What is a Bitcoin Wallet, Address - Learn the Basics ...

The Truth about Bitcoin?

Part 1/4 - NSA Connection:
First off, the SHA-256 algorithm, which stands for Secure Hash Algorithm 256, is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA and first published in 2001.
SHA-256, like other hash functions, takes any input and produces an output (often called a hash) of fixed length. The output of a hashing algorithm such as SHA-256 will always be the same length - regardless of the input size. Specifically, the output is, as the name suggests, 256 bits.
Moreover, all outputs appear completely random and offer no information about the input that created it.
The Bitcoin Network utilises the SHA-256 algorithm for mining and the creation of new addresses.
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? What does Satoshi Nakamoto mean?
Out of respect for their anonymity, it would be rude to speculate in a video about who Satoshi Nakamoto is likely to be. The reality is, it's not important. Let me explain: Any human being can be attacked. Jesus could come back from the dead, and there would be haters. Therefore, the Satoshi Nakamoto approach neutralises the natural human herd behaviour, exacerbated by the media, to attack and discredit. This is a very important part of Bitcoin's success thus far. Also, from a security perspective, those who wish to dox Satoshi Nakamoto in a video are essentially putting his, or her, or their, life at risk...for the sake of views.
As a genius who has produced an innovation not just from a technical perspective but also a monetary perspective, they should be treated with more respect than that.
As for the name Satoshi Nakamoto, I would speculate that it is a homage to Tatsuaki Okamoto and Satoshi Obana - two cryptographers from Japan. There is another reason for the name, but that...is confidential.
In 1996, the NSA's Cryptology Division of their Office of Information Security Research and Technology published a paper titled: "How to make a mint: The cryptography of anonymous electronic cash", first publishing it in an MIT mailing list and later, in 1997, in the American University Law Review. One of the researchers they referenced was Tatsuaki Okamoto.

Part 2/4 - 'Crypto Market':
Most of the crypto market is a scam.
By the way, this was predicted very early on in the Bitcoin Talk forums - check out this interaction from November 8th, 2010:
"if bitcoin really takes off I can see lots of get-rich-quick imitators coming on the scene: gitcoin, nitcoin, witcoin, titcoin, shitcoin...
Of course the cheap imitators will disappear as quickly as those 1990s "internet currencies", but lots of people will get burned along the way."
To which Bitcoin OG Gavin Andresen replies:
"I agree - we're in the Wild West days of open-source currency. I expect people will get burned by scams, imitators, ponzi schemes and price bubbles."
"I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done about scammers, imitators and ponzi schemes besides warning people to be careful with their money (whether dollars, euros or bitcoins)."
Now, on the one hand, lack of regulation is more meritocratic (as you don't have to be an accredited investor just to get access).
On the other hand, it means that crypto is, as Gavin said, a Wild West environment, with many cowboys in the Desert. Be careful.
This is the same with most online courses - particularly 'How to get rich quick' courses - however with crypto you have an exponential increase in the supply of victims during the bull cycles so it is particularly prevalent during those times.
In addition to this, leverage trading exchanges, which are no different to casinos, prey on naive retail traders who:
A) Think they can outsmart professional traders with actual risk management skills; and
B) Think they can outsmart the exchanges themselves who have an informational advantage as well as an incentive to chase stop losses and liquidate positions.

Part 3/4 - CBDCs:
The Fed and Central Banks around the world have printed themselves into a corner.
Quantitative easing was the band-aid for the Great Financial Crisis in 2008, and more recent events have propelled the rate of money printing to absurd levels.
This means that all currencies are in a race to zero - and it becomes a game of who can print more fiat faster.
The powers that be know that this fiat frenzy is unsustainable, and that more and more people are becoming aware that it is a debt based system, based on nothing.
The monetary system devised by bankers, for bankers, in 1913 on Jekyll Island and supercharged in 1971 is fairly archaic and also does not allow for meritocratic value transfer - fiat printing itself increases inequality.
They, obviously, know this (as it is by design).
The issue (for them) is that more and more people are starting to become aware of this.
Moving to a modernised monetary system will allow those who have rigged the rules of the game for the last Century to get away scot-free.
It will also pave the way for a new wealthy, and more tech literate, elite to emerge - again predicted in the Bitcoin Talk forums.
Now...back to the powers that be.
Bitcoin provides a natural transition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and what I would describe as Finance 2.0, but what are the benefits of CBDCs for the state?
More control, easier tax collection, more flexibility in monetary policy (i.e. negative interest rates) and generally a more efficient monetary system.
This leads us to the kicker: which is the war on cash. The cashless society was a fantasy just a few years ago, however now it doesn't seem so far fetched. No comment.

Part 4/4 - Bitcoin:
What about Bitcoin?
Well, Bitcoin has incredibly strong network effects; it is the most powerful computer network in the World.
But what about Bitcoin's reputation?
Bankers hate it.
Warren Buffett hates it.
Precisely, and the public hates bankers.
Sure, the investing public respects Buffett, but the general public perception of anyone worth $73 billion is not exactly at all time highs right now amid record wealth inequality.
In the grand scheme of things, the market cap of Bitcoin is currently around $179 billion.
For example, the market cap of Gold is around $9 trillion, which is 50x the Market Cap of Bitcoin.
Money has certain characteristics.
In my opinion, what makes Bitcoin unique is the fact that it has a finite total supply (21 million) and a predictable supply schedule via the halving events every 4 years, which cut in half the rate at which new Bitcoin is released into circulation.
Clearly, with these properties, it seems likely that Bitcoin could act as a meaningful hedge against inflation.
One of the key strengths of Bitcoin is the fact that the Network is decentralised...
Many people don't know that PayPal originally wanted to create a global currency similar to crypto.
Overall, a speculative thesis would be the following:
Satoshi Nakamoto is one of the most important entities of the 21st Century, and will accelerate the next transition of the human race.
Trusted third parties are security holes.
Bitcoin is the catalyst for Finance 2.0, whereby value transfer is conducted in a more meritocratic and decentralised fashion.
In 1964, Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev designed the Kardashev Scale.
At the time, he was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals.
The Scale has three categories, which are based on the amount of usable energy a civilisation has at its disposal, and the degree of space colonisation.
Generally, a Type 1 Civilisation has achieved mastery of its home planet (10^16W);
A Type 2 Civilisation has mastery over its solar system (10^26W);
and a Type 3 Civilisation has mastery over its Galaxy (10^36W).
We humans are a Type 0 Civilisation on this Scale.
Nonetheless, our exponential technological growth in the few decades indicates that we are somewhere between Type 0 and Type 1.
In fact, according to Carl Sagan's interpolated Kardashev Scale and recent global energy consumption, we are about 0.73.
Physicist Freeman Dyson estimated that within 200 years or so, we should attain Type 1 status.
As a technology that, through its decentralisation, links entities globally and makes value transfer between humans more efficient, Bitcoin could prove a key piece of our progression as a civilisation.
What are your thoughts?
Is it true...or false?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oQLOqpP1ZM
submitted by financeoptimum to conspiracy [link] [comments]

The Truth about Bitcoin?

Part 1/4 - NSA Connection:
First off, the SHA-256 algorithm, which stands for Secure Hash Algorithm 256, is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA and first published in 2001.
SHA-256, like other hash functions, takes any input and produces an output (often called a hash) of fixed length. The output of a hashing algorithm such as SHA-256 will always be the same length - regardless of the input size. Specifically, the output is, as the name suggests, 256 bits.
Moreover, all outputs appear completely random and offer no information about the input that created it.
The Bitcoin Network utilises the SHA-256 algorithm for mining and the creation of new addresses.
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? What does Satoshi Nakamoto mean?
Out of respect for their anonymity, it would be rude to speculate in a video about who Satoshi Nakamoto is likely to be. The reality is, it's not important. Let me explain: Any human being can be attacked. Jesus could come back from the dead, and there would be haters. Therefore, the Satoshi Nakamoto approach neutralises the natural human herd behaviour, exacerbated by the media, to attack and discredit. This is a very important part of Bitcoin's success thus far. Also, from a security perspective, those who wish to dox Satoshi Nakamoto in a video are essentially putting his, or her, or their, life at risk...for the sake of views.
As a genius who has produced an innovation not just from a technical perspective but also a monetary perspective, they should be treated with more respect than that.
As for the name Satoshi Nakamoto, I would speculate that it is a homage to Tatsuaki Okamoto and Satoshi Obana - two cryptographers from Japan. There is another reason for the name, but that...is confidential.
In 1996, the NSA's Cryptology Division of their Office of Information Security Research and Technology published a paper titled: "How to make a mint: The cryptography of anonymous electronic cash", first publishing it in an MIT mailing list and later, in 1997, in the American University Law Review. One of the researchers they referenced was Tatsuaki Okamoto.

Part 2/4 - 'Crypto Market':
Most of the crypto market is a scam.
By the way, this was predicted very early on in the Bitcoin Talk forums - check out this interaction from November 8th, 2010:
"if bitcoin really takes off I can see lots of get-rich-quick imitators coming on the scene: gitcoin, nitcoin, witcoin, titcoin, shitcoin...
Of course the cheap imitators will disappear as quickly as those 1990s "internet currencies", but lots of people will get burned along the way."
To which Bitcoin OG Gavin Andresen replies:
"I agree - we're in the Wild West days of open-source currency. I expect people will get burned by scams, imitators, ponzi schemes and price bubbles."
"I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done about scammers, imitators and ponzi schemes besides warning people to be careful with their money (whether dollars, euros or bitcoins)."
Now, on the one hand, lack of regulation is more meritocratic (as you don't have to be an accredited investor just to get access).
On the other hand, it means that crypto is, as Gavin said, a Wild West environment, with many cowboys in the Desert. Be careful.
This is the same with most online courses - particularly 'How to get rich quick' courses - however with crypto you have an exponential increase in the supply of victims during the bull cycles so it is particularly prevalent during those times.
In addition to this, leverage trading exchanges, which are no different to casinos, prey on naive retail traders who:
A) Think they can outsmart professional traders with actual risk management skills; and
B) Think they can outsmart the exchanges themselves who have an informational advantage as well as an incentive to chase stop losses and liquidate positions.

Part 3/4 - CBDCs:
The Fed and Central Banks around the world have printed themselves into a corner.
Quantitative easing was the band-aid for the Great Financial Crisis in 2008, and more recent events have propelled the rate of money printing to absurd levels.
This means that all currencies are in a race to zero - and it becomes a game of who can print more fiat faster.
The powers that be know that this fiat frenzy is unsustainable, and that more and more people are becoming aware that it is a debt based system, based on nothing.
The monetary system devised by bankers, for bankers, in 1913 on Jekyll Island and supercharged in 1971 is fairly archaic and also does not allow for meritocratic value transfer - fiat printing itself increases inequality.
They, obviously, know this (as it is by design).
The issue (for them) is that more and more people are starting to become aware of this.
Moving to a modernised monetary system will allow those who have rigged the rules of the game for the last Century to get away scot-free.
It will also pave the way for a new wealthy, and more tech literate, elite to emerge - again predicted in the Bitcoin Talk forums.
Now...back to the powers that be.
Bitcoin provides a natural transition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and what I would describe as Finance 2.0, but what are the benefits of CBDCs for the state?
More control, easier tax collection, more flexibility in monetary policy (i.e. negative interest rates) and generally a more efficient monetary system.
This leads us to the kicker: which is the war on cash. The cashless society was a fantasy just a few years ago, however now it doesn't seem so far fetched. No comment.

Part 4/4 - Bitcoin:
What about Bitcoin?
Well, Bitcoin has incredibly strong network effects; it is the most powerful computer network in the World.
But what about Bitcoin's reputation?
Bankers hate it.
Warren Buffett hates it.
Precisely, and the public hates bankers.
Sure, the investing public respects Buffett, but the general public perception of anyone worth $73 billion is not exactly at all time highs right now amid record wealth inequality.
In the grand scheme of things, the market cap of Bitcoin is currently around $179 billion.
For example, the market cap of Gold is around $9 trillion, which is 50x the Market Cap of Bitcoin.
Money has certain characteristics.
In my opinion, what makes Bitcoin unique is the fact that it has a finite total supply (21 million) and a predictable supply schedule via the halving events every 4 years, which cut in half the rate at which new Bitcoin is released into circulation.
Clearly, with these properties, it seems likely that Bitcoin could act as a meaningful hedge against inflation.
One of the key strengths of Bitcoin is the fact that the Network is decentralised...
Many people don't know that PayPal originally wanted to create a global currency similar to crypto.
Overall, a speculative thesis would be the following:
Satoshi Nakamoto is one of the most important entities of the 21st Century, and will accelerate the next transition of the human race.
Trusted third parties are security holes.
Bitcoin is the catalyst for Finance 2.0, whereby value transfer is conducted in a more meritocratic and decentralised fashion.
In 1964, Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev designed the Kardashev Scale.
At the time, he was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals.
The Scale has three categories, which are based on the amount of usable energy a civilisation has at its disposal, and the degree of space colonisation.
Generally, a Type 1 Civilisation has achieved mastery of its home planet (10^16W);
A Type 2 Civilisation has mastery over its solar system (10^26W);
and a Type 3 Civilisation has mastery over its Galaxy (10^36W).
We humans are a Type 0 Civilisation on this Scale.
Nonetheless, our exponential technological growth in the few decades indicates that we are somewhere between Type 0 and Type 1.
In fact, according to Carl Sagan's interpolated Kardashev Scale and recent global energy consumption, we are about 0.73.
Physicist Freeman Dyson estimated that within 200 years or so, we should attain Type 1 status.
As a technology that, through its decentralisation, links entities globally and makes value transfer between humans more efficient, Bitcoin could prove a key piece of our progression as a civilisation.
What are your thoughts?
Is it true...or false?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oQLOqpP1ZM
submitted by financeoptimum to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

The Truth about Bitcoin?

Part 1/4 - NSA Connection:
First off, the SHA-256 algorithm, which stands for Secure Hash Algorithm 256, is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA and first published in 2001.
SHA-256, like other hash functions, takes any input and produces an output (often called a hash) of fixed length. The output of a hashing algorithm such as SHA-256 will always be the same length - regardless of the input size. Specifically, the output is, as the name suggests, 256 bits.
Moreover, all outputs appear completely random and offer no information about the input that created it.
The Bitcoin Network utilises the SHA-256 algorithm for mining and the creation of new addresses.
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? What does Satoshi Nakamoto mean?
Out of respect for their anonymity, it would be rude to speculate in a video about who Satoshi Nakamoto is likely to be. The reality is, it's not important. Let me explain: Any human being can be attacked. Jesus could come back from the dead, and there would be haters. Therefore, the Satoshi Nakamoto approach neutralises the natural human herd behaviour, exacerbated by the media, to attack and discredit. This is a very important part of Bitcoin's success thus far. Also, from a security perspective, those who wish to dox Satoshi Nakamoto in a video are essentially putting his, or her, or their, life at risk...for the sake of views.
As a genius who has produced an innovation not just from a technical perspective but also a monetary perspective, they should be treated with more respect than that.
As for the name Satoshi Nakamoto, I would speculate that it is a homage to Tatsuaki Okamoto and Satoshi Obana - two cryptographers from Japan. There is another reason for the name, but that...is confidential.
In 1996, the NSA's Cryptology Division of their Office of Information Security Research and Technology published a paper titled: "How to make a mint: The cryptography of anonymous electronic cash", first publishing it in an MIT mailing list and later, in 1997, in the American University Law Review. One of the researchers they referenced was Tatsuaki Okamoto.

Part 2/4 - 'Crypto Market':
Most of the crypto market is a scam.
By the way, this was predicted very early on in the Bitcoin Talk forums - check out this interaction from November 8th, 2010:
"if bitcoin really takes off I can see lots of get-rich-quick imitators coming on the scene: gitcoin, nitcoin, witcoin, titcoin, shitcoin...
Of course the cheap imitators will disappear as quickly as those 1990s "internet currencies", but lots of people will get burned along the way."
To which Bitcoin OG Gavin Andresen replies:
"I agree - we're in the Wild West days of open-source currency. I expect people will get burned by scams, imitators, ponzi schemes and price bubbles."
"I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done about scammers, imitators and ponzi schemes besides warning people to be careful with their money (whether dollars, euros or bitcoins)."
Now, on the one hand, lack of regulation is more meritocratic (as you don't have to be an accredited investor just to get access).
On the other hand, it means that crypto is, as Gavin said, a Wild West environment, with many cowboys in the Desert. Be careful.
This is the same with most online courses - particularly 'How to get rich quick' courses - however with crypto you have an exponential increase in the supply of victims during the bull cycles so it is particularly prevalent during those times.
In addition to this, leverage trading exchanges, which are no different to casinos, prey on naive retail traders who:
A) Think they can outsmart professional traders with actual risk management skills; and
B) Think they can outsmart the exchanges themselves who have an informational advantage as well as an incentive to chase stop losses and liquidate positions.

