Bitcoin Went Through its Third Halving, Next Target

A summary of QASH and why I believe it will serve a pivotal role in the growth of the cryptocurrency market worldwide.

SIDE NOTE: DO NEVER EVER LEAVE YOUR CRYPTOCURRENCIES ON QRYPTOS & QUOINE. WITHDRAWAL TAKES SEVERAL DAYS AND IN SOME CASES LONGER THAN A WEEK LATELY. MANY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN HAVING HUGE TROUBLES
 
DISCLAIMER: I'm not affiliated with this project in any way. Don't take this as actual investment advice at face-value, but rather a comprehensive summary I put together based upon my own findings, research, and personal insight about the project. As always, if you do wish to invest, please DYOR beforehand and make your investments based upon your own assessment of the project.
 
 
The token is called QASH (by QUOINE) and it essentially serves as the financial utility and payment token for QUOINE's upcoming Liquid+ platform and all services which it provides. I haven't actually seen much talk going on about this anywhere, and to me, it's sort of baffling how seemingly under-the-radar this has been flying, given the problem that it's going to be solving in the cryptocurrency space.
 

The Problem

The platform that they've built is super intriguing to me as a cryptocurrency trader due to the fact that it's aiming to fundamentally solve a huge, yet often overlooked problem in this space: illiquidity. This really excites me because in my personal experience (and I'm sure for many others on this sub who are stuck trading with minor currencies), attempting to purchase BTC, ETH, or other tokens with a fiat currency like say, GBP, is just downright painful and usually ends up in an immediate loss since there are significantly fewer buyers and sellers in the relevant GBP markets than say, USD markets - and thus the market price can tend to slip easily in either direction even with relatively small trade amounts (as a result of high spreads).
 

The Solution: Liquid+

Now imagine the case whereupon this problem doesn't exist — where anyone around the world, whether it be individuals, institutional investment, businesses, etc., would always be able to have immediate access to highly liquid cryptocurrency markets, and not be subject to an inherent disadvantage simply by virtue of the specific fiat currency they're using to trade with or one particular exchange that they're trading on.
 
This is a landscape which the Liquid+ platform will be able to render to the cryptocurrency economy, and what I think solving this problem will ultimately mean is that we'll start to see a much more global influx of individuals and institutions coming into the cryptocurrency space because a massive, worldwide liquidity pool will have been created through the Liquid+ platform. Essentially, the platform will enable minor currencies such as the Rupee, Peso, Pound Sterling, Thai Baht, whatever it is you name it — to be traded with on the same level of liquidity that a major currency (e.g. USD) does. This is the function of what they're calling the "World Book".
 

World Book

The World Book essentially is a global aggregation of orders sourced from many different cryptocurrency exchanges (i.e. "liquidity silos"). Orders which are placed from within any of the connected exchanges can be simultaneously published into the Liquid+ platform and be matched with orders from a completely separate exchange. What's even more fascinating about this is that these matched orders aren't even necessarily required to be of the same trading pair.
 
So for instance, a trader who intends to make a btc-yen trade can be automatically matched up with another trader making a totally separate trade say, eth-euro, just by virtue of the world book internally executing a two-step transaction in order to "hop" from the euro trade to the yen trade. It's important to note that this entire process all happens seamlessly and is transparent to the end-user. Each trader would see every other traders' orders denominated in their preferred quote currency (even though the orders may actually be based on a different quote currency on the other side), meaning that the world book is "currency-agnostic" amongst all orders.
 
Performance-wise, the platform is deemed to be capable of handling over a million of these orders / FX-conversions per second, and is built upon a set of already established and tested technologies developed by QUOINE. As a result, much of the platform is actually already in place, and the integration work with many of the world's largest cryptocurrency exchanges are already underway or have been completed.
 
Additionally, here's a great explanation of what the World Book can do as described by Andre Pemmelaar, who is one of the architects of the platform. Further high level explanation by QUOINE CEO Mike Kayamori.
 
Another important point to note on this is that there's generally a big incentive for exchanges to participate in this World Book, as it will be able to funnel in substantially more trading volume from the markets of other exchanges.
 
In my mind, the World Book will no doubt be an absolute game changer to this space when it hits. However, there's another equally, if not more substantial component to the platform:
 

Prime Brokerage

Liquid+ will act as a Prime Brokerage service, and it will be the first of its kind in the cryptocurrency space (by which QUOINE is officially licensed by the JFSA, one of the strictest regulators in the world). One way you can think of it, is that this could effectively make Liquid+ into the Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley equivalent of the cryptocurrency space, and it's in fact aiming to become the platform upon which major hedge funds and institutional investors around the world will prefer to leverage in order to mitigate counter-party risk (such as a particular exchange getting hacked and losing funds), manage and move large amounts of fiat capital, as well as take advantage of the globally sourced liquidity pool provided by the world book.
 
To me, it makes perfect sense to have integrated, seeing as many of the major reputable exchanges around the world will have already been interconnected through the Liquid+ platform. Ultimately, it means individuals as well as major institutions coming into this space will no longer be required to deal with the pain of managing numerous individual accounts across multiple exchanges and transferring funds between each. Instead, Liquid+ allows its users to be provided with direct market access to the liquidity and trading pairs yielded by all associated exchanges in a single platform, and on a single account. By now, you can probably start to imagine just how attractive this is going to be for the major institutional players coming into this space, and on an international scale.
 

User-Generated Trading Strategies

Another intriguing feature is that once the QASH blockchain is implemented, the platform will be able to facilitate the authoring of custom-written automated trading strategies and algorithms by any of its users (including individuals as well as institutions), utilizing a variety of mainstream programming languages. These strategies can then be published to the platform and shared amongst other users. The profits yielded by these trading strategies are subject to fees which are then paid back in QASH to the authors of those strategies.
 

QASH Token Value Proposition

The value of the QASH token is proportional to the scale of its utility and velocity of usage. For starters, QASH can be used for payment on the Liquid+ platform for everything including trading fees, fees on profit from automated trading strategies (as described above), fiat / crypto credit lending, and for all other services that it renders. QASH can also be used as payment on QUOINE's other products: Quoinex and Qryptos. Additionally, users who elect to pay using QASH on these platforms do so at a discounted rate on fees.
 
Another important point to note here is that QASH will be used to fuel payment for all services rendered by the Prime Brokerage. So for instance when institutions start to utilize the platform, it means that this money will start to flow through the QASH token as well.
 
But I think perhaps the bigger and longer-term value proposition for QASH is the fact that it's striving to become the "Bitcoin or Ethereum of the financial services industry", meaning widespread adoption of QASH as the preferred cryptocurrency for use in financial institutions. As more and more of these institutions seek to gain a foothold in the blockchain space, they're going to be looking for cryptocurrencies that maintain trustworthy backing and have the appropriate governmental regulation / security frameworks set in place. QASH aims to fulfill this role and is in fact officially approved as a cryptocurrency by the Japanese government. Moreover, QUOINE is the only cryptocurrency exchange company which is audited by a "Big Four" accounting firm.
 
QASH is initially built upon the ERC-20 token standard, but will eventually migrate to its own blockchain by Q2 2019. As opposed to Ethereum, the blockchain will incorporate sophisticated tools and services which are geared specifically toward usage in the financial services industry (read more about these here). Having this inherent support for many financially related functions will be paramount for wider adoption as a token of preference, as QASH seeks to bridge the gap between traditional finance and the cryptocurrency economy.
 
With adoption by the financial services industry, the value of the QASH token can then be expected to continue increasing as a result of its ever expanding utility and usage.
 
Additionally, here's an explanation of the QASH blockchain as described by Andre.
 

Brief Company Background (QUOINE)

QUOINE is a profitable and established FinTech company (over 250 years of combined FinTech experience) who have built Quoinex, one of the top ranking exchanges in the world by volume, as well as Qryptos, a token-to-token asset exchange and ICO platform. Quoinex is one of the largest fiat-to-crypto exchanges in the world with $12 Billion in annual transactions. They are the first global cryptocurrency firm in the world to be officially licensed by the Japan Financial Services Agency (License 0002) and has as a "Big Four" external auditor.
 

Leadership

What gives me confidence that QASH may succeed in becoming widely adopted by financial institutions is that the company is lead by those with strong financial leadership. QUOINE's executives hail from the financial services industry, many of whom have served executive positions at some of the biggest financial institutions in the world.
 
Detailed information about the executives and board directors can be found on the Liquid+ website (or in the whitepaper) so I won't list them all out here for the sake of conciseness, but many of them come from executive positions at major institutions including:
 
 

QASH / Platform Investors

Again, a full detailed list can be found on the Liquid+ website. Investors in the platform and QASH ICO include those who have executive leadership roles at companies such as:
 
 
Additionally, Mike had announced in his video AMA a few other notable investors in the ICO who aren't listed on the website:
 
 

Liquidity Partners

The platform of course needs a lot of liquidity partners from around the world participating in order for the system to function worthwhile. Andre discusses their numerous liquidity partnerships in this video, so I'll simply summarize:
 
 

Other Tidbits & Speculation

 

TL;DR

QASH, in the long-run, ultimately aims to become the standard preferred cryptocurrency used by financial institutions worldwide, the value of which is derived from the scale of its utility and widespread usage. The QASH token is also used to fuel payment for fees and services in QUOINE's trading platforms, one of which is an upcoming platform called Liquid+.
 
