but node distribution would be low and mining centralisation pressures would be high due to the larger resource requirements.
Any suitable solution should look to increase network utility as time increases.
 
Time
Time is an important force because of how technology improves over time. Technology improves over time in a semi-predicable fashion (often exponential). As we move through time, the cost of resources required to run the bitcoin network (if the resource requirements remained static) will decrease. This means that we are able to increase resource requirements proportional to technological improvements/cost reductions without any increase in costs to the network. Technological improvements are not perfectly predictable though so it could be advantageous to allow some buffer room for when technological improvements do not keep up with predictions. This buffer should not be applied at the expense of the balance between the other forces though (i.e. make the buffer too big and network utility will be significantly decreased).
 
 
Adoption
Increasing adoption means more people using the bitcoin/blockchain network. The more people use bitcoin the more utility it has, and the more utility Bitcoin has the more people will want to use it (network effect). The more people use bitcoin, the more people there that have an incentive to protect bitcoin.
Any suitable solution should look to increase adoption as time increases.
 
 
The Solution Proposed by some of the bitcoin developers - The Lightning Network
 
The Lightning Network (LN) is an attempt at scaling the number of transactions that can happen between parties by not publishing any transaction onto the blockchain unless it is absolutely necessary. This is achieved by having people pool bitcoin together in a "Channel" and then these people can transact instantly within that channel. If any shenanigans happen between any of the parties, the channel can be closed and the transactions will be settled on the blockchain. The second part of their plan is limit the block size to turn bitcoin into a settlement network. The original block size limit of 1MB was originally put in place by Satoshi as an anti-DOS measure. It was to make sure a bad actor could not propagate a very large block that would crash nodes and increase the size of the blockchain unnecessarily. Certain developers now want to use this 1MB limit in a different way to make sure that resource requirements will stay low, block space always remains full, fees increase significantly and people use the lightning network as their main way of transacting rather than the blockchain. They also say that keeping the resource requirements very low will make sure that bitcoin remains decentralised.
 
Problems with The Lightning Network
The LN works relatively well (in theory) when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions to the network are kept low. Unfortunately, when the cost and time to publish a set of transactions on the blockchain become high, the LN's utility is diminished. The trust you get from a transaction on the LN comes only from the trustless nature of having transactions published to the bitcoin network. What this means is that if a transaction cannot be published on the bitcoin network then the LN transaction is not secured at all. As transactions fees rise on the bitcoin blockchain the LN utility is diminished. Lets take an example:
  • Cost of publishing a transaction to the bitcoin network = $20
  • LN transaction between Bob and Alice = $20.
  • Transaction between Bob and Alice has problem therefore we want to publish it to the blockchain.
  • Amount of funds left after transaction is published to the blockchain = $20 - $20 = $0.
This is also not a binary situation. If for example in this scenario, the cost to publish the transaction to blockchain was $10 then still only 50% of the transaction would be secure. It is unlikely anyone really call this a secure transaction.
Will a user make a non-secured/poorly secured transaction on the LN when they could make the same transaction via an altcoin or non-cryptocurrency transaction and have it well secured? It's unlikely. What is much more likely to happen is that transaction that are not secured by bitcoin because of the cost to publish to the blockchain will simply overflow into altcoins or will simply not happen on any cryptocurrency network. The reality is though, that we don't know exactly what will happen because there is no precedent for it.
Another problem outside of security is convenience. With a highly oversaturated block space (very large backlog of transactions) it could take months to have a transaction published to the blockchain. During this time your funds will simply be stuck. If you want to buy a coffee with a shop you don't have a channel open with, instead of simply paying with bitcoin directly, you would have to wait months to open a channel by publishing a transaction to the bitcoin blockchain. I think your coffee might be a little cold by then (and mouldy).
I suggest reading this excellent post HERE for other rather significant problems with the LN when people are forced to use it.
The LN is currently not complete and due to its high complexity it will take some time to have industry wide implementation. If it is implemented on top of a bitcoin-as-a-settlement-network economy it will likely have very little utility.
 