Part 3/4 - CBDCs:
The Fed and Central Banks around the world have printed themselves into a corner.
Quantitative easing was the band-aid for the Great Financial Crisis in 2008, and more recent events have propelled the rate of money printing to absurd levels.
This means that all currencies are in a race to zero - and it becomes a game of who can print more fiat faster.
The powers that be know that this fiat frenzy is unsustainable, and that more and more people are becoming aware that it is a debt based system, based on nothing.
The monetary system devised by bankers, for bankers, in 1913 on Jekyll Island and supercharged in 1971 is fairly archaic and also does not allow for meritocratic value transfer - fiat printing itself increases inequality.
They, obviously, know this (as it is by design).
The issue (for them) is that more and more people are starting to become aware of this.
Moving to a modernised monetary system will allow those who have rigged the rules of the game for the last Century to get away scot-free.
It will also pave the way for a new wealthy, and more tech literate, elite to emerge - again predicted in the Bitcoin Talk forums.
Now...back to the powers that be.
Bitcoin provides a natural transition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and what I would describe as Finance 2.0, but what are the benefits of CBDCs for the state?
More control, easier tax collection, more flexibility in monetary policy (i.e. negative interest rates) and generally a more efficient monetary system.
This leads us to the kicker: which is the war on cash. The cashless society was a fantasy just a few years ago, however now it doesn't seem so far fetched. No comment.

Part 4/4 - Bitcoin:
What about Bitcoin?
Well, Bitcoin has incredibly strong network effects; it is the most powerful computer network in the World.
But what about Bitcoin's reputation?
Bankers hate it.
Warren Buffett hates it.
Precisely, and the public hates bankers.
Sure, the investing public respects Buffett, but the general public perception of anyone worth $73 billion is not exactly at all time highs right now amid record wealth inequality.
In the grand scheme of things, the market cap of Bitcoin is currently around $179 billion.
For example, the market cap of Gold is around $9 trillion, which is 50x the Market Cap of Bitcoin.
Money has certain characteristics.
In my opinion, what makes Bitcoin unique is the fact that it has a finite total supply (21 million) and a predictable supply schedule via the halving events every 4 years, which cut in half the rate at which new Bitcoin is released into circulation.
Clearly, with these properties, it seems likely that Bitcoin could act as a meaningful hedge against inflation.
One of the key strengths of Bitcoin is the fact that the Network is decentralised...
Many people don't know that PayPal originally wanted to create a global currency similar to crypto.
Overall, a speculative thesis would be the following:
Satoshi Nakamoto is one of the most important entities of the 21st Century, and will accelerate the next transition of the human race.
Trusted third parties are security holes.
Bitcoin is the catalyst for Finance 2.0, whereby value transfer is conducted in a more meritocratic and decentralised fashion.
In 1964, Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev designed the Kardashev Scale.
At the time, he was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals.
The Scale has three categories, which are based on the amount of usable energy a civilisation has at its disposal, and the degree of space colonisation.
Generally, a Type 1 Civilisation has achieved mastery of its home planet (10^16W);
A Type 2 Civilisation has mastery over its solar system (10^26W);
and a Type 3 Civilisation has mastery over its Galaxy (10^36W).
We humans are a Type 0 Civilisation on this Scale.
Nonetheless, our exponential technological growth in the few decades indicates that we are somewhere between Type 0 and Type 1.
In fact, according to Carl Sagan's interpolated Kardashev Scale and recent global energy consumption, we are about 0.73.
Physicist Freeman Dyson estimated that within 200 years or so, we should attain Type 1 status.
As a technology that, through its decentralisation, links entities globally and makes value transfer between humans more efficient, Bitcoin could prove a key piece of our progression as a civilisation.
What are your thoughts?
Is it true...or false?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oQLOqpP1ZM
submitted by financeoptimum to Money [link] [comments]

The Truth about Bitcoin?

Part 1/4 - NSA Connection:
First off, the SHA-256 algorithm, which stands for Secure Hash Algorithm 256, is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA and first published in 2001.
SHA-256, like other hash functions, takes any input and produces an output (often called a hash) of fixed length. The output of a hashing algorithm such as SHA-256 will always be the same length - regardless of the input size. Specifically, the output is, as the name suggests, 256 bits.
Moreover, all outputs appear completely random and offer no information about the input that created it.
The Bitcoin Network utilises the SHA-256 algorithm for mining and the creation of new addresses.
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? What does Satoshi Nakamoto mean?
Out of respect for their anonymity, it would be rude to speculate in a video about who Satoshi Nakamoto is likely to be. The reality is, it's not important. Let me explain: Any human being can be attacked. Jesus could come back from the dead, and there would be haters. Therefore, the Satoshi Nakamoto approach neutralises the natural human herd behaviour, exacerbated by the media, to attack and discredit. This is a very important part of Bitcoin's success thus far. Also, from a security perspective, those who wish to dox Satoshi Nakamoto in a video are essentially putting his, or her, or their, life at risk...for the sake of views.
As a genius who has produced an innovation not just from a technical perspective but also a monetary perspective, they should be treated with more respect than that.
As for the name Satoshi Nakamoto, I would speculate that it is a homage to Tatsuaki Okamoto and Satoshi Obana - two cryptographers from Japan. There is another reason for the name, but that...is confidential.
In 1996, the NSA's Cryptology Division of their Office of Information Security Research and Technology published a paper titled: "How to make a mint: The cryptography of anonymous electronic cash", first publishing it in an MIT mailing list and later, in 1997, in the American University Law Review. One of the researchers they referenced was Tatsuaki Okamoto.

Part 2/4 - 'Crypto Market':
Most of the crypto market is a scam.
By the way, this was predicted very early on in the Bitcoin Talk forums - check out this interaction from November 8th, 2010:
"if bitcoin really takes off I can see lots of get-rich-quick imitators coming on the scene: gitcoin, nitcoin, witcoin, titcoin, shitcoin...
Of course the cheap imitators will disappear as quickly as those 1990s "internet currencies", but lots of people will get burned along the way."
To which Bitcoin OG Gavin Andresen replies:
"I agree - we're in the Wild West days of open-source currency. I expect people will get burned by scams, imitators, ponzi schemes and price bubbles."
"I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done about scammers, imitators and ponzi schemes besides warning people to be careful with their money (whether dollars, euros or bitcoins)."
Now, on the one hand, lack of regulation is more meritocratic (as you don't have to be an accredited investor just to get access).
On the other hand, it means that crypto is, as Gavin said, a Wild West environment, with many cowboys in the Desert. Be careful.
This is the same with most online courses - particularly 'How to get rich quick' courses - however with crypto you have an exponential increase in the supply of victims during the bull cycles so it is particularly prevalent during those times.
In addition to this, leverage trading exchanges, which are no different to casinos, prey on naive retail traders who:
A) Think they can outsmart professional traders with actual risk management skills; and
B) Think they can outsmart the exchanges themselves who have an informational advantage as well as an incentive to chase stop losses and liquidate positions.

Part 3/4 - CBDCs:
The Fed and Central Banks around the world have printed themselves into a corner.
Quantitative easing was the band-aid for the Great Financial Crisis in 2008, and more recent events have propelled the rate of money printing to absurd levels.
This means that all currencies are in a race to zero - and it becomes a game of who can print more fiat faster.
The powers that be know that this fiat frenzy is unsustainable, and that more and more people are becoming aware that it is a debt based system, based on nothing.
The monetary system devised by bankers, for bankers, in 1913 on Jekyll Island and supercharged in 1971 is fairly archaic and also does not allow for meritocratic value transfer - fiat printing itself increases inequality.
They, obviously, know this (as it is by design).
The issue (for them) is that more and more people are starting to become aware of this.
Moving to a modernised monetary system will allow those who have rigged the rules of the game for the last Century to get away scot-free.
It will also pave the way for a new wealthy, and more tech literate, elite to emerge - again predicted in the Bitcoin Talk forums.
Now...back to the powers that be.
Bitcoin provides a natural transition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and what I would describe as Finance 2.0, but what are the benefits of CBDCs for the state?
More control, easier tax collection, more flexibility in monetary policy (i.e. negative interest rates) and generally a more efficient monetary system.
This leads us to the kicker: which is the war on cash. The cashless society was a fantasy just a few years ago, however now it doesn't seem so far fetched. No comment.

Part 4/4 - Bitcoin:
What about Bitcoin?
Well, Bitcoin has incredibly strong network effects; it is the most powerful computer network in the World.
But what about Bitcoin's reputation?
Bankers hate it.
Warren Buffett hates it.
Precisely, and the public hates bankers.
Sure, the investing public respects Buffett, but the general public perception of anyone worth $73 billion is not exactly at all time highs right now amid record wealth inequality.
In the grand scheme of things, the market cap of Bitcoin is currently around $179 billion.
For example, the market cap of Gold is around $9 trillion, which is 50x the Market Cap of Bitcoin.
Money has certain characteristics.
In my opinion, what makes Bitcoin unique is the fact that it has a finite total supply (21 million) and a predictable supply schedule via the halving events every 4 years, which cut in half the rate at which new Bitcoin is released into circulation.
Clearly, with these properties, it seems likely that Bitcoin could act as a meaningful hedge against inflation.
One of the key strengths of Bitcoin is the fact that the Network is decentralised...
Many people don't know that PayPal originally wanted to create a global currency similar to crypto.
Overall, a speculative thesis would be the following:
Satoshi Nakamoto is one of the most important entities of the 21st Century, and will accelerate the next transition of the human race.
Trusted third parties are security holes.
Bitcoin is the catalyst for Finance 2.0, whereby value transfer is conducted in a more meritocratic and decentralised fashion.
In 1964, Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev designed the Kardashev Scale.
At the time, he was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals.
The Scale has three categories, which are based on the amount of usable energy a civilisation has at its disposal, and the degree of space colonisation.
Generally, a Type 1 Civilisation has achieved mastery of its home planet (10^16W);
A Type 2 Civilisation has mastery over its solar system (10^26W);
and a Type 3 Civilisation has mastery over its Galaxy (10^36W).
We humans are a Type 0 Civilisation on this Scale.
Nonetheless, our exponential technological growth in the few decades indicates that we are somewhere between Type 0 and Type 1.
In fact, according to Carl Sagan's interpolated Kardashev Scale and recent global energy consumption, we are about 0.73.
Physicist Freeman Dyson estimated that within 200 years or so, we should attain Type 1 status.
As a technology that, through its decentralisation, links entities globally and makes value transfer between humans more efficient, Bitcoin could prove a key piece of our progression as a civilisation.
What are your thoughts?
Is it true...or false?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oQLOqpP1ZM
submitted by financeoptimum to economy [link] [comments]

Bitcoin and Meritocratic Capitalism

Part 1/4 - NSA Connection:
First off, the SHA-256 algorithm, which stands for Secure Hash Algorithm 256, is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA and first published in 2001.
SHA-256, like other hash functions, takes any input and produces an output (often called a hash) of fixed length. The output of a hashing algorithm such as SHA-256 will always be the same length - regardless of the input size. Specifically, the output is, as the name suggests, 256 bits.
Moreover, all outputs appear completely random and offer no information about the input that created it.
The Bitcoin Network utilises the SHA-256 algorithm for mining and the creation of new addresses.
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? What does Satoshi Nakamoto mean?
Out of respect for their anonymity, it would be rude to speculate in a video about who Satoshi Nakamoto is likely to be. The reality is, it's not important. Let me explain: Any human being can be attacked. Jesus could come back from the dead, and there would be haters. Therefore, the Satoshi Nakamoto approach neutralises the natural human herd behaviour, exacerbated by the media, to attack and discredit. This is a very important part of Bitcoin's success thus far. Also, from a security perspective, those who wish to dox Satoshi Nakamoto in a video are essentially putting his, or her, or their, life at risk...for the sake of views.
As a genius who has produced an innovation not just from a technical perspective but also a monetary perspective, they should be treated with more respect than that.
As for the name Satoshi Nakamoto, I would speculate that it is a homage to Tatsuaki Okamoto and Satoshi Obana - two cryptographers from Japan. There is another reason for the name, but that...is confidential.
In 1996, the NSA's Cryptology Division of their Office of Information Security Research and Technology published a paper titled: "How to make a mint: The cryptography of anonymous electronic cash", first publishing it in an MIT mailing list and later, in 1997, in the American University Law Review. One of the researchers they referenced was Tatsuaki Okamoto.

Part 2/4 - 'Crypto Market':
Most of the crypto market is a scam.
By the way, this was predicted very early on in the Bitcoin Talk forums - check out this interaction from November 8th, 2010:
"if bitcoin really takes off I can see lots of get-rich-quick imitators coming on the scene: gitcoin, nitcoin, witcoin, titcoin, shitcoin...
Of course the cheap imitators will disappear as quickly as those 1990s "internet currencies", but lots of people will get burned along the way."
To which Bitcoin OG Gavin Andresen replies:
"I agree - we're in the Wild West days of open-source currency. I expect people will get burned by scams, imitators, ponzi schemes and price bubbles."
"I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done about scammers, imitators and ponzi schemes besides warning people to be careful with their money (whether dollars, euros or bitcoins)."
Now, on the one hand, lack of regulation is more meritocratic (as you don't have to be an accredited investor just to get access).
On the other hand, it means that crypto is, as Gavin said, a Wild West environment, with many cowboys in the Desert. Be careful.
This is the same with most online courses - particularly 'How to get rich quick' courses - however with crypto you have an exponential increase in the supply of victims during the bull cycles so it is particularly prevalent during those times.
In addition to this, leverage trading exchanges, which are no different to casinos, prey on naive retail traders who:
A) Think they can outsmart professional traders with actual risk management skills; and
B) Think they can outsmart the exchanges themselves who have an informational advantage as well as an incentive to chase stop losses and liquidate positions.

Part 3/4 - CBDCs:
The Fed and Central Banks around the world have printed themselves into a corner.
Quantitative easing was the band-aid for the Great Financial Crisis in 2008, and more recent events have propelled the rate of money printing to absurd levels.
This means that all currencies are in a race to zero - and it becomes a game of who can print more fiat faster.
The powers that be know that this fiat frenzy is unsustainable, and that more and more people are becoming aware that it is a debt based system, based on nothing.
The monetary system devised by bankers, for bankers, in 1913 on Jekyll Island and supercharged in 1971 is fairly archaic and also does not allow for meritocratic value transfer - fiat printing itself increases inequality.
They, obviously, know this (as it is by design).
The issue (for them) is that more and more people are starting to become aware of this.
Moving to a modernised monetary system will allow those who have rigged the rules of the game for the last Century to get away scot-free.
It will also pave the way for a new wealthy, and more tech literate, elite to emerge - again predicted in the Bitcoin Talk forums.
Now...back to the powers that be.
Bitcoin provides a natural transition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and what I would describe as Finance 2.0, but what are the benefits of CBDCs for the state?
More control, easier tax collection, more flexibility in monetary policy (i.e. negative interest rates) and generally a more efficient monetary system.
This leads us to the kicker: which is the war on cash. The cashless society was a fantasy just a few years ago, however now it doesn't seem so far fetched. No comment.