Liquid+ is a novel platform which I think will change the landscape of the cryptocurrency space. It builds a single massive global liquidity pool called the World Book which allows minor fiat currencies (e.g. Rupee, Peso, GBP, etc.) to trade crypto with the same liquidity that a major fiat currency (e.g. USD) does, significantly reducing losses due to high spreads, and ultimately provides the liquid on-ramp necessary for many potential untapped markets worldwide.
 
The platform also features a Prime Brokerage service (first of its kind in crypto) which will allow users direct market access to many exchanges throughout the world without the hassle of having to manage accounts on each, which mitigates counter-party risk. The Prime Brokerage service will be an attractive vehicle upon which major institutional investors will want to use for managing funds in the cryptocurrency space because it's safe, regulated, and government approved.
 
QASH is created by QUOINE, one of the largest cryptocurrency exchange companies. QUOINE is headed by executives who previously served high-level positions at the world's largest financial institutions. Investors in QASH include financial executives at major institutions, and also a few well known figures: Taizo Son, Nobuyuki Idei, and Jihan Wu.
 

Further Reading & Resources

submitted by swoopingmax to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

A (Hopefully neutral) game-theoretical and mathematical look at the upcoming hard-fork.

Hey everyone, November is here and a hash war on BCH is likely to heat up soon. I wanted to take time to post about the possible outcomes of the chain split and hash war from a game-theoretical standpoint.
Realistically, there are only 3 major outcomes:
1) SV "wins" by preventing any form of replay protection while having more hash power.
2) SV splits and two different chains are formed - one off of the SV specification and one off the ABC / BU specification.
3) ABC / BU win by SV disallowing a hard fork while alternate clients maintain a higher hash rate.
The Mining Pools
So first, let's talk about mining pools, their interests, and their hash power.
We know that Coingeek, SVpool, okminer and BMGpool are the pools essentially rooting for SV to win. All of these pools have at least some affiliation with Craig Wright or nChain.
As of this morning, here are the Bitcoin Cash mining statistics for these pools:
BMG Pool: 620EH/s
Coingeek: 395PH/s
SVPool: 263PH/s
okminer: 237PH/s Edit - okminer appears to be onboard with ABC and I may have grouped them into SV improperly
Total SV Hashrate: 1.52EH/s 1.29EH/s
In comparison, several pools have indicated support for ABC / BU including:
Bitcoin.com: 300PH/s
ViaBTC: 266PH/s
BTC.com: 231PH/s
AntPool: 137PH/s
Total ABC / BU hash rate: 934PH/s
I would consider BTC.top a wild card as they have not announced explicit support, however they have indicated they use ABC for BCH mining in the past with their mining preference being primarily financial, they have also announced a goal of having 100k BCH on hand.. My instincts tell me they will want to protect their current interests and will likely maintain being on the ABC chain. Also, a non-split chain creates a hash vacuum that they will be happy to fill.
BTC.top: 369 PH/s
Total confirmed and likely ABC / BU hash rate: 1.30EH/s
Sources: BTC.com BCH pool statistics; Coin.dance BCH pool statistics.
The Other Chain
"But wait," you say... "with those statistics, it's pretty clear that SV is going to win the hash war." Not by a long shot. In fact, right now there is nothing to lose and everything to gain by swapping hashrate between the two primary SHA256 chains: BTC and BCH.
Because the hash war has not yet started, we should consider each mining pool's contributions to BOTH SHA256 chains.
Let's start with SV's contribution to the BTC chain:
BMG Pool: 0H/s
Coingeek: 0H/s
SVPool: 0H/s
okminer: 0H/s
Total SV Hashrate available: 1.52EH/s
In fact, the SV pools appear to be blindly mining BCH regardless of price. At best, this is absolute faith that the BCH chain is and will be superior. At worst, this is the owners of the SV pool economically pushing hash power off of BCH to unfairly try and convince people "who's is bigger."
Because there is currently nothing economic at stake, some of the pools that allow chain switching have substantial hash rate on the other chain. Let's take a look at that:
Bitcoin.com: 1.36EH/s
ViaBTC: 5.44EH/s
BTC.com: 9.15EH/s
AntPool: 5.32EH/s
Total additional confirmed ABC/BU hash power available: 22.2EH/s
Again, BTC.top may stick their horse in this race, so let's include some wild-card stats too:
BTC.top: 5.81EH/s
Total confirmed and likely ABC / BU hash power available: 28.4EH/s
Sources: BTC.com BTH pool statistics; Coin.dance BTC pool statistics.
Economic Game Theory and Idealism
I've heard from a few places that we can't count on pools to act out of idealism, and I think for the most part those concerns are correct. I also think there are non-idealistic reasons some pools have for mining BCH at a slight to moderate economic disadvantage. I also forsee an economic hash vacuum being created that will naturally be filled by miners at an economic advantage.
First off, let's talk about Bitmain:
Bitmain has a relatively firm say in what and how the AntPool and BTC.com pool mine. They also have given investment startup to ViaBTC so it's likely they have serious pull there too.
According to leaked documents, Bitmain has previously reported owning over 1M BCH. A hard-fork that is perceived as malicious would undermine the value of their insanely sizable investment in BCH. I think it would be naive to believe that Bitmain won't temporarily be willing to mine even at a slight to moderate economic disadvantage to quash an SV chain. We don't have to rely on altruism to come to this easy conclusion.
Chance of Bitmain switching hash power to BCH during a contentious hard fork: Virtual guarantee
If you include only BTC.com and AntPool, Bitmain currently has 14.8EH/s at their disposal. It would take 15% of their hash power alone to guarantee a safe 60% majority over SV.
If you include ViaBTC, their mining power increases to 20.5EH/s and only 11% of their resources are needed to guarantee a safe 60% majority.
On top of that, a hash war with no replay protection means that one chain wins everything and one chain loses everything. If Bitmain points 2.28EH/s of their mining power at BCH (ABC) and only accept non-SV blocks, it will orphan every SV block that is mined. The 1.52EH/s of mining power for SV is effectively worth nothing which actually leaves more room on the main BCH (ABC) chain for other miners to come in at an economic advantage.
Let's even assume that the price of BCH reduces back to the ~$420 per coin rate of a few days ago and the hash-rate follows. The hash rate at that time was around 3.3EH/s meaning that not only could Bitmain come in with 2.28EH/s to guarantee a lock, but another 1.1EH/s would still follow in its footsteps at an economic advantage. This is the hash vacuum I was referring to that would be filled due to SV mining at a total loss.
This scenario would hurt SV pools (potentially) exclusively.
Even with Bitmain pitching in hashrate by itself, SV cannot compete.
As an additional note, The current total BCH network hashrate as of today is 4.6EH/s which means that SV doesn't even control a majority at the current economic equilibrium.
Next up, we'll discuss Bitcoin.com
While it's my current understanding that Roger Ver does not directly make mining decisions about the Bitcoin.com mining pool, he will probably have a clear influence.
I don't know if he's disclosed his BCH holdings publicly, but I believe it's safe to assume his holdings are substantial.
I think he would have enough influence that either he could have the Bitcoin.com mining pool mine at a slight economic disadvantage -or- he could provide a subsidy out of his own pocket temporarily and still have a long-term economic advantage.
Chance of Bitcoin.com switching hash power to BCH during a contentious hard fork: somewhat likely for protective reasons alone, even more likely for economic reasons.
Bitcoin.com alone accounts for 1.66PH/s of hashing power. They couldn't gain a 60% majority themselves, but if they point all hash power at BCH, they alone could squeak out a 52% Majority.
Because this would require all of their hash power with only a slight hash advantage, they do run the risk of getting unlucky for a substantial period of time if they go it alone. With that being said, even with the tiniest bit of help, the ABC side of the chain gains a clear majority.
MemoryDealers - care to comment on the intended hash distribution of the Bitcoin.com pool? I'll gladly update to directly link your comment for visibility in return.
The final pool to discuss (as well as being the biggest wild-card in the ABC bunch) is BTC.top.
BTC.top controls 6.18EH/s of hashing power.
While their motives seem economic in nature, their goal of owning 100k BCH means they likely also have a substantially nest-egg to protect. In general, they seem to have just gone-with-the-flow in the past, and could very well chose to do the same thing here.
Chance of BTC.top switching hash power to BCH during a contentious hard fork: They will be happy to fill the economic vacuum that SV mining at a total loss creates.
If BTC.top chose to outright protect the ABC/BU side of the chain, they can gain a safe 60% hashing majority with ~38% of their total available hashpower. More likely, I think they just happily fill out any remaining economic advantage from Bitmain and/or Bitcoin.com protecting their own interests.
So what the heck is going to happen?
Well, that depends.
Right now, SV hasn't shown that they have the hash power to even gain a majority hash of the current BCH network. Their pools were temporarily close to or above the 51% mark at the economic equilibrium of the lower $400-$450 price range, but as of today, they're only showing around 38% of hash power.
If SV has hash power offline or if they can get additional pools to use SV and mine BCH exclusively, our equations may change some... but I'm highly skeptical.
I find it unlikely that SV-based miners have thousands of peta-hash worth of miners sitting idly waiting for the hard-fork. Leaving that many miners idle for half of a month would effectively be the same as lighting millions of dollars in cash on fire.
My estimation is that to even have a chance, SV would need at least half of the hash power of Bitmain as that would force them to start to make some non-ideal economic decisions.
Even ignoring ViaBTC, that would require around 6EH/s remaining idle.
6EH/s of hash power is currently worth around $1.5M USD per day.
This would also require almost half-a million units at a start-up cost of around $3.1B (assuming Antminer S9s). I find it unlikely that an instillation that large will possibly be installed in the next 10 days.
I find the prospect of that many offline or to-be-installed miners insanely unlikely.
With that being said, it's fairly clear that SV will almost certainly not attain majority hash-power.
They are highly likely to not even reach the point where they make it economically disadvantageous to mine BCH to protect the primary (ABC / BU) chain. In fact, they likely make the prospect better.
ABC / BU would be at no obligation to implement replay protection as they will likely have majority hash-rate with no economic disadvantage.
While I think it's their best option, If SV chooses to implement replay protection and officially split, I think they shoot themselves in the foot economically. There may end up being two chains, but my impression is that most people with mining or economic interest are going to follow the ABC/BU chain. I think this makes the price of SV as a separate entity decline very substantially.
If SV chooses not to implement replay protection, they almost certainly get out-hashed until they've suffered enough economically to throw in the towel.
An additional note about the recent price increase
Many people are stating that the price increase is due to the prospect of a chain split. It is my impression however, that the former price depression was due to the perceived mismanagement that would occur as a result of having only one client (SV) and one primary entity (SV-controlled pools) essentially dictate changes.
I think it's important moving forward that we maintain a diverse and non-centralized array of wallet projects who effectively communicate potential protocol changes to each-other. I also think it's important moving forward that we maintain a diverse interest of independent pools.
While I don't think BCH is 100% there yet, I'm pretty sure the result of the November hard fork will reveal that we're headed very much in the correct direction.
I think the renewed price confidence is due in part to the superficial reason that "oh, look... there will be two chains" and for the non-superficial reason that the project still very much appears to be headed in the correct direction.
TL;DR - ABC has as much as 28.4EH/s ready to go while SV sits around 1.52EH/s. All signs point to ABC/BU being a virtual lock for November 15th
I still recommend paying attention to total pool hashrates and how they shift between BTC/BCH in the upcoming days, but it doesn't look good for SV.
submitted by CaptainPatent to btc [link] [comments]