Uses of The LN
The LN is actually an extremely useful layer-2 technology when it is used with it's strengths. When the bitcoin blockchain is fast and cheap to transact on, the LN is also extremely useful. One of the major uses for the LN is for trust-based transactions. If you are transacting often between a set of parties you can truly trust then using LN makes absolute sense since the trustless model of bitcoin is not necessary. Then once you require your funds to be unlocked again it will only take a short time and small cost to open them up to the full bitcoin network again. Another excellent use of LN would be for layer-3 apps. For example a casino app: Anyone can by into the casino channel and play using real bitcoins instantly in the knowledge that is anything nefarious happens you can instantly settle and unlock your funds. Another example would be a computer game where you can use real bitcoin in game, the only difference is that you connect to the game's LN channel and can transact instantly and cheaply. Then whenever you want to unlock your funds you can settle on the blockchain and use your bitcoins normally again.
LN is hugely more powerful, the more powerful bitcoin is. The people making the LN need to stick with its strengths rather than sell it as an all-in-one solution to bitcoin's scaling problem. It is just one piece of the puzzle.
 
 
Improving Network Efficiency
 
The more efficient the network, the more we can do with what we already have. There are a number of possible efficiency improvements to the network and each of them has a slightly different effect.
 
Pruning
Pruning allows the stored blockchain size to be reduced significantly by not storing old data. This has the effect of lowering the resource requirements of running a node. a 40GB unpruned blockchain would be reduced in size to 550MB. (It is important to note that a pruned node has lower utility to the network)
 
Thin Blocks
Thin blocks uses the fact that most of the nodes in the network already have a list of almost all the same transactions ready to be put into the blockchain before a block is found. If all nodes use the same/similar policy for which transactions to include in a block then you only need to broadcast a small amount of information across the network for all nodes to know which transactions have been included (as opposed to broadcasting a list of all transactions included in the block). Thin Blocks have the advantage of reducing propagation which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks.
 
libsecp256k1 libsecp256k1 allows a more efficient way of validating transactions. This means that propagation time is reduced which lowers the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. It also means reduced time to bootstrap the blockchain for a new node.
 
Serialised Broadcast
Currently block transmission to peers happens in parallel to all connected peers. Obviously for block propagation this is a poor choice in comparison to serial transmission to each peer one by one. Using parallel transmission means that the more peers you have, the slower the propagation, whereas serial transmission does not suffer this problem. The problem that serial transmission does suffer from though is variance. If the order that you send blocks to peers in is random, then it means sometimes you will send blocks to a peer who has a slow/fast connection and/or is able to validate slowly/quickly. This would mean the average propagation time would increase with serialised transmission but depending on your luck you would sometimes have faster propagation and sometimes have slower propagation. As this will lower propagation time it will also lower the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Serialised Broadcast Sorting
This is a fix for the variance that would occur due to serialised broadcast. This sorts the order that you broadcast a block to each peer into; fastest upload + validation speed first and slowest upload speed and validation speed last. This not only decreases the variance to zero but also allows blocks to propagation to happen much faster. This also has the effect of lowering the mining centralisation pressure due to orphaned blocks. (This is just a concept at the moment but I don't see why it couldn't be implemented).
 
Here is a table below that shows roughly what the effects these solutions should have.
Name Bandwidth Broadcast Time Validation Time New Node Time Storage Space
Pruning 1 1 1 1 0.014
Thin Blocks 0.42 0.1 0.1 1 1
libsecp256k1 1 1 0.2 0.6 1
Serialised Broadcast 1 0.5 1 1 1
KYN 1 0.75 1 1 1
Segregated Witness 1 1 1 0.4 1
TOTAL 0.42 0.0375 0.02 0.24 0.014
Multiplier 2.38 26.7 50 - 70
(The "multiplier" shows how many times higher the block size could be relative to the specific function.)
 
 
The Factors in Finding a Balanced Solution
 
At the beginning of this post I detailed a relatively simple framework for finding a solution by describing what the problem is. There seems to me to be five main fundamental forces at play in finding a balanced solution; 'node distribution', 'mining decentralisation', 'network utility', 'time' and 'adoption'. The optimal solution needs to find a balance between all of these forces taking into account a buffer to offset our inability to predict the future with absolute accuracy.
To find a suitable buffer we need to assign a set of red line values which certain values should not pass if we want to make sure bitcoin continues to function as well as today (at a minimum). For example, percentage of orphans should stay below a certain value. These values can only be a best estimate due to the complexity of bitcoin economics, although I have tried to provide as sound reasoning as possible.
 