Part 4/4 - Bitcoin:
What about Bitcoin?
Well, Bitcoin has incredibly strong network effects; it is the most powerful computer network in the World.
But what about Bitcoin's reputation?
Bankers hate it.
Warren Buffett hates it.
Precisely, and the public hates bankers.
Sure, the investing public respects Buffett, but the general public perception of anyone worth $73 billion is not exactly at all time highs right now amid record wealth inequality.
In the grand scheme of things, the market cap of Bitcoin is currently around $179 billion.
For example, the market cap of Gold is around $9 trillion, which is 50x the Market Cap of Bitcoin.
Money has certain characteristics.
In my opinion, what makes Bitcoin unique is the fact that it has a finite total supply (21 million) and a predictable supply schedule via the halving events every 4 years, which cut in half the rate at which new Bitcoin is released into circulation.
Clearly, with these properties, it seems likely that Bitcoin could act as a meaningful hedge against inflation.
One of the key strengths of Bitcoin is the fact that the Network is decentralised...
Many people don't know that PayPal originally wanted to create a global currency similar to crypto.
Overall, a speculative thesis would be the following:
Satoshi Nakamoto is one of the most important entities of the 21st Century, and will accelerate the next transition of the human race.
Trusted third parties are security holes.
Bitcoin is the catalyst for Finance 2.0, whereby value transfer is conducted in a more meritocratic and decentralised fashion.
In 1964, Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev designed the Kardashev Scale.
At the time, he was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals.
The Scale has three categories, which are based on the amount of usable energy a civilisation has at its disposal, and the degree of space colonisation.
Generally, a Type 1 Civilisation has achieved mastery of its home planet (10^16W);
A Type 2 Civilisation has mastery over its solar system (10^26W);
and a Type 3 Civilisation has mastery over its Galaxy (10^36W).
We humans are a Type 0 Civilisation on this Scale.
Nonetheless, our exponential technological growth in the few decades indicates that we are somewhere between Type 0 and Type 1.
In fact, according to Carl Sagan's interpolated Kardashev Scale and recent global energy consumption, we are about 0.73.
Physicist Freeman Dyson estimated that within 200 years or so, we should attain Type 1 status.
As a technology that, through its decentralisation, links entities globally and makes value transfer between humans more efficient, Bitcoin could prove a key piece of our progression as a civilisation.
What are your thoughts?
Is it true...or false?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oQLOqpP1ZM
submitted by financeoptimum to Capitalism [link] [comments]

The Truth about Bitcoin?

Part 1/4 - NSA Connection:
First off, the SHA-256 algorithm, which stands for Secure Hash Algorithm 256, is a member of the SHA-2 cryptographic hash functions designed by the NSA and first published in 2001.
SHA-256, like other hash functions, takes any input and produces an output (often called a hash) of fixed length. The output of a hashing algorithm such as SHA-256 will always be the same length - regardless of the input size. Specifically, the output is, as the name suggests, 256 bits.
Moreover, all outputs appear completely random and offer no information about the input that created it.
The Bitcoin Network utilises the SHA-256 algorithm for mining and the creation of new addresses.
Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? What does Satoshi Nakamoto mean?
Out of respect for their anonymity, it would be rude to speculate in a video about who Satoshi Nakamoto is likely to be. The reality is, it's not important. Let me explain: Any human being can be attacked. Jesus could come back from the dead, and there would be haters. Therefore, the Satoshi Nakamoto approach neutralises the natural human herd behaviour, exacerbated by the media, to attack and discredit. This is a very important part of Bitcoin's success thus far. Also, from a security perspective, those who wish to dox Satoshi Nakamoto in a video are essentially putting his, or her, or their, life at risk...for the sake of views.
As a genius who has produced an innovation not just from a technical perspective but also a monetary perspective, they should be treated with more respect than that.
As for the name Satoshi Nakamoto, I would speculate that it is a homage to Tatsuaki Okamoto and Satoshi Obana - two cryptographers from Japan. There is another reason for the name, but that...is confidential.
In 1996, the NSA's Cryptology Division of their Office of Information Security Research and Technology published a paper titled: "How to make a mint: The cryptography of anonymous electronic cash", first publishing it in an MIT mailing list and later, in 1997, in the American University Law Review. One of the researchers they referenced was Tatsuaki Okamoto.

Part 2/4 - 'Crypto Market':
Most of the crypto market is a scam.
By the way, this was predicted very early on in the Bitcoin Talk forums - check out this interaction from November 8th, 2010:
"if bitcoin really takes off I can see lots of get-rich-quick imitators coming on the scene: gitcoin, nitcoin, witcoin, titcoin, shitcoin...
Of course the cheap imitators will disappear as quickly as those 1990s "internet currencies", but lots of people will get burned along the way."
To which Bitcoin OG Gavin Andresen replies:
"I agree - we're in the Wild West days of open-source currency. I expect people will get burned by scams, imitators, ponzi schemes and price bubbles."
"I don't think there's a whole lot that can be done about scammers, imitators and ponzi schemes besides warning people to be careful with their money (whether dollars, euros or bitcoins)."
Now, on the one hand, lack of regulation is more meritocratic (as you don't have to be an accredited investor just to get access).
On the other hand, it means that crypto is, as Gavin said, a Wild West environment, with many cowboys in the Desert. Be careful.
This is the same with most online courses - particularly 'How to get rich quick' courses - however with crypto you have an exponential increase in the supply of victims during the bull cycles so it is particularly prevalent during those times.
In addition to this, leverage trading exchanges, which are no different to casinos, prey on naive retail traders who:
A) Think they can outsmart professional traders with actual risk management skills; and
B) Think they can outsmart the exchanges themselves who have an informational advantage as well as an incentive to chase stop losses and liquidate positions.

Part 3/4 - CBDCs:
The Fed and Central Banks around the world have printed themselves into a corner.
Quantitative easing was the band-aid for the Great Financial Crisis in 2008, and more recent events have propelled the rate of money printing to absurd levels.
This means that all currencies are in a race to zero - and it becomes a game of who can print more fiat faster.
The powers that be know that this fiat frenzy is unsustainable, and that more and more people are becoming aware that it is a debt based system, based on nothing.
The monetary system devised by bankers, for bankers, in 1913 on Jekyll Island and supercharged in 1971 is fairly archaic and also does not allow for meritocratic value transfer - fiat printing itself increases inequality.
They, obviously, know this (as it is by design).
The issue (for them) is that more and more people are starting to become aware of this.
Moving to a modernised monetary system will allow those who have rigged the rules of the game for the last Century to get away scot-free.
It will also pave the way for a new wealthy, and more tech literate, elite to emerge - again predicted in the Bitcoin Talk forums.
Now...back to the powers that be.
Bitcoin provides a natural transition to Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) and what I would describe as Finance 2.0, but what are the benefits of CBDCs for the state?
More control, easier tax collection, more flexibility in monetary policy (i.e. negative interest rates) and generally a more efficient monetary system.
This leads us to the kicker: which is the war on cash. The cashless society was a fantasy just a few years ago, however now it doesn't seem so far fetched. No comment.

Part 4/4 - Bitcoin:
What about Bitcoin?
Well, Bitcoin has incredibly strong network effects; it is the most powerful computer network in the World.
But what about Bitcoin's reputation?
Bankers hate it.
Warren Buffett hates it.
Precisely, and the public hates bankers.
Sure, the investing public respects Buffett, but the general public perception of anyone worth $73 billion is not exactly at all time highs right now amid record wealth inequality.
In the grand scheme of things, the market cap of Bitcoin is currently around $179 billion.
For example, the market cap of Gold is around $9 trillion, which is 50x the Market Cap of Bitcoin.
Money has certain characteristics.
In my opinion, what makes Bitcoin unique is the fact that it has a finite total supply (21 million) and a predictable supply schedule via the halving events every 4 years, which cut in half the rate at which new Bitcoin is released into circulation.
Clearly, with these properties, it seems likely that Bitcoin could act as a meaningful hedge against inflation.
One of the key strengths of Bitcoin is the fact that the Network is decentralised...
Many people don't know that PayPal originally wanted to create a global currency similar to crypto.
Overall, a speculative thesis would be the following:
Satoshi Nakamoto is one of the most important entities of the 21st Century, and will accelerate the next transition of the human race.
Trusted third parties are security holes.
Bitcoin is the catalyst for Finance 2.0, whereby value transfer is conducted in a more meritocratic and decentralised fashion.
In 1964, Russian astrophysicist Nikolai Kardashev designed the Kardashev Scale.
At the time, he was looking for signs of extraterrestrial life within cosmic signals.
The Scale has three categories, which are based on the amount of usable energy a civilisation has at its disposal, and the degree of space colonisation.
Generally, a Type 1 Civilisation has achieved mastery of its home planet (10^16W);
A Type 2 Civilisation has mastery over its solar system (10^26W);
and a Type 3 Civilisation has mastery over its Galaxy (10^36W).
We humans are a Type 0 Civilisation on this Scale.
Nonetheless, our exponential technological growth in the few decades indicates that we are somewhere between Type 0 and Type 1.
In fact, according to Carl Sagan's interpolated Kardashev Scale and recent global energy consumption, we are about 0.73.
Physicist Freeman Dyson estimated that within 200 years or so, we should attain Type 1 status.
As a technology that, through its decentralisation, links entities globally and makes value transfer between humans more efficient, Bitcoin could prove a key piece of our progression as a civilisation.
What are your thoughts?
Is it true...or false?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oQLOqpP1ZM
submitted by financeoptimum to investing_discussion [link] [comments]

The possibility of community de-anonymizing attacks of /r/btc, sockpuppet revealing and the serious flaw in Bitcoin Cash's SLP tokens.

This post is an informative security briefing, done in the style of responsible disclosure to allow Bitcoin Cash users to consider their security.
It is expected if this security briefing manages to breach the heavily controlled censorship on /btc and actually gets posted there that the response will be "use Cashshuffle". This is not a good response for people who have whitecoins (i.e. legal ones) and will be mixing them with coins from unknown sources which can and most probably will lead to future problems with authorities. Not everybody has the pleasure of being official domiciled on St. Kitts & Nevis like Roger Ver or Andreas Brekken.
This is for all interested users and describes practices that have been done and attacks that could be prepared and is achievable not logged into reddit and just by referencing archived posts from archive.is [such as this one].(http://archive.is/OF419)
This post is being written to highlight a serious flaw and to raise the concern and security awareness of /btc users so they learn to value Satoshi Nakamoto's Wrightpaper and all it states about anonymity and privacy which are 2 different things. No doxxing or breaking of rules or T&C has been done and all information is information that has willingly been published by the authors in their quest for free useless valueless dumbass tokens.
SLP (Simple Ledger Protocol) is a basic token system for Bitcoin Cash created by Gabriel Cardona. This is one of the few developments that has happened on Bitcoin Cash that has not been copied from somewhere else, so is worth analysing to value their competence.
The idea is for very little fee you can create a token with a Ticker Symbol, a Description and a URI and can create any quantity of specific tokens.
As Bitcoin Cash is permissionless any user using memo.cash can create a token in less than a minute or any user with reasonable Javascript skills can create thousands of custom tokens with a simple script and very little cost.
Problem 1: Harassment by Token
Normally using services such as memo.cash you can block a user from being able to send you messages. A way to bypass this is simply to write your message as a token name, or a series of tokens you mint and sent to the user, or using programming mint into the possession of the user with just 1 TX.
And example would be a token sent to user Bob From Alice.
Alice creates a token with qty of 1 with ticker symbol name: "Bob you are a fucking asshole and I hate you". Ticker symbol names can have long lengths, but also additional messages could be in the description. Also a URL attached to the token which would probably be opened could include more text or even an insulting or offensive photo or image. In addition if the URL was a server Alice controlled it could include a unique ID such as http://alice.com/?frombobstoken which would allow the capturing of Bob's IP address by checking the logs so Alice would know it.
This harassment could be simple trolling, or it could verge on serious harassment in the case of example a ex-girlfriend. All you would need is the users SLP address, and you could follow the address as they moved other SLP tokens from their wallet.
A series of messages (unique tokens) can be created all with individual messages. This is different to most forms of internet-based harassment as users generally have their wallets on their cellphones, so the harassment literally gets to their pockets by way of a new token notification.
Problem 2: De-anonymizing Users
Users regularly try to get free SLP tokens by posting their addresses alongside their usernames. Common platforms are Telegram and forums, however it seems Roger Ver himself gets users to do this on reddit and even he is aware of the security implications but does not care.
An example would be this posting
It easy to see which users are posting "in-use" SLP addresses, and also the SLP addresses of the senders. Also sock puppets can be identified.
If I told you ErdoganTalk was MemoryDealers would it surprise you?
So now you could mint tokens with just a qty 1 token, you can mint thousands of custom tokens sending 1 to each reddit user with their reddit username as part of the token symbol to allow you to track these users throughout the blockchain.
Combine this with the flaw highlighted above (harassment etc..) and you can see that SLP tokens, Simple Ledger Protocol is really a dumbass protocol thought of by dumbass developers with little security thought or oversight.
The most important security is the security of your users and their well-being. Bitcoin Cash has clearly failed.
Thanks all for reading. Any questions reach out to me ( jim-btc ). Thanks :-)
Donations: $jimjim
submitted by jim-btc to bitcoincashSV [link] [comments]

Technical: Pay-to-contract and Sign-to-contract

What's this? I don't make a Technical post for a month and now BitPay is censoring the Hong Kong Free Press? Shit I'm sorry, it's all my fault for not posting a Technical post regularly!! Now posting one so that we have a censorship-free Bitcoin universe!
Pay-to-contract and sign-to-contract are actually cryptographic techniques to allow you to embed a commitment in a public key (pay-to-contract) or signature (sign-to-contract). This commitment can be revealed independently of the public key / signature without leaking your private key, and the existence of the commitment does not prevent you from using the public key / signature as a normal pubkey/signature for a normal digital signing algorithm.
Both techniques utilize elliptic curve homomorphism. Let's digress into that a little first.

Elliptic Curve Homomorphism

Let's get an oversimplified view of the maths involved first.
First, we have two "kinds" of things we can compute on.
  1. One kind is "scalars". These are just very large single numbers. Traditionally represented by small letters.
  2. The other kind is "points". These are just pairs of large numbers. Traditionally represented by large letters.
Now, an "Elliptic Curve" is just a special kind of curve with particular mathematical properties. I won't go into those properties, for the very reasonable reason that I don't actually understand them (I'm not a cryptographer, I only play one on reddit!).
If you have an Elliptic Curve, and require that all points you work with are on some Elliptic Curve, then you can do these operations.
  1. Add, subtract, multiply, and divide scalars. Remember, scalars are just very big numbers. So those basic mathematical operations still work on big numbers, they're just big numbers.
  2. "Multiply" a scalar by a point, resulting in a point. This is written as a * B, where a is the scalar and B is a point. This is not just multiplying the scalar to the point coordinates, this is some special Elliptic Curve thing that I don't understand either.
  3. "Add" two points together. This is written as A + B. Again, this is some special Elliptic Curve thing.
The important part is that if you have:
A = a * G B = b * G Q = A + B 
Then:
q = a + b Q = q * G 
That is, if you add together two points that were each derived from multiplying an arbitarry scalar with the same point (G in the above), you get the same result as adding the scalars together first, then multiplying their sum with the same point will yield the same number. Or:
a * G + b * G = (a + b) * G 
And because multiplication is just repeated addition, the same concept applies when multiplying:
a * (b * G) = (a * b) * G = (b * a) * G = b * (a * G) 
Something to note in particular is that there are few operations on points. One operation that's missing is "dividing" a point by a point to yield a scalar. That is, if you have:
A = a * G 
Then, if you know A but don't know the scalar a, you can't do the below:
a = A / G 
You can't get a even if you know both the points A and G.
In Elliptic Curve Cryptography, scalars are used as private keys, while points are used as public keys. This is particularly useful since if you have a private key (scalar), you can derive a public key (point) from it (by multiplying the scalar with a certain standard point, which we call the "generator point", traditionally G). But there is no reverse operation to get the private key from the public key.

Commitments

Let's have another mild digression.
Sometimes, you want to "commit' to something that you want to keep hidden for now. This is actually important in some games and so on. For example, if you are paying a game of Twenty Questions, one player must first write the object they are thinking of, then fold or hide it in such a way that what they wrote is not visible. Then, after the guessing player has asked twenty questions to narrow down what the object is and has revealed what he or she thinks the object being guessed was, the guessee reveals the object by unfodling and showing the paper.
The act of writing down commits you to the specific thing you wrote down. Folding the paper and/or hiding it, err, hides what you wrote down. Later, when you unfold the paper, you reveal your commitment.
The above is the analogy to the development of cryptographic commitments.
  1. First you select some thing --- it could be anything, a song, a random number, a promise to deliver products and services, the real identity of Satoshi Nakamoto.
  2. You commit to it by giving it as input to a one-way function. A one-way function is a function which allows you to get an output from an input, but after you perform that there is no way to reverse it and determine the original input knowing only the final output. Hash functions like SHA are traditionally used as one-way functions. As a one-way function, this hides your original input.
  3. You give the commitment (the output of the one-way function given your original input) to whoever wants you to commit.
  4. Later, when somebody demands to show what you committed to (for example after playing Twenty Questions), you reveal the commitment by giving the original input to the one-way function (i.e. the thing you selected in the first step, which was the thing you wanted to commit to).
  5. Whoever challenged you can verify your commitment by feeding your supposed original input to the same one-way function. If you honestly gave the correct input, then the challenger will get the output that you published above in step 3.