r/Bitcoin recap - October 2018

Hi Bitcoiners!
I’m back with the 22nd monthly Bitcoin news recap. I Hope you like the new, categorized format!
For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in Bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
You can see recaps of the previous months on Bitcoinsnippets.com
A recap of Bitcoin in October 2018
Adoption
SegWit adoption rises to over 50% (4 Oct)
A large bus company in Europe accepts bitcoin (4 Oct)
A holiday home in Germany accepts bitcoin (4 Oct)
A coffee shop in Bern, Switzerland accepts Lightning Network payments (5 Oct)
A shop at Brisbane airport accepts bitcoin (7 Oct)
An exchange in Latin America adds Lightning Network payments (12 Oct)
Some Venezuelans have turned to cryptocurrency and gaming currencies to make money (13 Oct)
Mycelium wallet will finally support SegWit (16 Oct)
Australia Post helps Bitcoin adoption through its digital identity service (24 Oct)
Blockchain.com still hasn’t implemented SegWit 1.5 years after their promise (25 Oct)
The Lightning network is now at 12500 open channels (26 Oct)
A bar in Mexico City accepts bitcoin payments (28 Oct)
Development
A BTCPay server can now be deployed in 1 minute (2 Oct)
Bitcoin Core 0.17.0 is now available for download (3 Oct)
Electrum will get a Lightning Network integration (3 Oct)
Scaling Bitcoin Tokyo slides and presentations (5 Oct)
People discuss building on the Lightning Network at an upcoming event (11 Oct)
A Lightning Network-powered E-bike (14 Oct)
Bulletproofs were implemented in Monero resulting in a huge boost in scalability (20 Oct)
Watchtowers were merged into LND (25 Oct)
Wasabi Wallet 1.0 is released! (31 Oct)
Security
A discussion on “out of the box” Bitcoin nodes (20 Oct)
A warning about a “dusting attack” on wallets to deanonymise people (25 Oct)
Mining
By 2032 99% of all bitcoins will have been mined (6 Oct)
Bitmain’s new firmware is causing problems (22 Oct)
Antpool stops including transactions that use SegWit (29 Oct)
Business
The inventor of the World Wide Web launches a platform to redecentralize the Internet (1 Oct)
Coinbase added 5M users in ~6 months (3 Oct)
Yale University will reportedly invest $400M in a cryptocurrency fund (7 Oct)
An interview with the CEO of Bitrefill on their Lightning Network experiences (9 Oct)
The Liquid Network is officially launched as a Bitcoin sidechain (10 Oct)
Fidelity launches a digital asset service (15 Oct)
Goldman Sachs plans to use Bakkt’s cryptocurrency custody service (18 Oct)
Ledger reveals it sold 1.3M hardware wallets (18 Oct)
Goldman Sachs invests in cold storage solution provider BitGo (18 Oct)
Shapeshift’s KYC is now in place (19 Oct)
Coinbase and Circle announce the USDC stable coin (23 Oct)
An investigation finds that some crypto media outlets don’t disclose paid promotional content (25 Oct)
Research
A high-resolution Lightning Network overview (2 Oct)
Education
A guide on how to accept bitcoin using BTCPay server (14 Oct)
An explainer of Neutrino for the Lightning Network (17 Oct)
Bitcoin is the invention of digital scarcity (28 Oct)
10 years ago Satoshi Nakamoto published the Bitcoin Whitepaper to a mailing list (31 Oct)
Regulation & Politics
Scalability discussion at a Senate hearing in the US (12 Oct)
Japan grants cryptocurrency industry self-regulatory status (24 Oct)
Chinese court says it is legal to own and transfer bitcoin (26 Oct)
China’s merchants are legally allowed to accept bitcoin (27 Oct)
A US Presidential candidate wants to exempt cryptocurrencies from capital gains tax (30 Oct)
Archeology (Financial Incumbents)
Anti-cryptocurrency propaganda promoted by American Express (16 Oct)
Many of the banks calling bitcoin a money laundering tool are caught money laundering themselves (19 Oct)
Mastercard files patent for bitcoin transactions on credit cards (26 Oct)
The Visa CEO says cryptocurrency is not a big threat but they will support it if needed (27 Oct)
Banks asking you for the reason for payments is why we need bitcoin (28 Oct)
Price & Trading
Analysis on the activity of ‘whales’ in the bitcoin market (10 Oct)
Bitcoin has been less volatile than Nasdaq, Dow and S&P 500 (24 Oct)
Fun & Other
People discuss the quality of some largely upvoted posts on Bitcoin (7 Oct)
People try to make clear that Bitcoin has no CEO (8 Oct)
An easter egg in the Bitcoin genesis block (12 Oct)
A bitcoin ATM operator gets money back from the police who confiscated it (13 Oct)
eToro creates a cryptocurrency ad with Game of Thrones star (17 Oct)
$194M was moved using bitcoin with a $0.1 fee (19 Oct)
Why Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency have no future (21 Oct)
Elon Musk’s Twitter gets blocked when talking about Bitcoin upon suspicion of being hacked (23 Oct)
Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak plans to travel somewhere using only bitcoin (26 Oct)
A Halloween gift with claimable bitcoin (29 Oct)
Someone gifts $20 of Bitcoin to Janet Yellen’s public email after she makes negative statements on stage (30 Oct)
Bitcoin receives a lot of bad press based on a poorly researched report (30 Oct)
See you all next month! ✌️ Try to do something good for Bitcoin!
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Finally hit ROI

What's up guys, finally hit my bitcoin ROI. It's a couple months behind schedule due to how the btc price bombing post investment, but I'm in the green now.
Initial investment: was 3.3975 BTC on split between two neighboring days mid December for a total of 400 TH with no reinvestment. Mostly was Antpool 100% aside from the few days/weeks that F2Pool was most profitable
As of today over 14 withdrawals: 3.4061228 BTC
I was pretty skeptical with the site downtime and drastic price drops that this was a gunna be bitconnect 2.0 also. Just wanted to show that at least one other person on this scam caller filled sub actually reached the light at the end of the hypothetical tunnel.
BTW I know that the USD value is much less than the original investment. I originally paid with BTC (that wasn't bought at all time high levels), so receiving back more than I spent is anything but a scam (just exceptionally risky). I planned on holding for at least several more years, so arguments of I could have sold and rebought is pretty irrelevant to me.
On the contract side, if hashflare doesn't bitconnect 2.0 anytime soon, then I still have 7 1/2 months of pure BTC profit regardless of how small daily payouts will be due to difficulty/price.
I'm pretty curious how others who invested the same time as me aren't close to their ROI though...
here are some numbers from my dashboard
https://imgur.com/a/dNPL3tr
submitted by hashflareROI to hashflare [link] [comments]

r/bitcoin recap - April 2017

Hi again everyone!
I’m back with the fourth monthly Bitcoin news recap.
For those unfamiliar, each day I pick out the most popularelevant/interesting stories in bitcoin and save them. At the end of the month I release them in one batch, to give you a quick (but not necessarily the best) overview of what happened in bitcoin over the past month.
You can find the full version with the links to all discussions & articles on Bitcoinsnippets.com so that this post doesn’t get auto-moderated for spam.
This month I went back in time and made an overview for October 2016 too.
A recap of April 2017 in bitcoin
Special shout-out this month to all the awesome people that are ensuring we have more than a few dozen nodes in the world. <3
Edit: Fixed the 24th about the 1.7MB block which was actually mined in October.
submitted by SamWouters to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Samson Mow’s on 8BTC’s AMA: BU Are Low-Level CopyCats and We Do Support Onchain Scaling