Propagation time
It seems a fair limit for this would be roughly what we have now. Bitcoin is still functioning now. Could mining be more decentralised? Yes, of course, but it seems bitcoin is working fine right now and therefore our currently propagation time for blocks is a fairly conservative limit to set. Currently 1MB blocks take around 15 seconds to propagate more than 50% of the network. 15 second propagation time is what I will be using as a limit in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Orphan Rate
This is obviously a value that is a function of propagation time so the same reasoning should be used. I will use a 3% limit on orphan rate in the solution to create a buffer.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $200 in the near-term and $600 in the long-term. I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for a business or enthusiast to pay to run a full node. As the number of transactions increases as more people use bitcoin the number of people willing to pay a higher price to run a node will also increase although the percentage of people will decrease. These are of course best guess values as there is no way of knowing exactly what percentage of users are willing to pay what.
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
For this I am choosing a limit of $3 in the near-term (next 5 years) and $9 in the long-term (Next 25 years). I have chosen these values based on what I think is a reasonable (maximum) for normal bitcoin user to pay. In fact this cost will more likely be zero as almost all users have an amount of storage free on their computers.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 10% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Downstream is generally a much more valuable resource to a user than upstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
This is a best guess at what I think people who run nodes would be willing to use to be connected to the bitcoin network directly. I believe using 25% (maximum) of a users downstream bandwidth is the limit of what is reasonable for a full node (pruned and non-pruned). Most users would continue to access the blockchain via SPV wallets though. Upstream is generally a much less valuable resource to a user than downstream due to the nature of the internet usage.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
My limit for this value is at 5 days using 50% of downstream bandwidth in the near-term and 30 days in the long-term. This seems like a reasonable number to me for someone who wants to start running a full node. Currently opening a new bank account takes at least week until everything is set up and you have received your cards, so it seems to me people would be willing to wait this long to become connected. Again, this is a best guess on what people would be willing to do to access the blockchain in the future. Most users requiring less security will be able to use an SPV wallet.
It is important to note that we only need enough nodes to make sure the blockchain is distributed across many places with many backups of the full blockchain. It is likely that a few thousand is a minimum for this. Increasing this amount to hundreds of thousands or millions of full nodes is not necessarily that much of an advantage to node distribution but could be a significant disadvantage to mining centralisation. This is because the more nodes you have in the network, the longer it takes to propagate >50% of it.
 
Storage Cost Price Reduction Over Time
Storage cost follows a linear logarithmic trend. Costs of HDD reducing by 10 times every 5 years, although this has slowed over the past few years. This can be attributed to the flooding in South East Asia and the transition to SSD technology. SSD technology also follows the linear logarithmic trend of costs reducing 10 times every 5 years, or roughly decreasing 37% per year.
 
Average Upload and Download Bandwidth Increases Over Time
Average upload and download bandwidth increases in a linear logarithmic trend. Both upload and download bandwidth follow the same trend of doubling roughly every two years, or increasing 40% per year.
 
Price
I was hesitant to include this one here but I feel it is unavoidable. Contrary to what people say (often when the price is trending downwards) bitcoin price is an extremely important metric in the long-term. Depending on bitcoin's price, bitcoin's is useful to; enthusiasts->some users->small companies->large companies->nations->the world, in roughly that order. The higher bitcoin's price is the more liquid the market will be and the more difficult it will be to move the price, therefore increasing bitcoin's utility. Bitcoin's price in the long-term is linked to adoption, which seems to happen in waves, as can be seen in the price bubbles over the years. If we are planning/aiming for bitcoin to at least become a currency with equal value to one of the worlds major currencies then we need to plan for a market cap and price that reflect that. I personally think there are two useful targets we should use to reflect our aims. The first, lower target is for bitcoin to have a market cap the size of a major national currency. This would put the market cap at around 2.1 trillion dollars or $100,000 per bitcoin. The second higher target is for bitcoin to become the world's major reserve currency. This would give bitcoin a market cap of around 21 trillion dollars and a value of $1,000,000 per bitcoin. A final, and much more difficult target is likely to be bitcoin as the only currency across the world, but I am not sure exactly how this could work so for now I don't think this is worth considering.
 