Salting

Now, sometimes there are only a few possible things you can select from. For example, instead of Twenty Questions you might be playing a Coin Toss Guess game.
What we'd do would be that, for example, I am the guesser and you the guessee. You select either "heads" or "tails" and put it in a commitment which you hand over to me. Then, I say "heads" or "tails" and have you reveal your commitment. If I guessed correctly I win, if not you win.
Unfortunately, if we were to just use a one-way function like an SHA hash function, it would be very trivial for me to win. All I would need to do would be to try passing "heads" and "tails" to the one-way function and see which one matches the commitment you gave me. Then I can very easily find out what your committed value was, winning the game consistently. In hacking, this can be made easier by making Rainbow Tables, and is precisely the technique used to derive passwords from password databases containing hashes of the passwords.
The way to solve this is to add a salt. This is basically just a large random number that we prepend (or append, order doesn't matter) to the actual value you want to commit to. This means that not only do I have to feed "heads" or "tails", I also have to guess the large random number (the salt). If the possible space of large random numbers is large enough, this prevents me from being able to peek at your committed data. The salt is sometimes called a blinding factor.

Pay-to-contract

Hiding commitments in pubkeys!
Pay-to-contract allows you to publish a public key, whose private key you can derive, while also being a cryptographic commitment. In particular, your private key is also used to derive a salt.
The key insight here is to realize that "one-way function" is not restricted to hash functions like SHA. The operation below is an example of a one-way function too:
h(a) = a * G 
This results in a point, but once the point (the output) is known, it is not possible to derive the input (the scalar a above). This is of course restricted to having the input be a scalar only, instead of an arbitrary-length message, but you can add a hash function (which can accept an arbitrary-length input) and then make its output (a fixed-length scalar) as the scalar to use.
First, pay-to-contract requires you to have a public and private keypair.
; p is private key P = p * G ; P is now public key 
Then, you have to select a contract. This is just any arbitrary message containing any arbitrary thing (it could be an object for Twenty Questions, or "heads" or "tails" for Coin Toss Guessing). Traditionally, this is symbolized as the small letter s.
In order to have a pay-to-contract public key, you need to compute the below from your public key P (called the internal public key; by analogy the private key p is the internal private key):
Q = P + h(P | s) * G 
"h()" is any convenient hash function, which takes anything of arbitrary length, and outputs a scalar, which you can multiply by G. The syntax "P | s" simply means that you are prepending the point P to the contract s.
The cute thing is that P serves as your salt. Any private key is just an arbitrary random scalar. Multiplying the private key by the generator results in an arbitrary-seeming point. That random point is now your salt, which makes this into a genuine bonafide hiding cryptographic commitment!
Now Q is a point, i.e. a public key. You might be interested in knowing its private key, a scalar. Suppose you postulate the existence of a scalar q such that:
 Q = q * G 
Then you can do the below:
 Q = P + h(P | s) * G Q = p * G + h(P | s) * G Q = (p + h(P | s)) * G 
Then we can conclude that:
 q = p + h(P | s) 
Of note is that somebody else cannot learn the private key q unless they already know the private key p. Knowing the internal public key P is not enough to learn the private key q. Thus, as long as you are the only one who knows the internal private key p, and you keep it secret, then only you can learn the private key q that can be used to sign with the public key Q (that is also a pay-to-contract commitment).
Now Q is supposed to be a commitment, and once somebody else knows Q, they can challenge you to reveal your committed value, the contract s. Revealing the pay-to-contract commitment is done by simply giving the internal public key P (which doubles as the salt) and the committed value contract s.
The challenger then simply computes:
P + h(P | s) * G 
And verifies that it matches the Q you gave before.
Some very important properties are:
  1. If you reveal first, then you still remain in sole control of the private key. This is because revelation only shows the internal public key and the contract, neither of which can be used to learn the internal private key. So you can reveal and sign in any order you want, without precluding the possibility of performing the other operation in the future.
  2. If you sign with the public key Q first, then you do not need to reveal the internal public key P or the contract s. You can compute q simply from the internal private key p and the contract s. You don't even need to pass those in to your signing algorithm, it could just be given the computed q and the message you want to sign!
  3. Anyone verifying your signature using the public key Q is unaware that it is also used as a cryptographic commitment.
Another property is going to blow your mind:
  1. You don't have to know the internal private key p in order to create a commitment pay-to-contract public key Q that commits to a contract s you select.
Remember:
Q = P + h(P | s) * G 
The above equation for Q does not require that you know the internal private key p. All you need to know is the internal public key P. Since public keys are often revealed publicly, you can use somebody else's public key as the internal public key in a pay-to-contract construction.
Of course, you can't sign for Q (you need to know p to compute the private key q) but this is sometimes an interesting use.
The original proposal for pay-to-contract was that a merchant would publish their public key, then a customer would "order" by writing the contract s with what they wanted to buy. Then, the customer would generate the public key Q (committing to s) using the merchant's public key as the internal public key P, then use that in a P2PKH or P2WPKH. Then the customer would reveal the contract s to the merchant, placing their order, and the merchant would now be able to claim the money.
Another general use for pay-to-contract include publishing a commitment on the blockchain without using an OP_RETURN output. Instead, you just move some of your funds to yourself, using your own public key as the internal public key, then selecting a contract s that commits or indicates what you want to anchor onchain. This should be the preferred technique rather than OP_RETURN. For example, colored coin implementations over Bitcoin usually used OP_RETURN, but the new RGB colored coin technique uses pay-to-contract instead, reducing onchain bloat.

Taproot

Pay-to-contract is also used in the nice new Taproot concept.
Briefly, taproot anchors a Merkle tree of scripts. The root of this tree is the contract s committed to. Then, you pay to a SegWit v1 public key, where the public key is the Q pay-to-contract commitment.
When spending a coin paying to a SegWit v1 output with a Taprooted commitment to a set of scripts s, you can do one of two things:
  1. Sign directly with the key. If you used Taproot, use the commitment private key q.
  2. Reveal the commitment, then select the script you want to execute in the Merkle tree of scripts (prove the Markle tree path to the script). Then satisfy the conditions of the script.
Taproot utilizes the characteristics of pay-to-contract:
  1. If you reveal first, then you still remain in sole control of the private key.
    • This is important if you take the Taproot path and reveal the commitment to the set of scripts s. If your transaction gets stalled on the mempool, others can know your commitment details. However, revealing the commitment will not reveal the internal private key p (which is needed to derive the commitment private key q), so nobody can RBF out your transaction by using the sign-directly path.
  2. If you sign with the public key Q first, then you do not need to reveal the internal public key P or the contract s.
    • This is important for privacy. If you are able to sign with the commitment public key, then that automatically hides the fact that you could have used an alternate script s instead of the key Q.
  3. Anyone verifying your signature using the public key Q is unaware that it is also used as a cryptographic commitment.
    • Again, privacy. Fullnodes will not know that you had the ability to use an alternate script path.
Taproot is intended to be deployed with the switch to Schnorr-based signatures in SegWit v1. In particular, Schnorr-based signatures have the following ability that ECDSA cannot do except with much more difficulty:
As public keys can, with Schnorr-based signatures, easily represent an n-of-n signing set, the internal public key P can also actually be a MuSig n-of-n signing set. This allows for a number of interesting protocols, which have a "good path" that will be private if that is taken, but still have fallbacks to ensure proper execution of the protocol and prevent attempts at subverting the protocol.

Escrow Under Taproot

Traditionally, escrow is done with a 2-of-3 multisignature script.
However, by use of Taproot and pay-to-contract, it's possible to get more privacy than traditional escrow services.
Suppose we have a buyer, a seller, and an escrow service. They have keypairs B = b * G, S = s * G, and E = e * G.
The buyer and seller then generate a Taproot output (which the buyer will pay to before the seller sends the product).
The Taproot itself uses an internal public key that is the 2-of-2 MuSig of B and S, i.e. MuSig(B, S). Then it commits to a pair of possible scripts:
  1. Release to a 2-of-2 MuSig of seller and escrow. This path is the "escrow sides with seller" path.
  2. Release to a 2-of-2 MuSig of buyer and escrow. This path is the "escrow sides with buyer" path.
Now of course, the escrow also needs to learn what the transaction was supposed to be about. So what we do is that the escrow key is actually used as the internal public key of another pay-to-contract, this time with the script s containing the details of the transaction. For example, if the buyer wants to buy some USD, the contract could be "Purchase of 50 pieces of United States Federal Reserve Green Historical Commemoration papers for 0.357 satoshis".
This takes advantage of the fact that the committer need not know the private key behind the public key being used in a pay-to-contract commitment. The actual transaction it is being used for is committed to onchain, because the public key published on the blockchain ultimately commits (via a taproot to a merkle tree to a script containing a MuSig of a public key modified with the committed contract) to the contract between the buyer and seller.
Thus, the cases are:
  1. Buyer and seller are satisfied, and cooperatively create a signature that spends the output to the seller.
    • The escrow service never learns it could have been an escrow. The details of their transaction remain hidden and private, so the buyer is never embarrassed over being so tacky as to waste their hard money buying USD.
  2. The buyer and seller disagree (the buyer denies having received the goods in proper quality).
    • They contact the escrow, and reveal the existence of the onchain contract, and provide the data needed to validate just what, exactly, the transaction was supposed to be about. This includes revealing the "Purchase of 50 pieces of United States Federal Reserve Green Historical Commemoration papers for 0.357 satoshis", as well as all the data needed to validate up to that level. The escrow then investigates the situation and then decides in favor of one or the other. It signs whatever transaction it decides (either giving it to the seller or buyer), and possibly also extracts an escrow fee.

Smart Contracts Unchained

Developed by ZmnSCPxj here: https://zmnscpxj.github.io/bitcoin/unchained.html
A logical extension of the above escrow case is to realize that the "contract" being given to the escrow service is simply some text that is interpreted by the escrow, and which is then executed by the escrow to determine where the funds should go.
Now, the language given in the previous escrow example is English. But nothing prevents the contract from being written in another language, including a machine-interpretable one.
Smart Contracts Unchained simply makes the escrow service an interpreter for some Smart Contract scripting language.
The cute thing is that there still remains an "everything good" path where the participants in the smart contract all agree on what the result is. In that case, with Taproot, there is no need to publish the smart contract --- only the participants know, and nobody else has to. This is an improvement in not only privacy, but also blockchain size --- the smart contract itself never has to be published onchain, only the commitment to it is (and that is embedded in a public key, which is necessary for basic security on the blockchain anyway!).

Sign-to-contract

Hiding commitments in signatures!
Sign-to-contract is something like the dual or inverse of pay-to-contract. Instead of hiding a commitment in the public key, it is hidden in the signature.
Sign-to-contract utilizes the fact that signatures need to have a random scalar r which is then published as the point R = r * G.
Similarly to pay-to-contract, we can have an internal random scalar p and internal point P that is used to compute R:
R = P + h(P | s) * G 
The corresponding random scalar r is:
r = p + h(P | s) 
The signing algorithm then uses the modified scalar r.
This is in fact just the same method of commitment as in pay-to-contract. The operations of committing and revealing are the same. The only difference is where the commitment is stored.
Importantly, however, is that you cannot take somebody else's signature and then create an alternate signature that commits to some s you select. This is in contrast with pay-to-contract, where you can take somebody else's public key and then create an alternate public key that commits to some s you select.
Sign-to-contract is somewhat newer as a concept than pay-to-contract. It seems there are not as many applications of pay-to-contract yet.

Uses

Sign-to-contract can be used, like pay-to-contract, to publish commitments onchain.
The difference is below:
  1. Signatures are attached to transaction inputs.
  2. Public keys are attached to transaction outputs.
One possible use is in a competitor to Open Timestamps. Open Timestamps currently uses OP_RETURN to commit to a Merkle Tree root of commitments aggregated by an Open Timestamps server.
Instead of using such an OP_RETURN, individual wallets can publish a timestamped commitment by making a self-paying transaction, embedding the commitment inside the signature for that transaction. Such a feature can be added to any individual wallet software. https://blog.eternitywall.com/2018/04/13/sign-to-contract/
This does not require any additional infrastructure (i.e. no aggregating servers like in Open Timestamps).

R Reuse Concerns

ECDSA and Schnorr-based signature schemes are vulnerable to something called "R reuse".
Basically, if the same R is used for different messages (transactions) with the same public key, a third party with both signatures can compute the private key.
This is concerning especially if the signing algorithm is executed in an environment with insufficient entropy. By complete accident, the environment might yield the same random scalar r in two different runs. Combined with address reuse (which implies public key reuse) this can leak the private key inadvertently.
For example, most hardware wallets will not have any kind of entropy at all.
The usual solution to this is, instead of selecting an arbitrary random r (which might be impossible in limited environments with no available entropy), is to hash the message and use the hash as the r.
This ensures that if the same public key is used again for a different message, then the random r is also different, preventing reuse at all.
Of course, if you are using sign-to-contract, then you can't use the above "best practice".
It seems to me plausible that computing the internal random scalar p using the hash of the message (transaction) should work, then add the commitment on top of that. However, I'm not an actual cryptographer, I just play one on Reddit. Maybe apoelstra or pwuille can explain in more detail.
Copyright 2019 Alan Manuel K. Gloria. Released under CC-BY.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

#HEX Snapshot WARNING : 2 weeks! December 2nd 0:00:00 UTC

#HEX Snapshot WARNING : 2 weeks! December 2nd 0:00:00 UTC
UPDATE : Sunday, November 17th, 2019.
The time of the HEX snapshot has finally been announced!!!
Below is the official announcement quoting Richard Heart.

The HEX.win snapshot will occur December 2nd at the first Bitcoin block mined after 00:00:00 UTC. You must have access to the private keys to your Bitcoin address having a balance at that exact blockheight to be able to submit a claim after. If you have a normal or segwit bitcoin address, you are very likely to be eligible to claim.
https://www.timeanddate.com/countdown/generic?iso=20191202T00&p0=1440&msg=HEX.win%20Bitcoin%20Snapshot&font=sanserif
To read more about which addresses are eligible, please visit https://hex.win/techspecs.html.
The HEX contract will be targeted for launch at 00:00:00 UTC the next day after the snapshot. You will have a day to gather up ETH and convert BTC into ETH to join the Adoption Amplifier on day 1. This way you can both FreeClaim and then transform the BTC to ETH to transform into HEX via the AA system. If you don’t already have BTC it’s very likely you will make much more HEX buying ETH to send to the AA system, than by buying BTC just to FreeClaim with it. The math is here: https://hex.win/adoption-amplifier.html

https://preview.redd.it/4c4x95k9n7z31.png?width=1782&format=png&auto=webp&s=05c83554f473d91ae62300f619391b3b409045a5

That’s it! Get ready! 2 weeks!
Remember to use my referral link if I helped you to learn about HEX!
We both benefit more!
https://hex.win/?r=0xF8656b3f2c0D0bEd70d7276fdEC6BD082263437A
•••
Read further if you are interested in the fundamental reason you want to be involved with HEX.

https://hex.win/?r=0xF8656b3f2c0D0bEd70d7276fdEC6BD082263437A
If I am bringing you HEX now for more or less the first time and you are convinced of the fundamental reason after you have read this article that you should get involved with HEX then kindly use my referral link because, after all, I brought it to your attention, plus you not only I benefit! You get an extra 10% HEX when you claim using a referral link versus not using one.
So how does it work.
Basically, anyone holding Bitcoin at the exact time and blockheight of the Bitcoin blockchain of the HEX snapshot will be able to claim free HEX ERC-20 tokens into an Ethereum address you own. Without referral bonuses and all the rest of the bonuses the ratio is 10000 HEX : 1 BTC.
I don’t care how much BTC you have or how little you think you have, you must claim or you will be crying later I guarantee it. Free will exists of course, and not paying attention does have consequences. However, there is absolutely nothing to lose by claiming HEX which you will only have a certain amount of time from the snapshot to claim (51 weeks) and the longer you wait, the less HEX you are able to claim designedly so.
If HEX is successful it will be #2 next to Bitcoin in a few years. I will explore speculative possibilities of this later on. I will help everyone be sure to be able to claim on Day 0 to maximize our bonuses. HEX is the most brilliant project in all of cryptocurrency. I don’t care if anyone claims otherwise, for what more common financial service or product is there in the whole world besides currency? Certificate of Deposit, aka Time Deposit, which is essentially the ability to “stake” capital for a contracted length of time, and in exchange the counter-party bank compensates you for your “risk” or your “investment” into their centralized system, by “guaranteeing” interest paid in return to you as per terms and conditions of aforementioned contract.
HEX is a stroke of genius that has gone largely unrecognized in the crypto space. Mainly I surmise because some people deplore Richard Heart for how successful he’s been in the past, plus how generally right he’s been about many things which particularly unintelligent people hate and fail to appreciate, and how idiots defined as idiots because they don’t even examine the project objectively because they just can’t stand Heart for whatever stupid reason. They think Richard Heart is arrogant? No, it is they that are arrogant that deny the tremendous possibility HEX represents and may accomplish. So they refuse like close-minded people do to even consider the possibilities of such a project as Hex. People like that deserve to stay broke or get broke.
Why is HEX so brilliant?
Well first have a review of what is a traditional Certificate of Deposit.
https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Certificate_of_deposit
Who needs a traditional fiat-based Certificate of Deposit anymore? It makes zero sense now that we have the smart-contracted trustless-interest functionality enabled by cryptography and inimitably clever game theoretics, a novel invention that will rapidly enough emerge and burst onto the theater of crypto, HEX.
Well how much money in the world is currently bonded up into contracts, these so-called Certificate of Deposits (more accurately called time deposits)? According to Richard Heart the number is $7 trillion between the United States and China alone! Wait a minute, what was the market cap of Bitcoin when it was $20k in December 2017? Well not even half a trillion. Pathetic!