Samson Mow, the COO of BTCC, has completed his AMA on 8btc on 2 Dec.
Samson has faced all the harsh questions raised and said BU is “awful” and he supports onchain Scaling.
We have move all the answers typed by Mr. Mow in person here.
Let’s see:
Q: How do you comment on BU?
A: For BU, I think it’s indeed an awful software. Actually it’s just a redesign based on Bitcoin Core as 99% of the codes are still those of Bitcoin Core. BU just has made some tiny changes. In developing BU, there are serval bugs in BU but they claim these bugs are just bugs from Bitcoin Core itself. Members from Core can tell the so called “bugs from Bitcoin Core itself” are simply caused by BU’s developers. BU is bad at coding and BU has not been through thorough tests. Many coders including Chinese and Westerners all thought BU’s codes are bad.
Besides, BU team actually has achieved nothing till now. If we say Bitcoin is a Ferrari with 100 Core members maintaining it, then BU team simply don’t know what a Ferrari is. BU only repairs bikes or even bikes are beyond their ability. All of these are because BU never has created or maintained any crypto currency. They even have never released any altcoin. I would rather believe in MaidSafeCoin or Dash’s teams than believe in BU.
Furthermore. BU changed the bitcoin’s rule of “ consensus-based principle”. BU is not based on consensus. Bitcoin’s rules are not made for mining but for users to decide the blocksize based on consensus. In order to gain support, BU now suddenly say bitcoin is created for mining, which is actually not even the thought of the developers of BU. Developers(of BU) also said they need to make some changes to conform to the consensus-based principle of bitcoin.
BU is just a form of political maneuvering that is being taken advantage of, just like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic. Those who support BU are actually not all for BU. The want to achieve their ulterior motives by supporting BU, say they want to scale blocksize, to alienate Core team or they just want to prove they are correct. Their reasons for supporting BU are all far-fetched or wrong.
(from ID Bitcoiners) Q :Does BTCC support onchain scaling ?
Yes, BTCC support onchain scaling.:)
We support any plan of scaling both on and off chain as long as they are safe and have been under thorough tests. SegeWit in essence is onchain scaling as it can make the block size bigger and enlarge the effective capacity of the blockchain for bitcoins.
Many people still think SW is not onchain scaling. But in fact SW is the fastest scaling onchain plan till now. Most of the people within the community oppose a hasty hard-fork; If we can reach consensus on SW, then we can achieve onchain scaling in several months, making it a reality to have bigger blocksize and capacity for more transactions.
Q:BTCC supports SW as mining pool(miners) or as an exchange.
A: we support SW as believe it can improve bitcoin and enlarge the capacity of block, making outstanding technologies like lighting possible. This will bring an all win situation for bitcoin’s traders, miners, buyers or holders. We have made the supportive decision based on our analysis of it and its future potential.
Q: under what circumstances will BTCC give up running a bitcoin app in production with activated SW soft-fork?
I don’t think I have any reason to give up SegeWit till now as it will bring many improvements to bitcoin. It fixes bitcoin’s malleability. If SW is activated, the use of lightening network becomes possible. So from technical angle, I will not give up SW.
But there are also chances for us to give up SW. Like if other mining pools give us pressure then we may make concessions. If the activation phase of SW comes to an end, then we might also give up SW. But in general, till now I do not see any reason not to support SW. SW is a technical progress instead of a political fight. It should not be affected by others’ emotion or preferences. SW is a technical changes of bitcoin’s the core codes.
If political fight in the bitcoin community results in joint pressure mounting to us, I would say this is not the situation we want to see. We need to make decisions based on the pros and cons of the SW, and on the consensus of the Core’s team members as Core’s members are all excellent programmers. These coders spent a lot of time considering the situation to explore the best scaling solution to fix problems that most of the ordinary people feel hard to understand. If others’ pressure makes us unable to run SW or we press others to run SW, the situation will be bad. I think every should make decisions based on the pros and cons of technicals.
Currently there are many rumors and misgiving within Chinese community. Many people are maligning SW. Like some people are claiming Core will change the POW into PoS; SW is poison; SW is not onchain scaling, or the lighting network will carve up miners’ benefits…all of these are rumors without any source. SW is indeed onchain scaling. Except BU, no developer or engineer would say SW is not onchain sacling.
Q: Won’t BTCC follow the 2015 Beijing Pool Declaration and 2016 Hong Kong Consensus anymore?
A: This seems to be a question of common concerns. I would like to reply in details. Wish it can be clearer for all.
For 2015 Beijng Mining Pool Declaration, there is a long story behind it. You can’t say what happed a year ago equally applies in today’s situation as both internet world and crypto area are evolving fast. The Consensus was actually response to Bitcoin XT, when Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn firstly incited political fight within bitcoin community which has been witnessed by many mining pools.
At that time. Mike and Gavin tried to contact us quite frequently. They lobbied us and wanted us to use their Bitcoin XT. They said it can scale the blocksize into a 20MB one. They said the block was going to be full and actions must be taken. It’s until now that we are aware that it’s natural for the block to be full. If there is no full block, then there is no profits for the miners. The block space must maintain its scarcity to be valuable. But at that time we were not familiar with technical stuff and didn’t know how capable the Mike and Gavin were. We just knew 20MB was really bigger than 1MB and many other mining pools also felt the need to act so we were also a bit worried. But after some consideration, we believe to have 8MB block size was rather safe. To scale to 8 MB is referred to the Bitcoin XT’s plan of scaling to 20MB. We even didn’t intend to scale to 8MB blocksize. After the Beijing conference, Bitcoin XT distorted our intention by saying that our roadmap is to scale from 8MB to 8GB size. Many mining pools felt they were betrayed.
I don’t think that anyone should be required to conform to the 2015 Beijing Mining Pool Consensus. If it’s a must for everyone to conform to it, then BU should not have gained any support since we just need to scale to 8MB.
For 2016 Hong Kong consensus, it was actually the response to Bitcoin Classic. Bitcoin Classics misled us by saying that all people were supportive of them. Actually everyone at that time believed other people all support Bitcoin Classics so it turned out all people were for Bitcoin Classics. In was in the context that we held that Hong Kong Conference. The consensus stated that Core would write hard-fork codes. So many people thought it was an agreement between BTCC and Core. But actually the consensus was a response for Bitcoin Classic. There were 5 Core members at the site and they signed the consensus. But Bitcoin Core is neither a company nor an organization. It’s only some individuals and companies who support the development of Bitcoin Core. No one can compel Bitcoin Core to do anything and Core will not compel others to do anything. either. This is just the feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin is alive. It’s not a company which can post something on its official site. Likely, Bitcoin Core’s software will not update automatically. (Apple and Microsoft will send you a new version and you have to update). The update of Bitcoin Core is out of your free choices and you can also downgrade the system.
In fact, there are others things in Hong Kong consensus that have not been followed like Core hasn’t completed the development of SW in time. But this just proved their prudence. They will not accept a SW without thorough and sound tests. We have made some mistakes during the Hong Kong Consensus period. We were not familiar with the development of bitcoins. We have kept on learning and improving these years.
Actually Core team indeed has written the hard-fork codes which are published in BIP draft. To seem please find: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.html https://petertodd.org/2016/hardforks-after-the-segwit-blocksize-increase https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012342.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Decembe013332.html
In the conference in San Francisco this summer, Core has displayed these codes but the community didn’t give many responses. Core members are trying their best to write code and the process is continuing. They can’t compel the Core to publish the hard-fork publicly as it requires the consensus within the whole Core members. There is no leader in Core.
Core also release 0.13, a version without SW for those who wants the most updated technique but are not willing to use SW. This version contains the most updated techniques like Schnorr signing.
Q: Does BTCC have any contingency plan for any bug which has been discussed on reddit?
Reddit is only a platform for people to share news or discuss anything. The so-called bug discussed on /btc are only the random guess by those who do not know technical stuff.
If you really want to discuss bug issues of SW, please subscribe Bitcoin Core’s email and go to their IRC chatting room. That’s where bug issue should be discussed effectively. Core has all of the communication records of Slack, IRC and subscription list published on the internet, though people won’t go there and see. People like to go to reddit. Reddit is not for technical discussion. It’s for…catfight. These so-called bugs have already been discussed between core members. It is because of these discussions of bugs’ elimination and tests that SW has come out later than expected, Core wants to provide reliable and bug-free codes to support its 11 billion USD worth industry of bitcoin.
Now we look at BU, it hasn’t had many test reports. Actually Core has reported bugs of BU and BU didn’t give any response.
Activity of BU on GitHub Imgur
Activity of Core Imgur
Core has done many tests and they even found bugs of library used by C++. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/507145d78595e052ce13368e122f72c85093992c https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9229
Q: Dose BTTC support that 1M blocksize should remain so permanently or believe it should be scaled at a proper time in the future?
Imgur
It is a misunderstanding commonly seen in Chinese community that Core wants the block size to remain 1MB forever.
Core’s road map is just hard fork. But optimization should proceed the hard-fork. Core never said they will hold IMB block size permanently. We don’t want a block with only 1MB size, either. But If bitcoin doesn’t possess the feature of decentralization, then bitcoin is useless. It would be something like a database. Thus the smaller the blocksize is, the better bitcoin is as everyone can run it. You can’t just take care of yourself. A hard disk may be extremely expensive for the poor people. Since those who boast bigger size do not represent all the community, what we could do is to lower the threshold as possibly as we can.
Many people may never involve themselves in Ethereum community. We wanted to run our ETC mining pool but we have encountered many problems only because the block size is too big. You can’t only envision inserting the blocksize in a disk without considering communication, synchronization and orphanage rate. Scaling is not that easy. What many people do not understand is that scaling shouldn’t be done without due consideration. If we put all the date from google and YouTube in everyone’s computer like ledgers of blockchain, then to double the data of Google and YouTube means to double the data of everyone. This will lead to an increasing pressure of the whole network. You have to pay the price for scaling. Those who think the costs are nothing for them simply can not represent everyone.
SW indeed will scale the blocksize and Core team have some techniques for omptimization like the Schnorr signing. Schnorr can compress the transactions of 16MB into a 1MB block under perfect condition. Now the theoretical size is to compress 4MB data into a 1MB blocksize. There are many other methods to make 1MB size block size handle more data. But if needed, we can scale the blocksize into 2MB.
Added: Core team is highly transparent. All their meetings are available on the internet. See https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/
Q: Has BTCC Pool’s support of SW gained understanding and support from miners in your pool? In another way, has BTCC pool explained pros and cons of various options? Any relevant explanatory information can be shared to other pools for reference?
A: we have a professional management team for mining pools and we have maintained active communication with them. Last week I just went to Chengdu of Sichuan Province to meet miners there. We have explained the benefits of SW to the miners of Chengdu and they expressed their supportive attitude. BTCC indeed will explain to our miners the pros and cons of different scaling plans. In the meantime, we also provide reference documents on our Weibo and Wechat to miners, traders and bitcoins fans. We invited one Lightening founder to Shanghai for a meeting with friends in Shanghai. Next week (11th NOV), We will also invite some Core members to be in Shanghai to discuss SW with friends present. We have provided the information of Bitcoin, SW and scaling plans to not only miners and but all users of BTCC.
Q: Has BTCC pool done extensive test on 0.13.1 SegWit code? Can you release test report?
A: Sure. Thorough tests need to be done. In early April 2016, Core has contacted China’s miners including BTCC, F2Pool, AntPool BW to test SW on SegNet; In later April our pool has mined the blocks containing SW transactions; In May, mining pools including BW all completed the tests of SegNet and they have mined SW block; in October, BTCC began to test Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 and the improvements of 0.13.1 has begun since; 18th Oct, the vote of SW officially kicks off. Sorry I don’t have test files for you. But till now, judging from the mining pool’s operation, everything is fine.
The AMA is conducted in Chinese.
Knowing that this AMA really matters for the both Chinese and Western community to know the ideas and thoughts of others, we have tried our best to keep the original meaning and tones in plain English.
To see the original Chinese AMA text,
Please first sign in on news.8btc.com , the international site of 8tbc, and then go directly to the thread:
http://8btc.com/thread-42814-1-1.html
Tune In http://news.8btc.com/ for more fist hand information on CN community.
submitted by 8btccom to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Samson Mow’s on 8BTC’s AMA: BU Are terrible and We Do Support Onchain Scaling