As price increases, so does the subsidy reward given out to miners who find blocks. This reward is semi-dynamic in that it remains static (in btc terms) until 210,000 blocks are found and then the subsidy is then cut in half. This continues to happen until all 21,000,000 bitcoins have been mined. If the value of each bitcoin increases faster than the btc denominated subsidy decreases then the USD denominated reward will be averagely increasing. Historically the bitcoin price has increased significantly faster than subsidy decreases. The btc denominated subsidy halves roughly every 4 years but the price of bitcoin has historically increased roughly 50 fold in the same time.
 
Bitcoin adoption should happen in a roughly s-curve dynamic like every other technology adoption. This means exponential adoption until the market saturation starts and adoption slows, then the finally is the market becomes fully saturated and adoption slowly stops (i.e. bitcoin is fully adopted). If we assume the top of this adoption s-curve has one of the market caps above (i.e. bitcoin is successful) then we can use this assumption to see how we can transition from a subsidy paid network to a transaction fee paid network.
 
Adoption
Adoption is the most difficult metric to determine. In fact it is impossible to determine accurately now, let alone in the future. It is also the one of the most important factors. There is no point in building software that no one is going to use after all. Equally, there is no point in achieving a large amount of adoption if bitcoin offers none of the original value propositions. Clearly there is a balance to be had. Some amount of bitcoin's original value proposition is worth losing in favour of adoption, and some amount of adoption is worth losing to keep bitcoin's original value proposition. A suitable solution should find a good balance between the two. It is clear though that any solution must have increased adoption as a basic requirement, otherwise it is not a solution at all.
 
One major factor related to adoption that I rarely see mentioned, is stability and predictability. This is relevant to both end users and businesses. End users rely on stability and predictability so that they do not have to constantly check if something has changed. When a person goes to get money from a cash machine or spend money in a shop, their experience is almost identical every single time. It is highly dependable. They don't need to keep up-to-date on how cash machines or shops work to make sure they are not defrauded. They know exactly what is going to happen without having to expend any effort. The more deviation from the standard experience a user experiences and the more often a user experiences a deviation, the less likely a user is going to want to continue to use that service. Users require predictability extending into the past. Businesses who's bottom line is often dependent on reliable services also require stability and predictability. Businesses require predictability that extends into the future so that they can plan. A business is less likely to use a service for which they do not know they can depend on in the future (or they know they cannot depend on).
For bitcoin to achieve mass adoption it needs a long-term predictable and stable plan for people to rely on.
 
 
The Proposal
 
This proposal is one based on determining a best fit balance of every factor and a large enough buffer to allows for our inability to perfectly predict the future. No one can predict the future with absolutely certainty but it does not mean we cannot make educated guesses and plan for it.
 
The first part of the proposal is to spend 2016 implementing all available efficiency improvements (i.e the ones detailed above) and making sure the move to a scaled bitcoin happens as smoothly as possible. It seems we should set a target of implementing all of the above improvements within the first 6 months of 2016. These improvements should be implemented in the first hardfork of its kind, with full community wide consensus. A hardfork with this much consensus is the perfect time to test and learn from the hardforking mechanism. Thanks to Seg Wit, this would give us an effective 2 fold capacity increase and set us on our path to scalability.
 
The second part of the proposal is to target the release of a second hardfork to happen at the end of 2016. Inline with all the above factors this would start with a real block size limit increase to 2MB (effectively increasing the throughput to 4x compared to today thanks to Seg Wit) and a doubling of the block size limit every two years thereafter (with linear scaling in between). The scaling would end with an 8GB block size limit in the year 2039.
 
 
How does the Proposal fit inside the Limits
 
 
Propagation time
If trends for average upload and bandwidth continue then propagation time for a block to reach >50% of the nodes in the network should never go above 1s. This is significantly quickly than propagation times we currently see.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction (i.e. bandwidth does not increase as quickly as predicted) by 15% absolute and 37.5% relative (i.e. bandwidth improves at a rate of 25% per year rather than the predicted 40%) and we would still only ever see propagation times similar to today and it would take 20 years before this would happen.
 
Orphan Rate
Using our best guess predictions the orphan rate would never go over 0.2%.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative, orphan rate would never go above 2.3% and it would take over 20 years to happen.
 
Non-Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a non-pruned full node would never exceed $40 with blocks consistently 50% full and would in fact decrease significantly after reaching the peak cost. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the maximum cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $90.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $100 by 2022 and $300 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $230 by 2022 and $650 in 2039. It is important to note that for storage costs to be as high as this, bitcoin will have to be enormously successful, meaning many many more people will be incentivised to run a full node (businesses etc.)
 