Remember when?
So why am I mentioning Bitcoin’s previous ATH marketcap? Because to imagine the fullest possibility of HEX we have to imagine the fullest possibility of Bitcoin. Obviously Bitcoin when going down for ages everything else sinks incalculably faster! On the other hand when Bitcoin is in a bull run for multiple years culminating in an explosion of energy which it blows off at the “top” everything else is rising and exploding also like fireworks, the sounds of millions at once getting REKT, by the so-called dumping of whales of their favorite “shitcoins” on their frightful heads as they are left eternally weeping over heavy bags chanting “how did the government let this happen!”
The point is Bitcoin will continue as it has in the past in cycles, which is part and parcel of the design of it by Bitcoin’s creator, Satoshi Nakamoto, profound genius, probably deceased. If we can imagine that Bitcoin will as Trace Mayer calls it as “a blackhole on the world’s balance sheet” to continue to function as such, it will voraciously proceed to eat every single fiat currency of the world out of existence. Bitcoin is an intelligence test and a solution to the problem of power. Where power can corrupt, it must corrupt, because power corrupts only those that love having it most, and obviously, who enjoys most working to possess more and more power? Think just what am I advocating for? To what principle or philosophy is my devotion, or am I just a loyal slave to the “hand that pays my salary I shall not question”? Cryptocurrency is ultimately about FREEDOM. We’ve already won this is what few understand. How does the saying go, “first they deny and laugh at you, then they fight you, and then you win.”
Bitcoin is destined to be valued at, in today’s dollar terms, trillions upon trillions of dollars. Anyone who suggests otherwise just don’t get it, because perhaps they just can’t get it.
https://www.bitcoin.kn/
https://digitalik.net/btc/sf_model
What’s the speculative highly approximated math?
18,000,000 Bitcoin * $1,000,000 = $18,000,000,000,000
Is that possible? Definitely. How soon, who knows.
Why is this relevant to HEX?
Because I am trying to imagine what the marketcap of HEX would be 5 years out, 10 years out, 15 years out. And how am I supposed to do that except to use Bitcoin as a basis? I don’t care in the slightest what the marketcap valuation of HEX is in terms of U.S. Dollars. Who cares? Do you really expect the US Dollar to still have the same purchasing power it does today in the near to far future? The answer is simply that it will not for reasons you can learn from Andreas Antonopolous, a gifted patient educator on the beauty and elegance of the invention of bitcoin and its implications on the world.
Now, these speculations are necessary to estimate the potential marketcap of HEX. We know there exists $7 trillion in conventional CDs between the United States and China. That’s the market demand in other words strictly in terms of US Dollars and not even including all the other currencies. Obviously all of that isn’t going to dump into HEX overnight. However, long term that is definitely the potential. What’s going to happen as the dollar loses global hegemony? What is going to be the value of those conventional CDs then? Will the market, i.e. the demand, just disappear? Of course not, it will just find the next best thing, which will just so happen to be HEX, which is designed to specifically replace those CD’s by a technologically superior mechanism that decentralizes the same functionality offered by banks. Not to mention the fact that people who would have otherwise been privy to CDs but couldn’t because of certain stupid limitations imposed on them by the banks will now have the same opportunity permissionlessly available to them via HEX.
I think Bitcoin can easily be $1,000,000 in the next 10 years, but what about 15 years, maybe $10,000,000? Why 15 years? Because with HEX you are given the option to set your trustless-interest yielding time-deposits for up to 15 years! And all I care about at the end of the day when my stakes have completed the set time is not the value of HEX in terms of dollars but in terms of Bitcoin. How many satoshi’s is 1 HEX? My argument or suggestion is just this : Given the market that HEX, as an innovative technology which obsoletizes traditional CD’s, dares to claim and probably even exceed by far, it is not unreasonable to speculate that HEX could very well become #2 next to Bitcoin in the future.

HEX Time-Deposit trustless-interest functionality will make CD's obsolete.
What am I saying here? I’m saying in the future, we won’t be measuring different cryptos against each other in terms of their dollar values but rather in terms of their satoshi values, or bitcoin values. And I think HEX at that point will comprise anywhere in a range of 5%-15% the marketcap of bitcoin itself, for the value of HEX in terms of bitcoin will be such that it is as IF 5%-15% of the bitcoin marketcap was locked in HEX. Obviously HEX is its own currency, however what is it measured against? The answer can only be bitcoin. So if I want to know what the marketcap of HEX in bitcoin would be in 15 years, I just have to guess what the marketcap of BTC will be in 15 years. As aforementioned, BTC if would be $1,000,000 implies a marketcap of very roughly $18 Trillion. 5%-15% of $18 Trillion is $0.9 Trillion — $2.7 Trillion. How soon would Bitcoin be $1,000,000 though? Who knows. The time is the unknown variable, we already know the potential, the question isn’t how or what, is when. But I’d estimate less than 10 years. With HEX, stakes can be set for up to 15 years. Daresay Bitcoin could be valued at $10,000,000 in 15 years? That would be equal to roughly $180 Trillion.
Could it? Supposing it would for imagination’s sake, what would the marketcap in % of Bitcoin’s marketcap be the value of HEX? 5%-15% of $180 Trillion is $9 Trillion — $27 Trillion.
Conclusively the argument is clear, simply that HEX has the potential to fulfill an incredible demand for time-deposits in the near and distant future as slowly CD’s become antiquated and laughably inferior in terms of profitability versus the technologically superior alternative that is a crypto no one requires any permission to use and can be anyone, anywhere, anytime. Not only that, it also unlocks the capacity for absolutely everyone to come online and use a tool that does not discriminate against anyone. No accreditation required. No permission necessary. All you need is capital, a trustless contract, and patience, and now you have the ability to make time your friend.
https://hex.win/?r=0xF8656b3f2c0D0bEd70d7276fdEC6BD082263437A
•••
#HEX #cryptocurrency #time-deposit #trustless-interest
submitted by an_amnesia to u/an_amnesia [link] [comments]

A Guide To Buying and Selling Premium Bitcoin

Introduction
All Bitcoin are created equal, but they rarely remain that way.
With the traceability and open nature of Bitcoin's Blockchain, individual Bitcoin and satoshis can be traced back to cypherpunk giants like Hal Finney, or even Satoshi Nakamoto himself. Furthermore, newly minted, or old-minted-but-never-moved Bitcoin trade at a significant premium, compared to the Bitcoin spot price (it's been reported that there have been premiums of 15-20% for coinbase Bitcoin).
These coins are novelties. Collectables. Because they can be tracked, identified and are cryptographically verifiable.
So with that dynamic in place, there is an opportunity for a Premium Bitcoin market to form. This subreddit will attempt to form the infancy of that market for retail customers, and perhaps whales.
Instructions for Buyers on making a Post
If you wish to buy a specific kind of coin you can make a post is this subreddit starting with
  1. "[WTB]"
  2. followed by the kind of Bitcoin you wish to buy,
  3. followed by specific requirements, like the number of transactions away from the source/event/coinbase/person/exchange
  4. followed by the premium above spot price as a percentage in which you are willing to buy the novelty, collectable or even tainted Bitcoins.
  5. followed by your preferred payment method
Examples:
[WTB] 1 Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin, 1 transaction away from coinbase: 100% above spot - USDC
[WTB] 2 Bitcoin Coinbase from 2013, less then 2 transactions away from origin: 21% above spot - Bitcoin
[WTB] 0.5 Silk Road Bitcoin, any length of transactions away from origin: -10% below spot - Monero
Instructions for Sellers on making a Post
If you believe you have collectable, unique or novelty Bitcoin for sale, you can make a post in this subreddit starting with
  1. [WTS]
  2. followed by the kind of Bitcoin you wish to sell,
  3. followed by any specifics of those Bitcoin, like the number of transactions away from the event/source/coinbase/person/exchange
  4. followed by the asking premium above spot price as a percentage you wish to charge for the novelty, collectable or even tainted Bitcoins.
  5. followed by what kind of payment you accept
Examples:
[WTS] 1 Satoshi Nakamoto Bitcoin, 2 transactions away from coinbase, 121% above spot - Accepting Bitcoin, ETH, USDC
[WTS] 25 Bitcoin coinbase, from 2014 has not be moved, asking for 25% above spot - Accepting USDT
[WTS] 1 Hacked Bitfinex Bitcoin, 21 transactions away from source, -20% below spot - Accepting Monero
Instructions for Escrow Agents on making a Post
If you want to offer your escrow services to facilitate the buying and selling of Premium Bitcoin between two parties then you can make a post in this subreddit starting with
  1. [EA]
  2. a short description of yourself
  3. the percentage or flat rate you will charge for your services
  4. any extra features available
  5. payment methods accepted
Examples:
[EA] Experienced and Reviewed Escrow Agent here to help, flat rate of 0.01BTC - all payment methods accepted
[EA] Bitrated verfied Escrow Agent, 0.5% commission - physical opendime optional for 150$ more - Bitcoin and USDC accepted upfront
Best Practices for Buyers, Sellers and Escrow Agents
once you submit a post, a seller may try to contact you by private message, chat, or by replying to your post. Most will claim that they have what you are looking for. But you will need to verify on your own that the person you are communicating with does have the type of coins you are looking for. You can verify this by having the seller who contacts you sign a message from the address that holds the coins that satisfy your buying requirements.
It's recommended that the verification message format be something like "I am ."
Further instructions on signing messages can be found here:
http://support.vaultoro.com/knowledgebase/articles/536758-how-do-i-sign-a-message-with-my-bitcoin-wallet
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4GZ4qDEanA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S88ciN9DsRk
Once the buyer has verified the coins are possessed by the seller with a signed message from the seller, the transaction can begin. Other useful tools for looking up the transaction trail of the coins being sold can be found here:
blockpath.com
blockchain3d.info
symphony.iohk.io
walletexplorer.com
a list of MTGox cold wallet coins
a list of historic bitcoin transactions
It's recommended that a trusted third party escrow agent be used to ensure that neither party scams another. It's important that the seller, buyer and escrow agent all know the details of the transaction that is to occur, including the evidence to support the Bitcoins novelty. It's important that the buyer conduct his due diligence in verifying the evidence of the coins authenticity and related history. If possible, the escrow agent should do the same.
To find a escrow agent, a buyeseller can search this subreddit for EA posts, use www.bitrated.com to search for a trusted escrow, or use a different escrow agent service that they both agree to using.
Once all parties are clear on the details of the transactions, including the EA's fee, the transaction can proceed. If the transaction is successful, please let us know in the original subreddit posting.
submitted by Fiach_Dubh to BitcoinPremium [link] [comments]

The fundamentals of bitcoin as an asset exist and they are stupider than you can imagine