Samson Mow, the COO of BTCC, has completed his AMA on 8btc. Samson has faced all the harsh questions raised and said BU is “awful” and he supports onchain Scaling.
We have move all the answers typed by Mr. Mow in person here.
Let’s see:
Q: How do you comment on BU?
A: For BU, I think it’s indeed an awful software. Actually it’s just a redesign based on Bitcoin Core as 99% of the codes are still those of Bitcoin Core. BU just has made some tiny changes. In developing BU, there are serval bugs in BU but they claim these bugs are just bugs from Bitcoin Core itself. Members from Core can tell the so called “bugs from Bitcoin Core itself” are simply caused by BU’s developers. BU is bad at coding and BU has not been through thorough tests. Many coders including Chinese and Westerners all thought BU’s codes are bad.
Besides, BU team actually has achieved nothing till now. If we say Bitcoin is a Ferrari with 100 Core members maintaining it, then BU team simply don’t know what a Ferrari is. BU only repairs bikes or even bikes are beyond their ability. All of these are because BU never has created or maintained any crypto currency. They even have never released any altcoin. I would rather believe in MaidSafeCoin or Dash’s teams than believe in BU.
Furthermore. BU changed the bitcoin’s rule of “ consensus-based principle”. BU is not based on consensus. Bitcoin’s rules are not made for mining but for users to decide the blocksize based on consensus. In order to gain support, BU now suddenly say bitcoin is created for mining, which is actually not even the thought of the developers of BU. Developers(of BU) also said they need to make some changes to conform to the consensus-based principle of bitcoin.
BU is just a form of political maneuvering that is being taken advantage of, just like Bitcoin XT and Bitcoin Classic. Those who support BU are actually not all for BU. The want to achieve their ulterior motives by supporting BU, say they want to scale blocksize, to alienate Core team or they just want to prove they are correct. Their reasons for supporting BU are all far-fetched or wrong.
(from ID Bitcoiners) Q :Does BTCC support onchain scaling ?
Yes, BTCC support onchain scaling.:)
We support any plan of scaling both on and off chain as long as they are safe and have been under thorough tests. SegeWit in essence is onchain scaling as it can make the block size bigger and enlarge the effective capacity of the blockchain for bitcoins.
Many people still think SW is not onchain scaling. But in fact SW is the fastest scaling onchain plan till now. Most of the people within the community oppose a hasty hard-fork; If we can reach consensus on SW, then we can achieve onchain scaling in several months, making it a reality to have bigger blocksize and capacity for more transactions.
Q:BTCC supports SW as mining pool(miners) or as an exchange.
A: we support SW as believe it can improve bitcoin and enlarge the capacity of block, making outstanding technologies like lighting possible. This will bring an all win situation for bitcoin’s traders, miners, buyers or holders. We have made the supportive decision based on our analysis of it and its future potential.
Q: under what circumstances will BTCC give up running a bitcoin app in production with activated SW soft-fork?
I don’t think I have any reason to give up SegeWit till now as it will bring many improvements to bitcoin. It fixes bitcoin’s malleability. If SW is activated, the use of lightening network becomes possible. So from technical angle, I will not give up SW.
But there are also chances for us to give up SW. Like if other mining pools give us pressure then we may make concessions. If the activation phase of SW comes to an end, then we might also give up SW. But in general, till now I do not see any reason not to support SW. SW is a technical progress instead of a political fight. It should not be affected by others’ emotion or preferences. SW is a technical changes of bitcoin’s the core codes.
If political fight in the bitcoin community results in joint pressure mounting to us, I would say this is not the situation we want to see. We need to make decisions based on the pros and cons of the SW, and on the consensus of the Core’s team members as Core’s members are all excellent programmers. These coders spent a lot of time considering the situation to explore the best scaling solution to fix problems that most of the ordinary people feel hard to understand. If others’ pressure makes us unable to run SW or we press others to run SW, the situation will be bad. I think every should make decisions based on the pros and cons of technicals.
Currently there are many rumors and misgiving within Chinese community. Many people are maligning SW. Like some people are claiming Core will change the POW into PoS; SW is poison; SW is not onchain scaling, or the lighting network will carve up miners’ benefits…all of these are rumors without any source. SW is indeed onchain scaling. Except BU, no developer or engineer would say SW is not onchain sacling.
Q: Won’t BTCC follow the 2015 Beijing Pool Declaration and 2016 Hong Kong Consensus anymore?
A: This seems to be a question of common concerns. I would like to reply in details. Wish it can be clearer for all.
For 2015 Beijng Mining Pool Declaration, there is a long story behind it. You can’t say what happed a year ago equally applies in today’s situation as both internet world and crypto area are evolving fast. The Consensus was actually response to Bitcoin XT, when Gavin Andresen and Mike Hearn firstly incited political fight within bitcoin community which has been witnessed by many mining pools.
At that time. Mike and Gavin tried to contact us quite frequently. They lobbied us and wanted us to use their Bitcoin XT. They said it can scale the blocksize into a 20MB one. They said the block was going to be full and actions must be taken. It’s until now that we are aware that it’s natural for the block to be full. If there is no full block, then there is no profits for the miners. The block space must maintain its scarcity to be valuable. But at that time we were not familiar with technical stuff and didn’t know how capable the Mike and Gavin were. We just knew 20MB was really bigger than 1MB and many other mining pools also felt the need to act so we were also a bit worried. But after some consideration, we believe to have 8MB block size was rather safe. To scale to 8 MB is referred to the Bitcoin XT’s plan of scaling to 20MB. We even didn’t intend to scale to 8MB blocksize. After the Beijing conference, Bitcoin XT distorted our intention by saying that our roadmap is to scale from 8MB to 8GB size. Many mining pools felt they were betrayed.
I don’t think that anyone should be required to conform to the 2015 Beijing Mining Pool Consensus. If it’s a must for everyone to conform to it, then BU should not have gained any support since we just need to scale to 8MB.
For 2016 Hong Kong consensus, it was actually the response to Bitcoin Classic. Bitcoin Classics misled us by saying that all people were supportive of them. Actually everyone at that time believed other people all support Bitcoin Classics so it turned out all people were for Bitcoin Classics. In was in the context that we held that Hong Kong Conference. The consensus stated that Core would write hard-fork codes. So many people thought it was an agreement between BTCC and Core. But actually the consensus was a response for Bitcoin Classic. There were 5 Core members at the site and they signed the consensus. But Bitcoin Core is neither a company nor an organization. It’s only some individuals and companies who support the development of Bitcoin Core. No one can compel Bitcoin Core to do anything and Core will not compel others to do anything. either. This is just the feature of bitcoin. Bitcoin is alive. It’s not a company which can post something on its official site. Likely, Bitcoin Core’s software will not update automatically. (Apple and Microsoft will send you a new version and you have to update). The update of Bitcoin Core is out of your free choices and you can also downgrade the system.
In fact, there are others things in Hong Kong consensus that have not been followed like Core hasn’t completed the development of SW in time. But this just proved their prudence. They will not accept a SW without thorough and sound tests. We have made some mistakes during the Hong Kong Consensus period. We were not familiar with the development of bitcoins. We have kept on learning and improving these years.
Actually Core team indeed has written the hard-fork codes which are published in BIP draft. To seem please find: https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012377.html https://petertodd.org/2016/hardforks-after-the-segwit-blocksize-increase https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-February/012342.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-Decembe013332.html
In the conference in San Francisco this summer, Core has displayed these codes but the community didn’t give many responses. Core members are trying their best to write code and the process is continuing. They can’t compel the Core to publish the hard-fork publicly as it requires the consensus within the whole Core members. There is no leader in Core.
Core also release 0.13, a version without SW for those who wants the most updated technique but are not willing to use SW. This version contains the most updated techniques like Schnorr signing.
Q: Does BTCC have any contingency plan for any bug which has been discussed on reddit?
Reddit is only a platform for people to share news or discuss anything. The so-called bug discussed on /btc are only the random guess by those who do not know technical stuff.
If you really want to discuss bug issues of SW, please subscribe Bitcoin Core’s email and go to their IRC chatting room. That’s where bug issue should be discussed effectively. Core has all of the communication records of Slack, IRC and subscription list published on the internet, though people won’t go there and see. People like to go to reddit. Reddit is not for technical discussion. It’s for…catfight. These so-called bugs have already been discussed between core members. It is because of these discussions of bugs’ elimination and tests that SW has come out later than expected, Core wants to provide reliable and bug-free codes to support its 11 billion USD worth industry of bitcoin.
Now we look at BU, it hasn’t had many test reports. Actually Core has reported bugs of BU and BU didn’t give any response.
Activity of BU on GitHub http://i.imgur.com/ElZ71vv.jpg
Activity of Core GitHub http://i.imgur.com/XbNGUqz.jpg
Core has done many tests and they even found bugs of library used by C++. https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/507145d78595e052ce13368e122f72c85093992c https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/9229
Q: Dose BTTC support that 1M blocksize should remain so permanently or believe it should be scaled at a proper time in the future?
http://i.imgur.com/P1duZTn.png
It is a misunderstanding commonly seen in Chinese community that Core wants the block size to remain 1MB forever.
Core’s road map is just hard fork. But optimization should proceed the hard-fork. Core never said they will hold IMB block size permanently. We don’t want a block with only 1MB size, either. But If bitcoin doesn’t possess the feature of decentralization, then bitcoin is useless. It would be something like a database. Thus the smaller the blocksize is, the better bitcoin is as everyone can run it. You can’t just take care of yourself. A hard disk may be extremely expensive for the poor people. Since those who boast bigger size do not represent all the community, what we could do is to lower the threshold as possibly as we can.
Many people may never involve themselves in Ethereum community. We wanted to run our ETC mining pool but we have encountered many problems only because the block size is too big. You can’t only envision inserting the blocksize in a disk without considering communication, synchronization and orphanage rate. Scaling is not that easy. What many people do not understand is that scaling shouldn’t be done without due consideration. If we put all the date from google and YouTube in everyone’s computer like ledgers of blockchain, then to double the data of Google and YouTube means to double the data of everyone. This will lead to an increasing pressure of the whole network. You have to pay the price for scaling. Those who think the costs are nothing for them simply can not represent everyone.
SW indeed will scale the blocksize and Core team have some techniques for omptimization like the Schnorr signing. Schnorr can compress the transactions of 16MB into a 1MB block under perfect condition. Now the theoretical size is to compress 4MB data into a 1MB blocksize. There are many other methods to make 1MB size block size handle more data. But if needed, we can scale the blocksize into 2MB.
Added: Core team is highly transparent. All their meetings are available on the internet. See https://bitcoincore.org/en/meetings/
Q: Has BTCC Pool’s support of SW gained understanding and support from miners in your pool? In another way, has BTCC pool explained pros and cons of various options? Any relevant explanatory information can be shared to other pools for reference?
A: we have a professional management team for mining pools and we have maintained active communication with them. Last week I just went to Chengdu of Sichuan Province to meet miners there. We have explained the benefits of SW to the miners of Chengdu and they expressed their supportive attitude. BTCC indeed will explain to our miners the pros and cons of different scaling plans. In the meantime, we also provide reference documents on our Weibo and Wechat to miners, traders and bitcoins fans. We invited one Lightening founder to Shanghai for a meeting with friends in Shanghai. Next week (11th NOV), We will also invite some Core members to be in Shanghai to discuss SW with friends present. We have provided the information of Bitcoin, SW and scaling plans to not only miners and but all users of BTCC.
Q: Has BTCC pool done extensive test on 0.13.1 SegWit code? Can you release test report?
A: Sure. Thorough tests need to be done. In early April 2016, Core has contacted China’s miners including BTCC, F2Pool, AntPool BW to test SW on SegNet; In later April our pool has mined the blocks containing SW transactions; In May, mining pools including BW all completed the tests of SegNet and they have mined SW block; in October, BTCC began to test Bitcoin Core 0.13.1 and the improvements of 0.13.1 has begun since; 18th Oct, the vote of SW officially kicks off. Sorry I don’t have test files for you. But till now, judging from the mining pool’s operation, everything is fine.
The AMA is conducted in Chinese.
Knowing that this AMA really matters for the both Chinese and Western community to know the ideas and thoughts of others, we have tried our best to keep the original meaning and tones in plain English.
To see the original Chinese AMA text,
Please first sign in on news.8btc.com, the international site of 8tbc, and then go directly to the thread:
http://8btc.com/thread-42814-1-1.html
Tune In http://news.8btc.com/ for more fist hand information on CN community.
submitted by 8btccom to btc [link] [comments]