Pruned Node Storage Cost
Using our best guess predictions the cost of storage for a pruned full node would never exceed $0.60 with blocks consistently 50% full. If blocks were consistently 100% full (which is highly unlikely) then the max cost of an un-pruned full node would never exceed $1.30.
In a worst case scenario where we are wrong in our bandwidth prediction in the negative direction by 37.5% relative and we are wrong in our storage cost prediction by 20% relative (storage cost decreases in cost by 25% per year instead of the predicted 37% per year), we would see a max cost to run a node with 50% full blocks of $1.40 by 2022 and $5 by 2039. If blocks are always 100% full then this max cost rises to $3.20 by 2022 and $10 in 2039. It is important to note that at this amount of storage the cost would be effectively zero since users almost always have a large amount of free storage space on computers they already own.
 
Percentage of Downstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 0.3% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would still only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 4% (average).
 
Percentage of Upstream Bandwidth Used
Using our best guess predictions running a full node will never use more than 1.6% of a users download bandwidth (on average).
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and we would only ever see a max download bandwidth use of 24% (average) and this would take over 20 years to occur.
 
Time to Bootstrap a New Node
Using our best guess predictions bootstrapping a new node onto the network should never take more than just over a day using 50% bandwidth.
In a worst case scenario we can we wrong in the negative direction by 37.5% relative in our bandwidth predictions and it would take one and 1/4 days to bootstrap the blockchain using 50% of the download bandwidth. By 2039 it would take 16 days to bootstrap the entire blockchain when using 50% bandwidth. I think it is important to note that by this point it is very possible the bootstrapping the blockchain could very well be done by simply buying an SSD with blockchain already bootstrapped. 16 days would be a lot of time to download software but it does not necessarily mean a decrease in centralisation. As you will see in the next section, if bitcoin has reached this level of adoption, there may well be many parties will to spend 16 days downloading the blockchain.
 
What if Things Turn Out Worse than the Worse Case?
While it is likely that future trends in the technology required to scale bitcoin will continue relatively similar to the past, it is possible that the predictions are completely and utterly wrong. This plan takes this into account though by making sure the buffer is large enough to give us time to adjust our course. Even if no technological/cost improvements (near zero likelihood) are made to bandwidth and storage in the future this proposal still gives us years to adjust course.
 
 
What Does This Mean for Bitcoin?
 
Significantly Increased Adoption
For comparison, Paypal handles around 285 transactions per second (tps), VISA handles around 2000tps and the total global non-cash transactions are around 12,400tps.
Currently bitcoin is capable of handling a maximum of around 3.5 transactions every second which are published to the blockchain roughly every 10 minutes. With Seg Wit implemented via a hardfork, bitcoin will be capable or around 7tps. With this proposal bitcoin will be capable of handling more transactions than Paypal (assuming Paypal experiences growth of around 7% per year) in the year 2027. Bitcoin will overtake VISA's transaction capability by the year 2035 and at the end of the growth cycle in 2039 it will be able to handle close to 50% of the total global non-cash transactions.
When you add on top second layer protocols( like the LN), sidechains, altcoins and off-chain transactions, there should be more than enough capacity for the whole world and every possible conceivable use for digital value transfer.
 
Transitioning from a Subsidy to a Transaction Fee Model
Currently mining is mostly incentivised by the subsidy that is given by the network (currently 25btc per block). If bitcoin is to widely successful it is likely that price increases will continue to outweigh btc denominated subsidy decreases for some time. This means that currently it is likely to be impossible to try to force the network into matching a significant portion of the subsidy with fees. The amount of fees being paid to miners has averagely increased over time and look like they will continue to do so. It is likely that the optimal time for fees to start seriously replacing the subsidy is when bitcoin adoption starts to slow. Unless you take a pessimistic view of bitcoin (thinking bitcoin is as big as it ever will be), it is reasonable to assume this will not happen for some time.
With this proposal, using an average fee of just $0.05, total transaction fees per day would be:
  • Year 2020 = $90,720
  • Year 2025 = $483,840.00
  • Year 2030 = $2,903,040.00
  • Year 2035 = $15,482,880.00
  • Year 2041 = $123,863,040.00 (full 8GB Blocks)
Miners currently earn a total of around $2 million dollars per day in revenue, significantly less than the $124 million dollars in transaction fee revenue possible using this proposal. That also doesn't include the subsidy which would still play some role until the year 2140. This transaction fee revenue would be a yearly revenue of $45 billion for miners when transaction fees are only $0.05 on average.
 