tldr; tldr; Hodling is deflationary and all those wild price swings from bitcoin are changes in the fundamental value of bitcoin. Really.
tldr; Imagine there is a market where $100 worth of goods are sold every day using 100 bitcoins which cycle around. Then each bitcoin would be worth $1. Now suppose that 50 of the bitcoins were being held in anticipation of growing in value so only 50 bitcoins were cycling each day. For all the goods in the market to be sold every day each bitcoin will now be worth $2.
Introduction There has been a lot of discussion about what the fundamental value of bitcoin is. The consensus view in this subreddit is that the fundamental value is zero. I argue in this post that the fundamental value of bitcoin is whatever the price is right now, or a something close to it. This is because the fundamentals of bitcoin are stupid. Unimaginably stupid.
Bitcoin as Currency Bitcoin is a terrible currency compared to normal statist filthy fiat. Bitcoins are often permanently lost due to hacking or easily made mistakes. Transactions take considerable time to be confirmed. The price is highly volatile. But this post isn’t going into those issues in depth.
There is little evidence for mainstream Bitcoin use. A report by Morgan Stanley on the acceptance of Bitcoin from online retailers found that only 3 out of the 500 online retailers tracked accepted Bitcoin payments, a decrease from 5 in the previous year. The report concluded: “Bitcoin acceptance is virtually zero and shrinking”.
The number of transaction on darknet markets is large. On darknet markets users buy illegal products using cryptocurrencies (not just Bitcoin). Due to their illegal nature, it is impossible to know the exact value of transactions that take place on them. Between February 2011 and July 2013 the darknet market Silk Road had 1,229,465 transactions comprising 9,519,644 bitcoins in revenue. Darknet markets, along with ransomware payments are the only uses where there is evidence of a substantial number of bitcoin transactions taking place.
To work at scale darknet markets require cryptocurrency to pay for goods on sale. The anonymous nature of cryptocurrency allows transactions to take place without the buyer or the seller knowing anything about each other (although if a buyer has drugs mailed to them the seller will know who they are). If darknet markets used another form of payment then law enforcement could buy something and then track both the money going to the seller and the commission paid to the darknet market. It isn’t true as many people have claimed that nothing backs bitcoin. Bitcoin is backed by darknet markets.
There are a few kinds of people who buy bitcoin and want to spend it. They include drug buyers, those who need to pay off ransomware, money launders, fraudsters, and a few others but for simplicity’s sake I will just call them drug buyers. Likewise, there are a few types of people who sell products for bitcoin but again for simplicity’s sake I will call them drug sellers.
Non-circularity Bitcoin is a currency with a property that I call non-circularity. With Actual Money, when I buy something in a shop, the money I paid with goes towards the wages of the staff, rent and the products themselves among other expenses. This money then flows on to others. When a drug seller receives bitcoin in exchange for their drugs they can’t use the bitcoin to pay for their groceries or to pay their rent. They must exchange the bitcoin for filthy fiat to buy food. The inability to use bitcoin for further purchases means it is a non-circular currency. Bitcoin is a medium of a medium of exchange.
A full bitcoin transaction thus consists of three parts:
  1. A drug buyer goes to a bitcoin exchange to get bitcoin in exchange for filthy fiat
  2. The drug buyer goes to the DNM to exchange bitcoin for drugs from the drug seller
  3. The drug seller goes to the bitcoin exchange to get filthy fiat in exchange for bitcoin
An exchange is any place which matches buyers and sellers of bitcoin. This includes online exchanges like Coinbase as well as LocalBitcoins which matches people for face to face transactions. As nobody receives bitcoin for payment except drug dealers, the only place for drug buyers to get bitcoin is an exchange. The extreme volatility of bitcoin means that drug buyers and sellers try to complete the process as quickly as possible and avoid holding onto bitcoin.
Perfect Price Unstickiness For normal currencies prices are sticky. That means that nominal prices do not respond quickly to changing economic conditions. In contrast bitcoin has what I call perfect price unstickiness so the price of goods in bitcoin changes almost perfectly to changes in the value of bitcoin.
This is because prices for items which can be bought with bitcoin are never actually set in bitcoin, probably due to the high volatility. Instead they are set in fiat. The amount in fiat can either be listed directly, so $US50 for these drugs, or the price can be listed in the converted amount of bitcoin, 0.005BTC if 1 BTC = $US10,000. Changes in the price of bitcoin on exchanges are instantly reflected in the prices of drugs in bitcoins on darknet markets.
Hodling Another feature of bitcoin that should be considered is that people hodl bitcoin. The word comes from a typo of ‘hold’. Bitcoin is often bought on exchanges not for use as a currency to buy drugs, but as an asset in expectation of a price rise. Hodlers are the third type of user of bitcoin along with drug buyers and drug sellers. Although they don’t use it.
What’s the difference between an asset that is held and one that is hodled? This is admittedly vague, but an asset is hodled if it is being held, it can be held for long periods at low costs, it can but isn’t generating any income and there are no plans to generate income from it soon.
Cash under the mattress is being hodled, cash in my wallet that I am going to buy stuff with soon is not. Money in my bank account is generating income and so is not hodled. Bitcoin held in anticipation of price rises is being hodled. Bitcoin bought to buy drugs but which has not been used yet is not. Gold stored in a vault is being hodled, gold used for electronics purposes is not (jewellery is a harder case). A vacant block of land with no plans to develop it or use it for anything is being hodled but one that is soon going to have an apartment block built on it is not.
Commodities can be held and do not generate income until sold but it is expensive to hold most commodities for long periods of time. This prevents most commodities from being hodled.
Velocity The velocity of money is the average number of times a unit of fiat changes hands in a period. You can skip the next three paragraphs as they are a little annoying and you can get by without them. Just know that I am defining the velocity of bitcoin as what the velocity of bitcoin would be if no bitcoin was being hodled.
Due to hodling, the velocity of bitcoin under the conventional definition can vary wildly. Consider two cases. Both have 100 bitcoins, 100 transactions a day and all non-hodled bitcoins are spent each day. The first has no hodled bitcoins, the second 50 hodled bitcoins. The first has a velocity of bitcoin of 1 transaction per day, the second is 0.5 per day.
I want a definition of velocity of bitcoin that is not impacted by changes in hodling. I did consider doing this analysis through changes in velocity but the final formula is easier to understand if we find a definition of velocity of bitcoin that is independent of the level of hodling.
The definition that achieves this is (Length of Time)/(Average length of time to complete transaction). When there is no hodling the two definitions agree but the new definition is unchanged by any rise or fall in the level of hodling, which is what we need. From this point on when I refer to the velocity of bitcoin I am referring to the second definition.
The actual time to complete a bitcoin transaction seems to be over a week. In an interview one vendor claimed that it took one week for the bitcoin to be released from escrow and longer to convert it to actual money.
Intuitive argument Assume that the amount of drugs sold on darknet markets changes little from week to week. If the price of bitcoin doubles over the week then the number of bitcoins flowing through the darknet markets will halve. So where have the bitcoins gone? Drug buyers and sellers don’t have them. The only option is hodlers. In fact, it was the hodlers buying the bitcoins that caused the price to change.
Formula The conventional formula for the relationship between velocity of money (V), nominal amount of money (M), price level (P) and real economic activity (Q) is
V*M = P*Q
I am going to change that equation slightly so it now concerns the velocity of bitcoin (V), the total number of bitcoins (M), the price level of bitcoin (P), the total value in fiat of all economic transactions (Q) and the proportion of bitcoins that are hodled (h). If h*M bitcoins are being hodled then there are (1-h)*M bitcoins being used in economic transactions. The new equation is
V*(1-h)*M = P*Q
Next we isolate P:
P = V*(1-h)*M/Q
If the price level changes from 1 to 1.1 that means that there has been 10% inflation over the period and that the value of bitcoin has fallen. To find the value of a single bitcoin we have to take the reciprocal of P and that gives a formula for the true value of bitcoin:
1/P = Q/[V*(1-h)*M]
In the rest of the post when I write the price of bitcoin I mean the price bitcoin sells for on exchanges. I establish in the next section that this price must be close to the true value of bitcoin.
Equilibrium This section uses the flow of bitcoin model established earlier. We assume no activity from hodlers and that economic users do not hodl bitcoin (not true but it simplifies and does not hurt the model). Furthermore, we assume that all activity on the bitcoin exchanges happens, then all activity on the darknet markets happens. Drug sellers sell their bitcoin to drug buyers, then drug buyers use the bitcoin to buy drugs on the darknet markets. Neither the exchanges or the darknet markets charge commissions. I use specific numbers but my reasoning is easily generalizable.
To establish why the equation is true we must consider what happens if the actual price is higher or lower than the price given by the formula. First let us suppose that the price is lower than the price predicted by the formula. Over the time period of a day suppose that Q = 100 (so $100 worth of transactions a day), V = 1 (transactions take a day), M = 100 (100 bitcoins) and h = 0.5 (50 bitcoins are hodled). This gives a predicted price of $2. Suppose the price is instead $1.
Every day there are $100 worth of drugs available to be sold and buyers willing to buy $100 worth of drugs. At a price of $1 and with only 50 bitcoins available for economic use each day that means that only $50 worth of drugs can be sold. This would drop Q to 50 and immediately correct the equation.
However, there are buyers and sellers who want more drug dealing than that. Some buyers are not going to be able to get their drugs given the current price. Some of them will be willing to pay higher prices for bitcoin to guarantee they can have their drugs. Suppose that the drug sellers have 50 bitcoins (hodlers also have 50). They want to sell their 50 bitcoins to drug buyers on an exchange. Some drug buyers then bid the price of bitcoin up to $1.10 (for example). This benefits other drug buyers as now $55 worth of drug transactions can take place each day. In this way, the price will be bid up to $2, the equilibrium price.
If the price is $1 and the drug buyers have the 50 bitcoins then they will spend the bitcoins to buy $50 worth of drugs and then we are in the situation above.
Now suppose the reverse happens and the actual price is higher than the predicted price. Let the actual price be $4, with all the same example values from the previous example, so the predicted price is $2. On the exchange drug sellers have 50 bitcoins worth $200 to sell. Drug buyers want to buy $100 worth of bitcoin. At this price only 25 bitcoins are sold. To ensure they sell more of their bitcoin, drug buyers bid down the price. If the price does not immediately reach $2 then the left-over bitcoins will be held by the drug sellers until the next day when the price will be bid down again.
The drug sellers holding bitcoin for a few extra days is not the same as hodling because they are actively trying to sell them on an exchange but they haven’t because the price isn’t in equilibrium. They could instead decide to sell only 25 bitcoins and hodl the other 25. This would raise h to 0.75 and the price would be in equilibrium again.
Now suppose that the drug buyers have 50 bitcoins and the price is $4. Then $100 worth of drugs are bought with 25 bitcoins. The drug sellers will not be able to sell their bitcoin as drug buyers already have enough bitcoin to buy the next round of drugs they want. The drug buyers spend their last 25 bitcoin and drug sellers now have 50 bitcoins and the situation is as above.
In conclusion, the price of Bitcoin is fundamentally determined by speculators and brought into equilibrium by criminals.
Inflows and Outflows of Hodling The previous section treated the level of hodling as constant, except when drug buyers or sellers decide to hodl extra bitcoins that are in their possession. Now we will treat the amount of hodled bitcoins as changing. The next topic to consider is the relationship between filthy fiat spent to hodl bitcoins and the bitcoin price.
To calculate how much it costs to raise the hodl ratio from 0 to h we assume that the bitcoins are bought continuously. We integrate the function Q/[M*V*(1-t/M)] between 0 and h*M. The result is (Q/V)ln[1/(1-h)].
To double the price of bitcoin by taking h from 0 to 0.5 will cost (Q/V)ln(2). In fact, it will always cost this amount to double the price of bitcoin as we can see by finding the difference between the total value of hodled bitcoin when we consider hodling levels of h and (h+1)/2.
This means that the price of bitcoin rises exponentially when a constant amount of new money buys bitcoin to hodl. I would illustrate this with a log-scale graph but I don’t know where to find one. It also means that the market capitalisation of a cryptocurrency gives very little idea about how much the cryptocurrency is worth. It is an impossibility for all hodlers to receive the Actual Money that they think their bitcoin is worth.
Volatility People hoping to get rich and their buying and selling bitcoin is what causes bitcoin’s extreme volatility. Theoretically this could be stopped if there was a bank where hodlers could deposit their bitcoins and earn interest. However, for this to work would require the existence of a bitcoin bank which is not a Ponzi which seems like an unlikely outcome.
Hodling Gold A quick digression into gold, but I suspect someone has already thought of what follows. We can consider gold like a conventional commodity with conventional supply and demand curves (the real world for all commodities is more complicated but this is going to be quick). But people also hodl gold. If hodlers decide to buy $100 million worth of gold produced in the year, then that will change the equilibrium price. The new price is such that the difference between the quantity demanded by non-hodlers and the quantity supplied at that price multiplied by the price is 100 million.
If the overall level of hodling declines then the reverse happens. The hodlers sell an amount of gold, that amount is the difference between the amount supplied and demanded. The hodlers earn that amount multiplied by the new lower price. (I assumed people bought a fiat amount of gold and sold a volume of gold to make things easier).
Without another hodler to take on the gold or an improvement in market conditions, the hodlers are guaranteed a loss. To make a profit hodling gold you need there to be hodlers to sell it on to (or an improvement in the underlying factors). It follows that all the gold hodled in the world today cannot be sold without causing the fundamentals of gold to collapse. With 40% of the gold produced in 2017 being hodled this will eventually become a significant issue.
Full Reserve Banking Another place where we can consider the impact of hodling is full reserve banking. It is a form of banking where banks are required to have cash on hand equal to the full amount in all demand deposit accounts. The bank does not lend this money. This contrasts with the present system where banks are only required to have a certain fraction of this amount on hand, called fractional reserve banking. Money in a fractional reserve bank account is not being hodled (or is, but to a more limited degree) as it is being lent on to other people and it is generating income for the depositor.
Deposits under full reserve banking are hodling. They are like cash stuffed under a mattress but have better security. In a recession people increase their saving rates. Much of this additional saving will be in liquid assets because of fears of economic trouble. This rise in deposits under full reserve is an increase in hodled cash which then causes deflation. This is a big problem in a recession. (Somebody else has probably already made this observation).
Velocity and Value Consider the equation of bitcoin’s value again. Notice that the value increases when V decreases. Which means that the length of time to complete a transaction has increased. Bitcoin is an asset and a currency and its value as an asset increases as the length of time it takes to complete a transaction increases. This is a minor bit of stupidity which surprised me but seems obvious in retrospect as if bitcoins take longer to be processed then they must be worth more so that all transactions can happen. (This is assuming that a decrease in V does not also cause a decrease in Q which might be caused by drug buyers and sellers switching to a different cryptocurrency).
Hodler Behavior With one exception which I might make in another post I make no assumptions about hodler behaviour. I think they are buying and selling with no rational basis. But there are two rational reasons why someone would expect the price of bitcoin to rise: increased economic activity using the cryptocurrency in the darknet markets or an increased level of hodling in the future. The DNM is an actual economic activity but due to its illegality knowing anything about the amounts involved is impossible for almost everyone as is predicting their trends. Future hodling levels are also impossible to predict, unless you run a pump and dump. We can’t expect any sort of rational behavior from hodlers.
Nakamoto Scheme Preston Byrne developed the concept of a Nakamoto Scheme to describe cryptocurrencies because of how they differed from Ponzis and pyramid schemes. While bitcoin has been frequently called a Ponzi or pyramid scheme it is clearly something different. There are no “dividends” paid or any sort of organised structure. There are similarities, notably early adopters make their money at the expense of later adopters. Like in pyramid schemes hodlers try to convince new people to join in.
It is best to consider bitcoin as a type of asset which is uniquely suited for a pump and dump. When hodlers buy bitcoin, and encourage others to do the same (the pump) the fundamental price of bitcoin really is raised by these actions which helps the pump.
To add to Byrne’s work, we should put the properties of cryptocurrency assets at the centre of the scheme. A Nakamoto scheme works like this: first create a cryptocurrency and keep most of it for yourself. Then release it and try to get as many other people hodling as possible and try to get the darknet markets to adopt it (I’m looking at you Monero). This increases the fundamental value of the asset. Then dump your hodlings. Pocket the actual money. This is probably legal right now. But I’m not a law-knowing person.
For the hodler the Nakamoto scheme is like going to a party. You arrive and leave later on. If there are more people at the party when you leave compared to when you arrived then you’ve made a profit. There is also drug dealing going on at the party. The change in the level of drug dealing also impacts your profits. You have to try and get more people to come to the party and be careful of everyone else at the party who have the exact same incentives as you. It is a weird new form of scam.
Lower bound on price While the price of bitcoin can theoretically be infinitely high there is a lower bound on the price when the hodling ratio is zero. For given levels of Q, V and M the value of bitcoin can never go below Q/[V*M] (the highest possible price for bitcoin is when 1 satoshi is equal to the value of a transaction).
Some bitcoins have been permanently lost due to people losing their wallet keys or bitcoins being sent to the wrong address. If we suppose that H is the proportion of coins that have been permanently lost then the actual lower bound is Q/[V*(1-H)*M]. Note that a hodler losing their coins does not change the present fundamental value of bitcoin.
What could cause bitcoin’s price to go lower? Besides a mass hodler sell-off the obvious reason is a permanent decline in Q. What could cause this? Law enforcement have successfully shut down many darknet markets but others have replaced them quickly. What could really hurt darknet markets is increased government scrutiny of exchanges. When governments realise that bitcoin has no use beyond criminal transactions and speculation they might decide to treat every bitcoin transaction as inherently suspicious and regulate exchanges heavily. This will make bitcoin much harder to use for criminal transactions and thus greatly decrease Q and the value of bitcoin.
Previous work This post is not entirely original. Satoshi himself said that if a bitcoin user wanted to give a donation to everyone else then they should delete the keys to their wallet and increase the value of everybody else’s bitcoins. I realised that someone who hodled a bitcoin would temporarily have the same effect.
More significantly Joseph C Wang came up with a formula very similar to mine. A significant difference is that he thought increased economic activity with bitcoin would not cause an increase in bitcoin’s value but an increase in its velocity. My model has nominal prices of drugs in bitcoin falling when Q increases. Wang has prices remaining the same and the velocity of bitcoin increasing to handle the extra transactions. I developed my formula before I became aware of Wang’s work.
Further Topics This post is over 4000 words so I have not gone into depth on a few subjects like the costs of block rewards (higher than you think), shocks like darknet market shutdowns, why bitcoin can’t fall to a liquidity trap, how to value a cryptocurrency that isn’t being used for economic transactions and why it makes sense that bitcoin and bcash had a higher combined value at the time of the fork compared to bitcoin alone. If there is demand I’ll put together a second post which will cover these issues.
submitted by GBerkeley1734 to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

u/Tempatroy: "u/adam3us, u/nullc, u/luke-jr don't even understand the basic premise of Bitcoin." ... u/nullc: "You have been around for thirteen hours and you think you understand Bitcoin better than people who have been maintaining it for the last six years" ... PLUS: a lengthy response from me :)

https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/68hkk5/former_core_fanboy_admits_95_of_core_loyalists/dgyp1ok/
I mean if you base your understanding of what Bitcoin is based on the whitepaper or even Satoshi’s talk, people heavily associated with Blockstream (like adam3us, nullc, luke-jr et al.) don’t even understand the basic premise of Bitcoin.
~ u/Tempatroy
Welcome to Reddit, Tempatroy.
Thank you for pinging me to your insult.
I’m always interested in hearing when someone who has been around for thirteen hours (and, in fact, needed to be manually whitelisted to get past the 24 hours automod rule in rbtc) thinks that they understand the premise of Bitcoin better than people who have been maintaining it for the last six years, participated in it before the overwhelming majority of people here, or who worked on cryptocurrency for a decade even before Bitcoin.
~ u/nullc
Here is my response to u/nullc:
TL;DR:
Bitcoin cannot be decentralized and permissionless and trustless if we use some political / social process to decide on “the rules”.
The only way that Bitcoin can be decentralized and permissionless and trustless is if we use Proof-of-Work to decide on “the rules”.
This implies that “the rules” of Bitcoin cannot be be defined using some political / social process before a block is appended several-confirmations-deep into the chain.
In the system invented by Satoshi, “the rules” can only be defined using Proof-of-Work. This requires observing which chain has the most Proof-of-work after a block has been appended several-confirmations-deep into the chain.
Yes this seems upside-down to people who are accustomed to rules being “handed down” by some authority (Satoshi, Greg, Blockstream, etc.).
But - if we want Bitcoin to remain decentralized and permissionless and trustless - then we must recognize that:
  • The chain with the most Proof-of-Work is the “valid” chain - ie, the chain with the most Proof-of-Work defines “the rules” after the fact; and
  • There is no concept in Bitcoin of some pre-existing “rules” defining the valid chain.
To put it even more bluntly:

”The rules” are not defined “before the fact” by Greg, or by Blockstream.