Is Crypterra scam or legit?

I bought 20TH a few days ago and have been requesting withdrawals once per day. They all came through, and no transaction fee charged by Crypterra. Tonight, someone on the Discord group confirmed Crypterra is receiving coins from mining pools (including one believed to be Antpool) by tracing wallet transactions:
Withdrawal transaction: https://blockchain.info/tx/9afb4a77963d559bad7ed1fd042205a3846a7a373298eeafe640991e29748d2d
From this wallet: https://blockchain.info/address/16VAf36hVLb5fVVfQQshiBT1D3hRBtep8H
From this wallet: https://blockchain.info/address/15JAD37i7c24zzQd7A93S3wG9m8EhcBeng
From this mining pool: https://blockchain.info/address/1K2eCE2CEYj6jfU7ueTyMHC8aLfsJjLGyS
From this mining pool as well: https://blockchain.info/address/1N52wHoVR79PMDishab2XmRHsbekCdGquK
This mining pool as well: https://blockchain.info/address/14cQRmViAzVKa277gZznByGZtnrVPQc8Lr
It looks legit to me since you can't fake blockchain transactions. Also, Crypterra is doing withdrawals in batches, believed to be one batch around 5 am and another batch around 5 pm to avoid high fees and allowing low withdrawal limit (currently at $10 USD minimum). It may take a few hours to get enough confirmations from the network. Default pools for Bitcoin mining are 50% Antpool and 50% F2pool (can't change allocation right now though)
Crypterra is doing a promotion which will be valid til January 10
20 TH/s Enterprise BTC for $1.792(30% off) Promo code: XMAS30BTC
340 MH/s Enterprise ETC for $1.912(25% Off) Promo Code: XMAS25ETH
600 MH/s Enterprise LTC for $1.680(20% Off) Promo Code: XMAS20LTC
10% off Promo Code: HAPPY2018
If you are interested, you can sign up through this link https://crypterra.net/?code=CR6820 Much appreciated :) It is recommended to pay with Litecoin as bitcoin network is too congested for a fast confirmation. Happy mining!!
submitted by c7002593 to Crypterra [link] [comments]

