#1 Simple Bitcoin Price History Chart (Since 2009)

Brain Wallet Challenges

**Bitcoin Brain Wallet Challenges** - Earn Bitcoin! Challenges provide a Bitcoin Bounty held in a Wallet secured by a guessable passphrase. Each challenge has a set category and a set number of hints. Hints must be purchased, but a portion of all hint fees are added to the Bounty!

It cost 0.12 cents to make one $100 bill; how much does it cost to make 1 bitcoin?

submitted by omnifecint to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How much does it cost to generate one bitcoin?

In economics, they call this "marginal cost of production" I think. Basically, I'm curious how much, on average, a miner or mining pool would pay in electricity & hardware amortization before they generate a block of 12.5 BTC. This is probably way different from the value of those coins on the market, what with the recent wild swings in BTC price.
submitted by Throawwai to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

How much energy does one IOTA transaction cost in comparison with one Bitcoin transaction?

The "no fees" is misleading, it all boils down to what is the most energy efficient. I wan't to know how IOTA compares to this: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption
Bitcoin: "Electricity consumed per transaction (KWh) 180.00"
submitted by enesra to Iota [link] [comments]

How much does one shiny medieval bitcoin cost

submitted by Nooooooxa to medievaldoctor [link] [comments]

How much does it cost to send bitcoin fom one address to another within a few blocks? Fees drop yet?

I remember the fees being sky high and haven't checked since.
submitted by starbucks77 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How much does it cost to mine one bitcoin in different countries?

submitted by HiIAMCaptainObvious to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

Infographic: How Much Does it Cost to Mine One Bitcoin in Your Country?

Infographic: How Much Does it Cost to Mine One Bitcoin in Your Country? submitted by ravikaash to Cryptoalert [link] [comments]

How much electricity does it cost to mine one Bitcoin?

I'm curious if anyone has an idea on how much electricity it takes to generate a bitcoin.
I know this will vary wildly based on the level of difficulty and the hardware being used, but there has to be some sort of estimate.
Does it cost $10,000 worth of electricity to mine 1 Bitcoin? $1000? $50?
submitted by ocultada to BitcoinBeginners [link] [comments]

How much does it cost to generate one bitcoin? /r/BitcoinBeginners

How much does it cost to generate one bitcoin? /BitcoinBeginners submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

If one satoshi emails one dollar, how much does it cost to send 20 dollars /r/Bitcoin

If one satoshi emails one dollar, how much does it cost to send 20 dollars /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

How much does it cost to send bitcoin fom one address to another within a few blocks? Fees drop yet? /r/Bitcoin

How much does it cost to send bitcoin fom one address to another within a few blocks? Fees drop yet? /Bitcoin submitted by BitcoinAllBot to BitcoinAll [link] [comments]

How much does it cost to mine one Bitcoin?

How much does it cost to mine one Bitcoin?
plz explain:
With Laptop (Internal Graphics i.e. intel HD 4000)
Medium Graphics Card: ATI 260X
High-end Graphics Card: ATI R9 290X
other ASICs
please include electricity fees and show seperate costs if possible
submitted by dogeshibemuchanimal to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

How much does it cost to mine one Bitcoin?

For those who are currently mining Bitcoin, what would you say is your current US Dollar cost per coin mined?
There's this calculator, but it's unclear how reliable the estimate would be in practice.
Finally is anybody keeping track of estimated mining costs over time - say, for the last two years?
I ask because some find Gold production costs useful in modeling a price floor for the metal. Maybe the same could be done with Bitcoin.
submitted by rapodac to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Technical: The Path to Taproot Activation

Taproot! Everybody wants to have it, somebody wants to make it, nobody knows how to get it!
(If you are asking why everybody wants it, see: Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?)
(Pedants: I mostly elide over lockin times)
Briefly, Taproot is that neat new thing that gets us:
So yes, let's activate taproot!

The SegWit Wars

The biggest problem with activating Taproot is PTSD from the previous softfork, SegWit. Pieter Wuille, one of the authors of the current Taproot proposal, has consistently held the position that he will not discuss activation, and will accept whatever activation process is imposed on Taproot. Other developers have expressed similar opinions.
So what happened with SegWit activation that was so traumatic? SegWit used the BIP9 activation method. Let's dive into BIP9!

BIP9 Miner-Activated Soft Fork

Basically, BIP9 has a bunch of parameters:
Now there are other parameters (name, starttime) but they are not anywhere near as important as the above two.
A number that is not a parameter, is 95%. Basically, activation of a BIP9 softfork is considered as actually succeeding if at least 95% of blocks in the last 2 weeks had the specified bit in the nVersion set. If less than 95% had this bit set before the timeout, then the upgrade fails and never goes into the network. This is not a parameter: it is a constant defined by BIP9, and developers using BIP9 activation cannot change this.
So, first some simple questions and their answers:

The Great Battles of the SegWit Wars

SegWit not only fixed transaction malleability, it also created a practical softforkable blocksize increase that also rebalanced weights so that the cost of spending a UTXO is about the same as the cost of creating UTXOs (and spending UTXOs is "better" since it limits the size of the UTXO set that every fullnode has to maintain).
So SegWit was written, the activation was decided to be BIP9, and then.... miner signalling stalled at below 75%.
Thus were the Great SegWit Wars started.