”The rules” are defined “after the fact” by observing the chain (not the “valid chain” - simply the “chain”) that has ended up having the most Proof-of-Work.

Details
As others have pointed out to u/nullc: u/Tempatroy wasn’t being insulting - he was merely making a factual observation - pointing out that:
Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc does not understand (or perhaps is merely pretending not to understand) the must fundamental aspect of Bitcoin.
I will describe this problem at length below.
I apologize in advance for the convolutedness of this exposition - this is only a first draft off the top of my head now.
Other people have explained this better - and hopefully I will also someday manage to put together a more succinct exposition of my own.
This major “blind spot” of Greg’s has already been commented on at length, eg:
Mining is how you vote for rule changes. Greg’s comments on BU revealed he has no idea how Bitcoin works. He thought “honest” meant “plays by Core rules.” [But] there is no “honesty” involved. There is only the assumption that the majority of miners are INTELLIGENTLY PROFIT-SEEKING. - ForkiusMaximus
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5zxl2l/mining_is_how_you_vote_for_rule_changes_gregs/
It’s a subtle point.
It involves two approaches to defining Bitcoin’s “rules”:
  • a naive, incorrect approach used throughout most of human history - called ‘Approach (1)’ below, versus
  • the correct approach developed by Satoshi - called ‘Approach (2)’ below

‘Approach (1)’ - The “naive” (incorrect, pre-Satoshi) approach
This is the approach adopted by Greg Maxwell u/nullc, and many of the people who follow him - eg Adam Back u/adam3us CEO of Blockstream, and Luke-Jr u/luke-jr (who also thinks he can decide which transactions are “spam” and which are not - ie, he is authoritarian, the antithesis of Bitcoin) - and by the “low-information” people on the censored forum r\bitcoin.
I know it sounds like I am being rude here - but the situation is dire, after so many years of censorship, and with Bitcoin’s market cap dropping to 60% of total cryptocurrency market cap for the first time (despite the moderate price rise which actually makes people overlook this drop in market cap), and in view of the hope and promise of Bitcoin as designed by Satoshi - enabling a more rational and sustainable system for capital allocation.
Sidebar on Bitcoin’s “killer app”:
I think that “rational and sustainable allocation of capital” is the most important “killer app” of Bitcoin - not coffee, not remittances, not even as a store-of-value or a speculative asset class - although those are all nice things.
I would argue that “rational and sustainable allocation of capital” is the main thing which “fantasy fiat” has not been doing - causing the various social and economic and ecological crises which may destroy civilization on our planet in a few decades.
The main hope offered by Bitcoin is that, by preventing central bankers from “ninja-mining” their “fantasy fiat” and handing it out to their buddies to invest in non-rational, non-sustainable projects, Bitcoin could help people make decisions for allocating capital which actually increase our well-being, instead of increasing our suffering.
People like Greg and his followers (naively, incorrectly) believe (or pretend to believe) that the “rules” (specifically: the “rules” governing which block to append next) are somehow “pre-defined” and are somehow (already) manifested / incorporated / coded in “the software” - and that the miners must “honestly” obey these pre-defined rules.
On the surface (and to people who are used to obeying “rules” handed down from some authority: eg from a government, a religion, a dev team, etc.), this may have a certain appeal - but it is not how Satoshi actually designed Bitcoin.
‘Approach (2)’ - Satoshi’s approach - Proof-of-Work
Satoshi, (correctly, brilliantly, counter-intuitively) specified (in the whitepaper, and in his software) that the “rules” of Bitcoin are decided in a totally different way.
He specified that the “rules” are decided after the fact - because they are decided by Proof-of-Work.
This means that whichever (branch of the) chain ends up having the most Proof-of-Work is by definition the valid chain.
The (counter-intuitive, hard-to-understand) implication here is that before any particular (branch of the chain) has clearly “won” in this ongoing, every-ten-minutes battle...
  • The “rules” determining which “next” block is “valid” are still “up in the air”;
  • The rules are “not yet decided” until after a block has been buried a-few-blocks-deep into the chain;
  • The “rules” will only become clear / manifest after we inspect the last few blocks appended to the chain which ended up (“after the fact”) having the most Proof-of-Work.
If we closely examine these two (quite different approaches), we can make a several observations:
First: There is a massive logical flaw in “naive” ‘Approach (1)’, when people try to apply it to Bitcoin.
This flaw can perhaps be informally captured by the following phrase:
“In ‘Approach (1)’, it’s turtles all the way down (which is of course impossible).”
‘Approach (1)’ suffers from a fatal omission: it fails to specify how the rules manifested / incorporated / coded in the software get put there in the first place.
This might seem like a “detail” - but actually it is everything.
This can be seen if we ask ourselves the following (rarely asked) questions:
  • Where do the “rules” come from?
  • Who makes those rules?
  • Satoshi?
  • Greg / Adam / Luke-Jr?
  • Blockstream?
  • The miners?
  • “Users”? (see: “User-Activated Soft Fork” / UASF)
  • “Investors” (aka: the “economic majority”)?
This also leads to other, specific questions, which are applicable in the current situation:
  • By what process do the rules get defined?
  • By a social / political process?
  • By a particular dev team offering some code?
Of course, initially Satoshi did offer some code - and it did contain some rules.
But Satoshi also explicitly stated that those rules at some point could be changed.
Satoshi suggested a process which could involve some political and social debate offline, culminating in some new code being released, and everyone installing that code, and - voilà - new “rules” determining the validity of subsequent blocks would now be in place.
For example, Satoshi famously made an important remark on bitcointalk.org where he suggested how this process could be used to remove the temporary anti-spam kludge which had been added to temporarily impose a 1MB “max blocksize” limit.
But Satoshi is gone now. So we can’t use him as an “authority” to hand down “the rules” to us.
But we still want Bitcoin to evolve - to be upgraded. (Otherwise, it will be destroyed by the alt-coins!)
For example, SegWit, although it is technically described as a “soft fork”, is one proposal for upgrading / evolving Bitcoin - and SegWit would involve a rather substantial change to the “rules” - indeed, SegWit would involve making all transactions “anyone-can-spend” under the old rules - which, by the way, is the main reason why SegWit is so dangerous, and which is why it should be rejected.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin Unlimited doesn’t really “change the rules” per se - but it does make it easier for miners and full node operators to express their preference regarding one particular rule - the rule involving how big a block can be.
So we are now faced with the question:
  • Who makes the rules? And how?
Here’s the answer:
Satoshi’s revolutionary solution to defining “the rules” is not based on social or political processes - which can be manipulated (eg by sybil attacks, bribes, coercion, violence, etc.)
Instead, Satoshi’s brilliant mechanism for deciding which block to append next is based on Proof-of-Work, as summarized in the slogans “One CPU, one vote” or “They vote with their hashpower”.
This moment of “voting with their hashpower” is the actual process where “the rules” (governing the validity of the next block) come into existence.
This is all very counterintuitive to many people.
But other people (who perhaps have a more “sophisticated” appreciation of social and economic processes - or perhaps a “deeper” understanding of game theory) can often begin to glimpse the massive flaw in “naive” ‘Approach (1)’.
The problem with “naive” ‘Approach (1)’ is that it neglects to specify where the rules come from - ie, who makes “the rules” - and how.
Once Satohsi himself is removed from the picture, we have a situation where we have to “somehow” do all of the following:
  • agree on certain rules,
  • then get them into software,
  • and then get that software deployed on the network,
  • and then 51% of all hashpower has to start mining using those rules,
  • and then in a 10-minute period where various “candidate blocks” are competing to be appended to the chain, one of those blocks ends up getting “buried deeper” under more Proof-of-Work
  • and at that point , the system has been “upgraded”, and the newly appended block reflects the new “rules”.
In most cases (but not in all cases) “the new rules” are the same as “the old rules”.
This is because this system does allow the rules to be changed, when Bitcoin evolves or gets upgraded.
We should also add the ‘caveat’ there that this system only works if the majority of hashpower does not adopt “crazy rules” - ie rules which would decrease the value of everyone’s bitcoins.
The system only works if the majority of miners are always “intelligently profit-seeking” - ie, if the majority never adopts “crazy rules” which would destroy the value of everyone’s coins.
The important thing is that the rules are “post-defined” - after the next block has been added chain (and a few more blocks have been piled on top of it).
  • This means that there are no “pre-defined” rules in the system.
  • There are only “post-defined” rules, which can be observed by inspecting the decisions made by the majority of “intelligently profit-seeking” hashpower, as new blocks got appended to the chain.
The only part of this scenario that guarantees a decentralized, permissionless, trustless system is the on-chain Proof-of-Work stuff - not the off-chain social / political stuff.
All the other stuff (the political / social process where people argue about rules, code them up in software, and deploy that software on the network) - all that “prior” stuff is done using the “old” “pre-Satoshi” methods - so it’s not actually reliable (ie, it’s not decentralized or permissionless or trustless - ie, it can be sabotaged by sybils, or bribery, or threats of violence, etc.)
So the political / social process of talking about the rules on Reddit or on a mailing list, or coding up some rules in some code and offering that code to the public (eg, Greg Maxwell, CTO of Blockstream, saying “These are the rules”) - that part of the process is not “Nakamoto Consensus”, so it’s not reliable, and it’s not “Bitcoin.”
The magical moment where the system actually becomes “Bitcoin” is when the majority of “intelligently profit-seeking miners” use Proof-of-Work to decide what block is the one that gets appended to the chain.
Another metaphor might be that the (naive, incorrect) ‘Approach (1)’ assumes that some other higher authority (Satoshi, Greg, Core/Blockstream) has already handed down the “rules” in C++ code.
Meanwhile the correct ‘Approach (2)’ - (Nakamoto Consensus a/k/a “one CPU, one vote” a/k/a “They vote with their hashpower”) does not require the existence of any authority (no Satoshi, no Greg, no Blockstream) to pre-define the “rules”.
Bitcoin simply requires that the majority of miners must be “intelligently profit seeking” - and then whatever they vote on as being “the next block” is by definition the next block - and they “re-decide” on this (essentially “re-deciding” on what the rules are) every ten minutes.
This is incredibly counter-intuitive to many, many people - especially to people who are of an “authoritarian” mindset - ie, they are accustomed to “rules being handed down from some higher authority”.
But this is how Bitcoin actually works.
The rules are decided not by me or by you or by Satoshi or by Greg or by Blockstream.
The rules are decided by the miners - and re-decided every ten minutes (usually the “same old” rules as during the previous ten minutes - but not “always”: because there are times when the rules may indeed be upgraded, if the majority of hashpower suddenly decides so).
And the mechanism for these rules being decided (and re-decided, and re-decided, every ten minutes) is: hashpower, a/k/a “one CPU, one vote” - which simply requires that the majority of miners must be “intelligently profit-seeking”.
Sidebar:
Of course, Exhibit A in any discussion about “authoritarianism” would be Luke-Jr, because he provides the most glaring and grotesque example of the “error of authoritarianism”.
This may indeed be a deep-seated psychological problem, so we can’t really “blame” the person for it.
But at the same time, we should always be vigilant to make sure that this “error of authoritarianism” does not get adopted as part of Bitcoin’s system for determining “the rules” - because the only way that Bitcoin can remain decentralized and permissionless and trustless is if we use Proof-of-Work (and not some “higher authority”) to determine “the rules”.
‘Approach (1)’ is used quite widely. It powers many legacy systems in the world - but it’s not what makes Bitcoin decentralized and permissionless and trustless!
In “legacy” systems, people used a political / social process to agree upon some rules (vulnerable to all the old attacks: in particularly sybil attacks, social coercion, ostracism, bribes, threats of violence or actual acts of violence, etc.) - and, eventually, through this messy process, a set of rules was finally hammered out.
Then these socially / politically selected rules become manifested / incorporated (“coded up”) in some software, and that software gets deployed on the network, and then everything becomes wonderfully easy: it is now just a question of checking whether a particular block satisfies those rules or not.
This (naive, non-Bitcoin) ‘Approach (1)’ all sounds wonderful until one remembers that it does not provide us with any decentralized, permissionless, trustless mechanism for actually forming consensus on what these “rules” should be, and then coding them in software, and getting everyone to install that software on the network!
At this point, many people (eg, the smart investors who understood Bitcoin from the very beginning) can see that this “naive” ‘Approach (1)’ neglects to specify the process of how these particular “rules” got manifested / incorporated / coded in the software itself - and how people reached a consensus to deploy this particular software on the network.
The current ongoing “blocksize debate” uses a social / political process for deciding on “the rules” - ie, it does not use Proof-of-Work.
This is the social / political / off-chain war we’re seeing now - where:
  • One faction (Core/Blockstream today) wants a “rule” that says that blocks must be less than 1 MB,
  • Another faction wants a rule that says that blocks must be less than 8 MB,
  • Another faction (BU / Emergent Consensus) wants a convenient “on-chain pre-signaling system” where miners can pre-announce their intention to adopt certain rules regarding the maximum size of the next block that they will mine (1 MB, 4 MB, 8 MB, etc.)
  • Another faction (SegWit) wants a new rule where all transactions would be considered “anyone-can-spend”, plus a new rule added to the system to do a different verification process regarding who can actually spend them.
It’s all fine for this social / political / off-chain “rule-deciding” process to be taking place now - wherever it happens to take place - eg, on Reddit, on Slack, in various dev mailing lists, perhaps at meetings at Blockstream, perhaps in secret gathering places such as the notorious “Dragons Den” - and also now to some extent it has been starting to take place at other social / political venues - eg other online forums devoted to discussing other clients (BU, Classic, etc.).
But any rules which are decided “off-chain” like this aren’t really “rules” yet. They can only become “rules” if the majority of “intelligently profit-seeking hashpower” actually mines a block which satisfies these “rules”.
‘Approach (2)’ is the major breakthrough invented by Satoshi - his solution to the Byzantine General Problem, supporting decentralized formation of consensus among parties who do not trust each other.
This breakthrough was also so counter-intuitive that very, very few people even understood it when Satoshi first proposed it in the whitepaper, and in the accompanying C++ code.
In particular, as amazing as it may sound, there are many Core / Blockstream devs who do not actually understand the subtle stuff here about how Bitcoin really works.
Why are people always so angry at Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr?
I’m going to step on some people’s toes by making provocative and even somewhat unkind statements - I do apologize, but I also do believe I am describing real and unfortunate problems which are critically important to address and resolve.
People who do not have a very clear understanding of how political and social processes - and markets and economics - actually work might have a hard time understanding this mechanism invented by Satoshi.
Yes this (unfortunately) means guys like Greg Maxwell and Adam Back.
They both know cryptography - and Greg knows C++ - but these two guys in particular apparently do not have a very good understanding of how political and social processes - and markets and economics - actually work.
They understand how (given a pre-existing set of rules) a particular implementation can reflect / express those “rules”.
But they never have shown any understanding for the “bigger” process whereby those “rules” got selected in the first place.
Indeed, in their arrogance and hubris, they assume that they are the ones who define those rules (in a non-decentralized, non-permissionless, non-trustless manner - ie, in a totally anti-Bitcoin manner).
I know this may sound like an insult - and I have certainly hurled it as an insult on many occasions in this forum over the years - out of frustration at the fact that these two guys have set themselves up as leaders for this system - so they are effectively attempting to sabotaging Bitcoin.
But in addition to being an “insult”, it also happens to be a fact. (So maybe we can just call it an “insulting fact”.)
I did not originally (several years ago) hurl this as an “insult”. I only started to raise my voice and get angry when (and many other people) I had to repeat this fundamental (but admittedly subtle) aspect of Bitcoin over and over again for years - because guys like Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr - who don’t actually understand how Bitcoin actually works - kept telling people like me that we were “wrong” (when in fact Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr are wrong - at least on this subtle and crucial point about when and where and how the “rules” of Bitcoin get decided).
Anyone can read the whitepaper. And if you do, you will notice this amazing thing. The “rules” are not pre-defined by any authority.
The “rules” are actually “post-defined” as a by-product of the process of hashing, which is based on the fact that the majority of miners are always “intelligently profit-seeking”.
Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr erroneously “assume” that they are the ones who decide the rules.
But this is not how Satoshi designed Bitcoin.
And this - in a nutshell, is the main reason why people are so angry at Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr.
And it’s also, the reason why Bitcoin’s market share has been declining, now dropping below 60% of total cryptocurrency market cap - due in large part to the fact that, for the past few years, Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr have been running around telling everyone that they get to define the rules - when all the really intelligent people involved in Bitcoin know that this is not the case: the hashpower defines the rules, as manifested by Proof-of-Work!
Of course, if we want to be “charitable”, then we cannot really “blame” them for being wrong about this subtle but fundamental about where the “rules” of Bitcoin actually come from.
The sad but likely truth is that people who spend most of their waking hours thinking about things like C++ and cryptography may have a certain kind of “mindset” which makes them suffer from “blind spots” when it comes to understanding how political and social processes - and markets and economics - actually work.
Sorry if this sounds harsh - but at this point, after all the damage inflicted on Bitcoin by Adam and Greg and Luke-Jr (now with Bitcoin’s market share below 60% of total cryptocurrency market cap), a certain amount of “tough love” diagnosis (or even anger, or insults, or name-calling) is certainly justified - in order for Bitcoin to survive.
And the only way that Bitcoin can survive is if we reject the attempts by guys like Adam and Greg and Luke-Jr to pre-define Bitcoin’s rules for us.
The only way Bitcoin can survive is if we remember that the rules are defined by the majority of the miners, who are “intelligently profit-seeking”.
What is at stake here is nothing less than the economic future (and perhaps even the very survival) of humanity. We cannot allow a tiny group of arrogant devs (who apparently lack certain social / economic skills) to destroy Satoshi’s vital invention by forcing “their” rules onto the network.
This is why it would be nice if Greg and Adam and Luke-Jr would do some deep inner reflection, to understand that they do not decide the “rules” for Bitcoin.
The “rules” are decided by Proof-of-Work - not by Adam and Greg and Luke-Jr.
So, the only phase of this whole process which actually “matters” (in the novel system devised by Satoshi) is the moment where all this debate actually gets manifested during a ten-minute period where several “candidate blocks” are all simultaneously competing to be appended to the tip of the growing blockchain.
And then, only one of these new “candidate” blocks ends up getting a larger amount of Proof-of-Work on top of it (as other, succeeding “candidate” blocks gets added) - and then (and this is the really brilliant part of Satoshi’s invention), the “economic incentive” aspect of Satoshi’s brilliant invention starts to act - combined with the “stochastic” aspect - which is just fancy mathematical terminology for saying that “as more and more blocks get piled on to the chain, it becomes vanishingly improbable for those deeply buried blocks to ever get ‘un-confirmed’ via a chain re-org.”
Sidebar:
These two parts - the “economic incentives” stuff involving the valuable economic token, and the “stochastic” stuff where blocks “buried deeper” in the chain will almost certainly not be “un-conformed” by a chain re-org - were hard for guys like Greg and Adam to understand in the early years.
Remember, in the early years, when these two “brilliant” guys first heard about Bitcoin:
  • Greg Maxwell “mathematically proved” that Bitcoin couldn’t work.
  • And Adam Back ignored emails from Satoshi explaining the system, and didn’t get involved until the price of Bitcoin was over $1000.
  • Meanwhile, many other people (who are actually smarter than Greg and Adam about economics and consensus) simply read the whitepaper, understood all this subtle stuff about “(re-)deciding rules every 10 minutes using hashpower” - and they started mining (or buying).
So Greg and Adam are not among the smartest people people when it comes to understanding how Bitcoin really works.
This shows that people with a more “mathematical” or “computer science” mindset can’t always grasp the other, non-mathematical, non-computer-science-based aspects of Satoshi’s invention: ie, the “economic incentive” aspect, where miners are “economically incentivized” not only to compete in the hash race to get their block appended to the chain, but also “economically incentivized” to only attempt to append blocks which don’t use any “crazy rules” (eg, the majority of miners will not attempt to append a block which would violate the 21 million coin issuance limit).
Most importantly this means that the “rule” which says “let’s not violate the 21 million coin issuance limit” also is not handed down from some higher authority, such as Satoshi, or Greg or Adam or Luke-Jr, or Blockstream.
Instead, this rule is decided, and re-decided - and enforced, and re-enforced - essentially put up for a vote, and put up for a re-vote - every ten minutes in Bitcoin.
And - mirabile dictu - in every single one of those every-ten-minutes insta-votes, the majority of the miners vote to “do the right thing” - not because they’re “honest” - but because they’re “intelligently profit-seeking” - ie, they don’t want to destroy the value of the bitcoin that they’re mining.
If Adam and Greg really understood that no single person decides the “rules”, then they wouldn’t try to force their own rules on Bitcoin. Instead, they’d sit back like the rest of us do, and let the majority of mining hashpower decide (and re-decide, and re-decide) the “rules” - every 10 minutes - which is how Bitcoin works - with no need for any enlightened (ie, non-decentralized, non-permissionless, non-trustless) “intervention” from “well-meaning” “authorities” like Adam and Greg.
We don’t need to presume malice on their part. But we do need to confront the massive damage which Adam and Greg have started to inflict on Bitcoin.
As seen in Greg’s quote at the beginning of this OP (where he proudly proclaims that he has been “maintaining [Bitcoin] for the last six years”), Greg thinks he’s an “expert” (and he might even feel that he is “benign” - ie, he “only wants the best for Bitcoin”).
So Greg might feel comfortable dictating the “rules” of Bitcoin to other people - even though this would end up being fatal - ie it would kill Bitcoin if we allow Greg to impose his rules on us like this.
Bitcoin does not work based on “benign” dictators or authorities defining our rules for us.
Bitcoin works based on the majority of mining hashpower being “intelligently profit-seeking”.
This is why Adam and Greg must be stopped (or at least ignored). And the only way we can stop (or ignore) them is with our hashpower.
This has been a long and messy process - a political and social debate that has lasted years, and which has involved many shenanigans.
In the end, if Bitcoin actually works, new and better rules will be adopted. (Otherwise, it will be surpassed by some alt which does adopt new and better rules.)
And they will be adopted by the process which Satoshi specified: at the precise moment when the majority of mining hashpower (which is always “intelligently profit-seeking”) adds a new block to the chain which happens to satisfy a new set of rules - eg, a block that’s 1.1 MB.
We don’t know when a block like this will get added to the chain. But when it does happen, it will be because the majority of mining hashpower (which is always “intelligently profit-seeking”) decided to do so.
Which means that Bitcoin will continue to function, and everyone’s investment will continue to be preserved (in probably dramatically increased at that point, as people flood back into Bitcoin from the alts =).
Back to the actual process of appending a block to the chain:
Each of these competing “candidate blocks” carries with it a “coinbase reward” (currently 12.5 Bitcoins) - and all the miners, who are “intelligently profit-seeking” (see the OP cited previously quoting some very insightful posts by u/ForkiusMaximus), quickly form consensus to recognize the “candidate block” which is accumulating the most Proof-of-Work on top of it as the “accepted” block, while “orphaning” the other “candidate blocks” which were also competing to be added to the chain.
So the tip of the chain looks during any given 10-minute period is actually “fuzzy” or non-deterministic. Many of us may simply think in terms of “the chain”. But the tip of the chain - where multiple “candidate blocks” are still competing to get added to the chain - the tip of the chain is non-deterministic or “fuzzy”, since it is actually plural and not singular, while various “candidate blocks” are still “fighting it out” to become “the” block that actually gets added to the chain.
Here is where the “stochastic” aspect of the situation comes into effect - because any particular “ordering” of the tip of the chain (whereby the miners have selected only one of the “tips” being appended to the blockchain as being the “accepted” one) could still of course undergo a “re-org”.
We use the word “stochastic” to describe the fact that the chances of such a re-org actually happening rapidly become smaller and smaller, as each successive new “candidate block” gets appended on top of the the chain-tip which ended up getting the majority of the hashing power... so that after about 6 blocks, we can say that (in this “stochastic” process), the probability of a block already “six blocks deep” getting kicked out in a re-org is vanishingly small.
And voilà - distributed consensus about the ordering of blocks has been achieved, in a decentralized and permissionless and trust-free environment, brilliantly solving the Byzantine Generals Problem - truly a historic breakthrough.
So Bitcoin is based on multiple components
There’s lots of things going on here.
  • There’s a decentralized system.
  • There’s the hashing - based, yes, on the hashcash system developed by Adam - and previously by other researchers as well - and also based on the cryptographic signatures.
  • But the more interesting (albeit subtle) parts of the system are the economic and game theory / social aspects - ie, the token having value, and the “stochastic” aspect where a block gets buried deeper and deeper in the chain - and the majority of miners being “intelligently profit-seeking” so they will compete to have their block included in the chain, but they also won’t “cheat” by awarding themselves more coins, or by trying to not recognize some other miner’s “winning” or “accepted” block - because in the end, they want the system to keep going - and they want the tokens maintain their economic value.
This system, as invented by Satoshi, does not involve a notion of “validity” based on some pre-existing “rules” which are (already) manifested / incorporated / coded in some software (by some unspecified political / social process) - because that would be the old systems which Nakamoto Consensus was designed to replace.
The notion of “validity” in Bitcoin as Satoshi designed it is not based on any “pre-defined” rules.
It never could be - because then we’d need a way to “pre-define” those rules.
The notion of “validity” in Bitcoin is based on “post-defined” rules.
This means that the “rules” can only be observed “after the fact” - based on whatever blocks “ended up” getting buried a-few-confirmation-deep-into-the-chain, as a result of the majority of miners being “intelligently profit-seeking” as they decide, and re-decide, and re-decide - every 10 minutes - on “what block to append next”.
As shockingly counter-intuitive as it may seem, there are no “pre-defined” rules in Bitcoin.
There are only “post-defined” rules - which can only be observed “after the fact” - by examining which block “ended up” getting added by hashpower.
It’s very weird to try to wrap your head around a system where the “rules” are defined “after the fact”.
So how do the rules get “changed” - for example when we eventually really do want something like a bigger blocksize?
This is how it works:
While the next block is about to be appended to the chain (ie, while several of blocks are still competing for this honor), these various competing blocks might actually reflect various rules (eg, at a moment when an “upgrade” is being “deployed”).
We won’t know which rules were “The Rules”TM until after only one of those blocks has been buried a few blocks deep in a chain (eg 6 confirmations),
Then we can say that this is the (branch of) the chain having the most Proof-of-Work.
Sidebar:
Of course, Satoshi’s explanation was much more succinct than this OP - and he even provided an executable version!
And other people may also offer their own “informal” explanations of this same system.
I hope that these explanations might help more people (including Greg?) gain a deeper understanding of Satoshi’s invention.
The only thing we have to guide us (regarding the “rules” of Bitcoin) is the hashpower of the majority of “intelligently profit-seeking miners”.
In particular, we cannot turn to any of the following wannabe “authorities” when trying to figure out what “the rules” of Bitcoin are:
  • u/nullc Greg Maxwell CTO of Blockstream,
  • u/adam3us Adam Back CEO of Blockstream
At some level, Greg and Adam still don’t understand Satoshi’s brilliant design for Bitcoin, where the hashpower decides (and re-decides) the rules every ten minutes.
This may due to the observation by Sinclair Lewis that “A man cannot understand something if his salary depends on him not understanding it” - ie, because Greg and Adam are getting millions of dollars in fiat by companies such as AXA - who might not want guys Adam and Greg to understand Satoshi’s invention.
Conclusion
Satoshi’s brilliant solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem of Decentralized Permissionless Trust-Free Consensus-Forming is based on Proof-of-Work.
This involves multiple blocks competing to be added to the “tip” of a blockchain and then everyone forming consensus around the “branch” of the chain which has the most Proof-of-Work.
This is based on a “stochastic” process where a block which is 1, 2, 3... etc. levels deep becomes “more and more” confirmed - ie, “less and less” likely to be orphaned - because it would be “harder and harder” to switch (re-org) to another “branch” of the chain now that that block has got so many other blocks appended after it.
The “rules” in Bitcoin are “post-defined” - based Proof-of-Work.
Proof-of-Work is not, technically, based on pre-defined “rules”.
This is really subtle! It’s hard for some people to wrap their head around the concepts that:
  • There are no (pre-defined) rules.
  • During any given 10-minute period, there are often multiple “tips” to the chain.
  • The “rules” are “post-defined” - after one of those tips has the most hashpower piled on top of it.
  • But this is how Bitcoin really works!
In Bitcoin, the “rules” are “post-defined” and not “pre-defined”.
The rules can only be observed after a block has become “buried” a few confirmations deep into the chain.
And during certain (generally rare) 10-minute periods, it may even be the case that the various competing “candidate blocks” satisfy different rule-sets (eg, when a new rule-set is being deployed).
Only after hashpower has added a block - ie, retrospectively - are we able to look back and see what “the rules” are.
Yes this stands everything on its head.
But this is the only way we can get a system which is decentralized and permissionless and trustless.
Because if Proof-of-Work doesn’t decide the rules, then we’re back to the “bad old days” where Greg, or Blockstream, or some other “centralized trusted authority” decides the rules.
So, as counter-intuitive as it may seem, Proof-of-Work decides the rules (and not the other way around).
This stuff is subtle - and I hope better explanations continue to be provided.
My way of working through it all has been to write up posts like this - while also reading posts by important people who really understand this subtle stuff - eg, guys like u/ForkiusMaximus and u/Capt_Roger_Murdock.
Meanwhile Satoshi’s explanation (the whitepaper) - and the code - are one of the most important accomplishments in the history of humanity.
Hopefully as time goes on, more people (including Greg and Adam!) will be start to be able to understand this amazing system invented by Satoshi - where the majority of miners are always “intelligently profit-seeking”, and they “vote with their hashpower” to decide (and re-decide, and re-decide - every ten minutes) - in a decentralized, permissionless, trustless manner - on the “rules” for appending the next block to the chain.
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