Network of exchanges: Other Altcoins as base currency for Bitsquare

Bitsquare will become: The decentralized exchange network This will be our new slogan when we start our re-branding in a few weeks.
But it will not only shift the focus on the network aspect of Bitsquare but also can be read as network of exchanges. This will get a new meaning with our plans how to deal with the problem of higher transaction fees in Bitcoin.
As many of our traders have experienced, the explosive increase of tx fees and the huge block chain backlogs caused a lot of disruption for traders with stuck transactions. In our next release (version 0.5) we will introduce dynamic tx fees and use a fee estimation service to get always the best tx fees for fast confirmations.
Though with fees > 2 USD we are leaving the comfort zone. Specially for smaller trade amounts the tx fee will become a problem.
It was always clear that at some point tx fees in Bitcoin will become very expensive and we need other models like Lightning or similar to solve this problem. We expected that this will happen in 1-2 years. Unfortunately we got the high fees already now and it seems they will continue to increase fast. As some miners with their toxic behavior are blocking SegWit we cannot count on Lightning as a solution for the near future.
One approach to deal with that situation is to change the base currency from Bitcoin to another Altcoin which has lower fees. This was not considered earlier as it has the negative side effect that it split up the market and hurts the network effect, as well as it has considerable engineering effort. Now we don't see other options how we can solve the problematic fee situation so we decided to go that route.
As we want to be neutral and want to support as many Altcoins as possible we decided to work on a plugin architecture to enable the user to select their favorite base currency. Altcoins which have a BitcoinJ implementation will get added first. Others which require more engineering effort will get added later (Ethereum, Monero once it has MultiSig,...). Of course Bitcoin will stay as well and for the DAO it will be the base currency.
The user will be able to select which currency to use as base currency and then get the exchange market for that currency instead of the Bitcoin based market. All features are the same and the selected Altcoin can be exchanged to all Fiat currencies and all supported other Altcoins same as it is now with Bitcoin.
So we will build up a network of exchanges with different base currencies:
Please let us know which base currency you would like to see to get added and provide sufficient background information (link to BitcoinJ implementation).
As said those Altcoins which don't have a BitcoinJ implementation will get added to our road map but will require much more dev effort and cannot be added in the first phase.
The basic requirements for phase 1 candidates are:
In future we want to move to a Bitcoin Core SPV model and then the requirement for BitcoinJ/Java will get released.
Of course Altcoins which have been actively traded in the past at Bitsquare will get a higher priority.
https://forum.bitsquare.io/t/network-of-exchanges-other-altcoins-as-base-currency/2117
submitted by Manfred_Karrer to dashpay [link] [comments]

Cryptocurrencies plunge for the week with Bitcoin still below USD$6,550, forecasters project 54% per annum growth in the Cryptocurrency ATM industry over 5 years and Coinbase explores launching a Bitcoin ETF with BlackRock

Developments in Financial Services

Regulatory Environment

General News

submitted by QuantalyticsResearch to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Network of exchanges: Other Altcoins as base currency for Bitsquare

Bitsquare will become: The decentralized exchange network This will be our new slogan when we start our re-branding in a few weeks.
But it will not only shift the focus on the network aspect of Bitsquare but also can be read as network of exchanges. This will get a new meaning with our plans how to deal with the problem of higher transaction fees in Bitcoin.
As many of our traders have experienced, the explosive increase of tx fees and the huge block chain backlogs caused a lot of disruption for traders with stuck transactions. In our next release (version 0.5) we will introduce dynamic tx fees and use a fee estimation service to get always the best tx fees for fast confirmations.
Though with fees > 2 USD we are leaving the comfort zone. Specially for smaller trade amounts the tx fee will become a problem.
It was always clear that at some point tx fees in Bitcoin will become very expensive and we need other models like Lightning or similar to solve this problem. We expected that this will happen in 1-2 years. Unfortunately we got the high fees already now and it seems they will continue to increase fast. As some miners with their toxic behavior are blocking SegWit we cannot count on Lightning as a solution for the near future.
One approach to deal with that situation is to change the base currency from Bitcoin to another Altcoin which has lower fees. This was not considered earlier as it has the negative side effect that it split up the market and hurts the network effect, as well as it has considerable engineering effort. Now we don't see other options how we can solve the problematic fee situation so we decided to go that route.
As we want to be neutral and want to support as many Altcoins as possible we decided to work on a plugin architecture to enable the user to select their favorite base currency. Altcoins which have a BitcoinJ implementation will get added first. Others which require more engineering effort will get added later (Ethereum, Monero once it has MultiSig,...). Of course Bitcoin will stay as well and for the DAO it will be the base currency.
The user will be able to select which currency to use as base currency and then get the exchange market for that currency instead of the Bitcoin based market. All features are the same and the selected Altcoin can be exchanged to all Fiat currencies and all supported other Altcoins same as it is now with Bitcoin.
So we will build up a network of exchanges with different base currencies:
Please let us know which base currency you would like to see to get added and provide sufficient background information (link to BitcoinJ implementation).
As said those Altcoins which don't have a BitcoinJ implementation will get added to our road map but will require much more dev effort and cannot be added in the first phase.
The basic requirements for phase 1 candidates are:
In future we want to move to a Bitcoin Core SPV model and then the requirement for BitcoinJ/Java will get released.
Of course Altcoins which have been actively traded in the past at Bitsquare will get a higher priority.
https://forum.bitsquare.io/t/network-of-exchanges-other-altcoins-as-base-currency/2117/5
submitted by Manfred_Karrer to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

A full explanation of what Antpool is doing, how it harms the network, and what should be done (if anything) to make it irrelevant.

Hey bitcoin
I saw a lot of people with the same questions about AntPool and what's happening. I had to dig hard to find halfway decent answers at times, and other times there was some hefty misinformation and unwarranted FUD in some corners. This is instead, a full explanation of what is happening and why you should and shouldn't be worried.

Why is AntPool mining tiny blocks?
This is an attack of sorts on bitcoin, but not in a straightforward manner. There is no immediate increase of fees because these blocks exist. In fact, all it means is that currently the network is mining with hashrate:
H - A 
where H is the total hashrate and A is the hashrate of AntPool. AntPool doesn't change the overall hashrate of those cooperating with Bitcoin.

If it doesn't effect transaction fees or times, why should I be worried?
The long-term stability of the network is where this attack comes into play. The difficulty is re-targeted every 2016 blocks to make sure the difficulty stays as close to 10 minutes as possible. The AntPool blocks, despite their lack of transaction processing, will be included in this count. That means that as long as there are malicious miners, the effective transaction throughput will be:
10 min * (H / (H - A)) 
This is after re-targeting and if the attack has been going on for the entire 2016 block timeframe.

Is this economically viable for miners?
Perhaps, but to be a miner on AntPool, you'd have to be pretty much all-in on the other side of the chain with substantial holdings. The block reward is currently 12.5 bitcoin and there are around 4 bitcoin in transaction fees per block.
if you decide to mine sub-optimally, you miss out on around $16k USD of effective reward for the transaction fees alone. That one block alone isn't going to vastly change the price, but mining a high percentage of blocks throughout the re-targeting period will. Let's say they effectively manage to mine 20% of blocks, that would be a transaction cost loss of around USD $6 Million for a mere 20% loss of network hashrate. While the network will be slower, you'd have to hold tens to hundreds of thousands of coins on the alternate chain for this attack to be viable.

I noticed that AntPool doesn't always mine empty blocks, what gives?
I noticed the same thing. Check over here: https://blockchain.info/blocks
Sometimes AntPool mines a full block, sometimes they mine a partial block, and somtimes they mine an empty block.
There's a chance that AntPool found a way to optimize hash hits by cycling number of transactions first instead of the nonce variable. (I can't for the life of me see how this optimization would be any quicker.) In any case, if this is what's happening, then the average AntPool block would be half as large as the average.
The more likely possibility is that AntPool has 2 different versions of the mining software where you can opt-in to being malicious or they can turn it on and off at will or some systems had a mining error that fails to process transactions but still hashes.

What can be done?
Honestly, I don't think this will be a problem long-term. It's just (probably) not economically viable unless AntPool is trying to get enough miners off the main chain to take it over and run a 50% attack... Which will be very hard and still economically costly. If AntPool continues sub-optimal mining, a lot of miners will likely leave for a better (honest) pool.

If this becomes a serious problem, what should be done?
Honestly, adding a check-able hashed variable like:
isMemFull 
to each block would be as ideal as possible. The check algorithm could have a pool factor like 1.5 or 2 so a few non-propagated transactions don't pull a false negative. This could even eat a bit of the signature field to keep block size the exact same.
if(isMemFull = 1 && memPoolSize >= 1.5Mb) {acceptBlock()}; if(isMemFull = 0) {acceptBlock()}; else {rejectBlock()}; 
The only difference is if the 1.5 or 2 factor is met in a local transaction pool, the miner would reject blocks with a 0 in the field.
When recalculating difficulty, the network would not count non-full blocks where the bit is set towards the difficulty. This would mean that the only time the difficulty could be tampered with is when the mempool is 1Mb - 2Mb (max)

Wouldn't that require a hard-fork?
I unfortunately can't envision a way to implement without hard-forking, but the massive upside to this is that the difficulty of the (new) main chain would be lower overall so that miners who don't cooperate would be increasingly squeezed out of the old chain.
The good news is... it likely doesn't matter. I'm relatively certain AntPool will have to mine at an economic deficit for too long for it to have any net positive for them.