 
Proposal Data
You can use these two spreadsheets (1 - 2 ) to see the various metrics at play over time. The first spreadsheet shows the data using the predicted trends and the second spreadsheet shows the data with the worst case trends.
 
 
Summary
 
It's very clear we are on the edge/midst of a community (and possibly a network) split. This is a very dangerous situation for bitcoin. A huge divide has appeared in the community and opinions are becoming more and more entrenched on both sides. If we cannot come together and find a way forward it will be bad for everyone except bitcoin's competition and enemies. While this proposal is born from an attempt at finding a balance based on as many relevant factors as possible, it also fortunately happens to fall in between the two sides of the debate. Hopefully the community can see this proposal as a way of making a compromise, releasing the entrenchment and finding a way forward to scale bitcoin. I have no doubt that if we can do this, bitcoin will have enormous success in the years to come.
 
Lets bring bitcoin out of beta together!!
submitted by ampromoco to btc [link] [comments]

Candlestick charts on Bitaroo Bitcoin Exchange - YouTube GEFAHR!!!!!!! VERRÜCKTER BITCOIN CHART ZEIGT ALLZEITHOCH 7 ... GEFÄHRLICHER CHART für den Bitcoin Preis? DEFI geht wieder ... BITCOIN Chart LIVESTREAM - DEUTSCH - NO MIC - Wird BTC die 7000$ Marke halten?! THE BITCOIN CHART YOU CAN'T MISS (btc price prediction ...

XBT to EUR currency chart. XE’s free live currency conversion chart for Bitcoin to Euro allows you to pair exchange rate history for up to 10 years. XBT to USD currency chart. XE’s free live currency conversion chart for Bitcoin to US Dollar allows you to pair exchange rate history for up to 10 years. Der Bitcoin - Euro Chart zeigt die Entwicklung des Bitcoin - Euro in grafischer Form und erlaubt somit einen schnellen Überblick über Kursverlauf, Höchst- und Tiefststände. Bitcoin - Euro Kurs-Chart (BTC/EUR) Der heutige Umrechnungskurs von Bitcoin in EUR beträgt €10.957,38. Es gibt derzeit eine Gesamtanzahl von 18,5 Millionen Kryptowährungen und das gehandelte Gesamtvolumen beträgt €15.944.124.028. Bitcoin Rainbow Rainbow Chart guy) - Sockpuppet for @blockchaincent - Co-Host KONSENS & NONSENS Podcast. Beiträge aus dem Blog. Bitcoin Supply – Visualized. 9. September 2020 // Data. Bitcoin Rainbow Chart (live) 3. September 2020 // Daten. Cryptocurrency World Map – Search interest by country. 14. Juni 2020 // Data . Cryptocurrency Correlation Study. 20. April 2020 // Data. Bitcoin / DAX ...

[index] [5199] [9612] [51441] [21743] [46671] [47272] [34555] [40448] [21345] [47066]

Candlestick charts on Bitaroo Bitcoin Exchange - YouTube

Synthetische Bitcoin in der Form von Wrapped Bitcoin umfassen bereits eine Marktkapitalisierung von fast 600 Mio. USD. Ob dies eine Inflationsgefahr für Bitc... 50% OFF SITE WIDE!! (Limited Time Only) New to crypto and you want to start at step 1? -Get The Diamond Combo! (Best Value) 50% OFF!! ️https://cryptocrewun... You've heard of Bitcoin, but what is it and how does it actually work? Our Lucidchart video explains the basics of Bitcoin, cryptocurrency, blockchain, and m... CRAZY BITCOIN CHART PREDICTS A 3 YEAR BULLRUN from NOW!!! - Duration: 11:46. MMCrypto 14,501 views. New; 11:46. Deep Sleep Music24/7, Sleep Therapy, Insomnia, Sleep Meditation, Calm Music, Study ... 50% OFF SITE WIDE!! (SALE ENDING!) New to crypto and you want to start at step 1? -Get The Diamond Combo! (Best Value) 50% OFF!! SALE ENDING ️https://crypt...

#