What is Bitcoin? Who Created It? Who is Satoshi Nakamoto? On anonymity, pseudonymity and Satoshi Nakamoto The Bitcoin White Paper (By Satoshi Nakamoto) Finding Satoshi Nakamoto - Short Film Satoshi Nakamoto Moving Bitcoin?  Shopify Integrates Crypto Payments!

Nakamoto created a website with the domain name bitcoin.org and continued to collaborate with other developers on the bitcoin software until mid-2010. Around this time, he handed over control of the source code repository and network alert key to Gavin Andresen,[12] transferred several related domains to various prominent members of the bitcoin community, and stopped his involvement in the ... According to Blockstream employee and Bitcoin Core developer Pieter Wuille, you’d have to ask Satoshi Nakamoto to find out the exact reasons for sure; but we do know that hashing the SHA256 output with the RipeMD160 algorithm decreases the size of the address from 32 bytes to 20 bytes which saves space on the blockchain. This address is one of my real Bitcoin addresses generated from one of my wallets. It is 34 characters long, which is a typical length of a Bitcoin address. Between 33/34 characters long. The fastest way to lose your money or crypto is to send Bitcoins to a wallet address that is not Bitcoin. For instance, sending Bitcoin to an Ethereum wallet ... Bitcoin seeks to address the root problem with conventional currency: all the trust that’s required to make it work . Not that justified trust is a bad thing, but trust makes systems brittle, opaque, and costly to operate. Trust failures result in systemic collapses, trust curation creates inequality and monopoly lock-in, and naturally arising trust choke-points can be abused to deny access ... With the need for auditors or “miners” built into the network, it is believed that Nakamoto continued to mine Bitcoin blocks in the early days to support the system.Bitcoin’s block subsidy or reward — the incentive for miners to maintain the network — started at 50 BTC per mined block. According to Bitcoin’s code, this incentive is halved after every 210,000 blocks (roughly every ...

[index] [2317] [8927] [47389] [1896] [50543] [48784] [44117] [38736] [14026] [33977]

What is Bitcoin? Who Created It? Who is Satoshi Nakamoto?

a fun video talking about the initial creation of bitcoin, and where those original coins went to. and the mystery of the missing bitcoin stash! Sign up with coinbase. buy or sell 100 dollars in ... What is Bitcoin and who invented it? The official inventor is named Satoshi Nakamoto, but no one knows who he actually is. This video recaps the history of bitcoin and addresses the questions of ... The leading crypto’s drop coincided with news that one of the first few thousand Bitcoin addresses just made its first transaction. The address involved is from February 2009 — and the 50 ... The #Bitcoin White Paper (By Satoshi Nakamoto) Narrated by The #Cryptocurrency Portal on Friday May 31st, 2019 #Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System For those that are better audio ... Is Satoshi Nakamoto moving some of his Bitcoin? An early 2009 Bitcoin address started moving 50 BTC. Is it Satoshi, or is it not? Also, Shopify, the biggest e-commerce platform in the world, adds ...

#