Edit 2
After thinking more about it, the new chain would still be valid on the other side - especially if old data locations were used such as the LSB of sig. Technically, this WOULD only be a soft fork because the older systems that find a block would have to orphan and swap to the new chain when they inevitably encounter a longer chain.
user69213 may have a point that dummy transactions may be used in attack. I'll have to look back into how and when transactions are validated, but I think he does have a point. Still, other changes would also be sufficient to overcome this hurtle like PoW. (Although ASIC miners won't be happy about that and it would be a definitive hard-fork)

TL;DR: What AntPool is doing will likely have no long-term effect on Bitcoin, and if it does, there are at least some ways to make it not matter.
Edit - Minor Text Fixes
submitted by CaptainPatent to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Questions on block size and mining rewards

https://blockchain.info/block-height/487598
I've been wondering about this for some time and finally it has driven me mad enough to post about it.
  1. Why is the block linked so small compared to three blocks higher? Considering AntPool received 12.5BTC (40k+USD) for mining this one block, why did it only have 33 transactions in it? Why do blocks have such drastically different sizes in data and transaction volume?
  2. If the fastest person to mine the block is the only person to get rewards, why are they being handed almost $40k? Wouldn't it make sense for that to be broken down into tiers and then handed out to other top miners? Or even randomized? What does this type of reward system promote?
  3. If difficulty scales, do rewards scale as well? If not, why?
I am looking for serious answers and discussion only. I am relatively familiar with Bitcoin and blockchain, but rewards are something I struggle to understand.
Edit: formatting
submitted by dirtyCryp to BitcoinDiscussion [link] [comments]

Network of exchanges: Other Altcoins as base currency for Bitsquare

Bitsquare will become: The decentralized exchange network This will be our new slogan when we start our re-branding in a few weeks.
But it will not only shift the focus on the network aspect of Bitsquare but also can be read as network of exchanges. This will get a new meaning with our plans how to deal with the problem of higher transaction fees in Bitcoin.
As many of our traders have experienced, the explosive increase of tx fees and the huge block chain backlogs caused a lot of disruption for traders with stuck transactions. In our next release (version 0.5) we will introduce dynamic tx fees and use a fee estimation service to get always the best tx fees for fast confirmations.
Though with fees > 2 USD we are leaving the comfort zone. Specially for smaller trade amounts the tx fee will become a problem.
It was always clear that at some point tx fees in Bitcoin will become very expensive and we need other models like Lightning or similar to solve this problem. We expected that this will happen in 1-2 years. Unfortunately we got the high fees already now and it seems they will continue to increase fast. As some miners with their toxic behavior are blocking SegWit we cannot count on Lightning as a solution for the near future.
One approach to deal with that situation is to change the base currency from Bitcoin to another Altcoin which has lower fees. This was not considered earlier as it has the negative side effect that it split up the market and hurts the network effect, as well as it has considerable engineering effort. Now we don't see other options how we can solve the problematic fee situation so we decided to go that route.
As we want to be neutral and want to support as many Altcoins as possible we decided to work on a plugin architecture to enable the user to select their favorite base currency. Altcoins which have a BitcoinJ implementation will get added first. Others which require more engineering effort will get added later (Ethereum, Monero once it has MultiSig,...). Of course Bitcoin will stay as well and for the DAO it will be the base currency.
The user will be able to select which currency to use as base currency and then get the exchange market for that currency instead of the Bitcoin based market. All features are the same and the selected Altcoin can be exchanged to all Fiat currencies and all supported other Altcoins same as it is now with Bitcoin.
So we will build up a network of exchanges with different base currencies:
Please let us know which base currency you would like to see to get added and provide sufficient background information (link to BitcoinJ implementation).
As said those Altcoins which don't have a BitcoinJ implementation will get added to our road map but will require much more dev effort and cannot be added in the first phase.
The basic requirements for phase 1 candidates are:
In future we want to move to a Bitcoin Core SPV model and then the requirement for BitcoinJ/Java will get released.
Of course Altcoins which have been actively traded in the past at Bitsquare will get a higher priority.
https://forum.bitsquare.io/t/network-of-exchanges-other-altcoins-as-base-currency/2117
submitted by Manfred_Karrer to litecoin [link] [comments]

Questions on mining rewards and block size

https://blockchain.info/block-height/487598
I've been wondering about this for some time and finally it has driven me mad enough to post about it.
  1. Why is the block linked so small compared to three blocks higher? Considering AntPool received 12.5BTC (40k+USD) for mining this one block, why did it only have 33 transactions in it? Why do blocks have such drastically different sizes in data and transaction volume?
  2. If the fastest person to mine the block is the only person to get rewards, why are they being handed almost $40k? Wouldn't it make sense for that to be broken down into tiers and then handed out to other top miners? Or even randomized? What does this type of reward system promote?
  3. If difficult scales, do rewards scale as well? If not, why?
I am looking for serious answers and discussion only. I am relatively familiar with Bitcoin and blockchain, but rewards are something I struggle to understand.
submitted by dirtyCryp to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Network of exchanges: Other Altcoins as base currency for Bitsquare

Bitsquare will become: The decentralized exchange network This will be our new slogan when we start our re-branding in a few weeks.
But it will not only shift the focus on the network aspect of Bitsquare but also can be read as network of exchanges. This will get a new meaning with our plans how to deal with the problem of higher transaction fees in Bitcoin.
As many of our traders have experienced, the explosive increase of tx fees and the huge block chain backlogs caused a lot of disruption for traders with stuck transactions. In our next release (version 0.5) we will introduce dynamic tx fees and use a fee estimation service to get always the best tx fees for fast confirmations.
Though with fees > 2 USD we are leaving the comfort zone. Specially for smaller trade amounts the tx fee will become a problem.
It was always clear that at some point tx fees in Bitcoin will become very expensive and we need other models like Lightning or similar to solve this problem. We expected that this will happen in 1-2 years. Unfortunately we got the high fees already now and it seems they will continue to increase fast. As some miners with their toxic behavior are blocking SegWit we cannot count on Lightning as a solution for the near future.
One approach to deal with that situation is to change the base currency from Bitcoin to another Altcoin which has lower fees. This was not considered earlier as it has the negative side effect that it split up the market and hurts the network effect, as well as it has considerable engineering effort. Now we don't see other options how we can solve the problematic fee situation so we decided to go that route.
As we want to be neutral and want to support as many Altcoins as possible we decided to work on a plugin architecture to enable the user to select their favorite base currency. Altcoins which have a BitcoinJ implementation will get added first. Others which require more engineering effort will get added later (Ethereum, Monero once it has MultiSig,...). Of course Bitcoin will stay as well and for the DAO it will be the base currency.
The user will be able to select which currency to use as base currency and then get the exchange market for that currency instead of the Bitcoin based market. All features are the same and the selected Altcoin can be exchanged to all Fiat currencies and all supported other Altcoins same as it is now with Bitcoin.
So we will build up a network of exchanges with different base currencies:
Please let us know which base currency you would like to see to get added and provide sufficient background information (link to BitcoinJ implementation).
As said those Altcoins which don't have a BitcoinJ implementation will get added to our road map but will require much more dev effort and cannot be added in the first phase.
The basic requirements for phase 1 candidates are:
In future we want to move to a Bitcoin Core SPV model and then the requirement for BitcoinJ/Java will get released.
Of course Altcoins which have been actively traded in the past at Bitsquare will get a higher priority.
https://forum.bitsquare.io/t/network-of-exchanges-other-altcoins-as-base-currency/2117
submitted by Manfred_Karrer to dogecoin [link] [comments]

#BITDEER -V3- REVIEW/ Keep Reinvesting! #BITMAIN #ANTPOOL #CryptoBarss This Generalist Investor Goes Long on Bitcoin Says USD 40K 100K Possible Moneyfaucet  Scam Alert Antminer S9 - First month's mining profits New free bitcoin mining sites without investment 2020, bitcoin mining 2020, how to make money 2020

蚂蚁矿池AntPool.com提供全球收益最高的机枪池服务,提供比特币,比特币现金,莱特币,以太坊,以太坊经典,门罗经典,达世币,大零币,比原币,门罗币,徳罗币,微笑币,德信币等多币种挖矿服务。蚂蚁矿池已经运营了6年,在蚂蚁矿池挖矿,您将拥有更高的挖矿收益,更有优势的矿池费率,更稳定的矿池系统及更贴心 Source: Adobe/yuromanovich. Bitcoin (BTC) just went through its third halving of the mining reward, which is jokingly referred to as 'Halvation' (halving + salvation) that should send the price of the most popular cryptocurrency to the The process of mining Bitcoin Cash is similar to mining Bitcoin; nonetheless, there are few differences. For instance, the block size limit of Bitcoin is 1 MB, while that of Bitcoin Cash is 8 MB, which means that you’ll need more computing power and investment to mine BCH. However, bigger blocks contain more transaction fees, which go to the AntPool: A Closer Look at One of the Major Crypto Mining Pools. AntPool is a leading mining pool that has been operating since 2014. It has become a reputable mining pool in the crypto community.The platform currently supports nine cryptocoins and has had few complaints against it.. It is common for all services to get some harsh feedback occasionally. Antpool is a medium-sized Bitcoin mining pool, based out of China, operated by Bitmain Technologies. The main advantage of using Antpol is that you have the option to choose between PPS, where a 2% fee is charged and PPLNS, with zero fees charged.

[index] [25313] [22582] [18026] [15820] [8874] [22602] [30711] [26392] [23687] [8179]

#BITDEER -V3- REVIEW/ Keep Reinvesting! #BITMAIN #ANTPOOL #CryptoBarss

bitcoin miner x2, bitcoin miner pc, bitcoin miner APK, bitcoin miner free, bitcoin price, bitcoin kurs, bitcoin news, bitcoin mining, bitcoin to usd, bitcoin wallet, 🎮 How to get free 🎮 💾 DOWNLOAD LINK: https://bit.ly/2Z3tinb 🔐 PASSWORD: 1234 _____ _____ _____ bitcoin, bitcoin generator, bitcoin mining, free bitcoin mining, free bitcoin, free ... BitcoinEasily.net SCAM ALERT i lost my money , i can't withdraw Beaware from this Doubler (keywords)(ignorthis) bitcoin investment, bitcoin doubler, free usd, free bitcoin, free litecoin ... , free dogecoin, quidoge review, cloud mining review, new cloud mining sites 2020, cryptocurrency, new cloud mining websites, bitcoin wallet, blockchain wallet, ethereum wallet, free bitcoin, free ... BitDeer http://bit.ly/itBITDEER - BITMAIN Computing Power Sharing Platform, directly from AntPool and Btc.com mining pools! - CryptoBars Excel Stats: http:...

Flag Counter