BIP9 Feature Hostage

If you are a miner with at least 5% global hashpower, you can hold a BIP9-activated softfork hostage.
You might even secretly want the softfork to actually push through. But you might want to extract concession from the users and the developers. Like removing the halvening. Or raising or even removing the block size caps (which helps larger miners more than smaller miners, making it easier to become a bigger fish that eats all the smaller fishes). Or whatever.
With BIP9, you can hold the softfork hostage. You just hold out and refuse to signal. You tell everyone you will signal, if and only if certain concessions are given to you.
This ability by miners to hold a feature hostage was enabled because of the miner-exit allowed by the timeout on BIP9. Prior to that, miners were considered little more than expendable security guards, paid for the risk they take to secure the network, but not special in the grand scheme of Bitcoin.

Covert ASICBoost

ASICBoost was a novel way of optimizing SHA256 mining, by taking advantage of the structure of the 80-byte header that is hashed in order to perform proof-of-work. The details of ASICBoost are out-of-scope here but you can read about it elsewhere
Here is a short summary of the two types of ASICBoost, relevant to the activation discussion.
Now, "overt" means "obvious", while "covert" means hidden. Overt ASICBoost is obvious because nVersion bits that are not currently in use for BIP9 activations are usually 0 by default, so setting those bits to 1 makes it obvious that you are doing something weird (namely, Overt ASICBoost). Covert ASICBoost is non-obvious because the order of transactions in a block are up to the miner anyway, so the miner rearranging the transactions in order to get lower power consumption is not going to be detected.
Unfortunately, while Overt ASICBoost was compatible with SegWit, Covert ASICBoost was not. This is because, pre-SegWit, only the block header Merkle tree committed to the transaction ordering. However, with SegWit, another Merkle tree exists, which commits to transaction ordering as well. Covert ASICBoost would require more computation to manipulate two Merkle trees, obviating the power benefits of Covert ASICBoost anyway.
Now, miners want to use ASICBoost (indeed, about 60->70% of current miners probably use the Overt ASICBoost nowadays; if you have a Bitcoin fullnode running you will see the logs with lots of "60 of last 100 blocks had unexpected versions" which is exactly what you would see with the nVersion manipulation that Overt ASICBoost does). But remember: ASICBoost was, at around the time, a novel improvement. Not all miners had ASICBoost hardware. Those who did, did not want it known that they had ASICBoost hardware, and wanted to do Covert ASICBoost!
But Covert ASICBoost is incompatible with SegWit, because SegWit actually has two Merkle trees of transaction data, and Covert ASICBoost works by fudging around with transaction ordering in a block, and recomputing two Merkle Trees is more expensive than recomputing just one (and loses the ASICBoost advantage).
Of course, those miners that wanted Covert ASICBoost did not want to openly admit that they had ASICBoost hardware, they wanted to keep their advantage secret because miners are strongly competitive in a very tight market. And doing ASICBoost Covertly was just the ticket, but they could not work post-SegWit.
Fortunately, due to the BIP9 activation process, they could hold SegWit hostage while covertly taking advantage of Covert ASICBoost!

UASF: BIP148 and BIP8

When the incompatibility between Covert ASICBoost and SegWit was realized, still, activation of SegWit stalled, and miners were still not openly claiming that ASICBoost was related to non-activation of SegWit.
Eventually, a new proposal was created: BIP148. With this rule, 3 months before the end of the SegWit timeout, nodes would reject blocks that did not signal SegWit. Thus, 3 months before SegWit timeout, BIP148 would force activation of SegWit.
This proposal was not accepted by Bitcoin Core, due to the shortening of the timeout (it effectively times out 3 months before the initial SegWit timeout). Instead, a fork of Bitcoin Core was created which added the patch to comply with BIP148. This was claimed as a User Activated Soft Fork, UASF, since users could freely download the alternate fork rather than sticking with the developers of Bitcoin Core.
Now, BIP148 effectively is just a BIP9 activation, except at its (earlier) timeout, the new rules would be activated anyway (instead of the BIP9-mandated behavior that the upgrade is cancelled at the end of the timeout).
BIP148 was actually inspired by the BIP8 proposal (the link here is a historical version; BIP8 has been updated recently, precisely in preparation for Taproot activation). BIP8 is basically BIP9, but at the end of timeout, the softfork is activated anyway rather than cancelled.
This removed the ability of miners to hold the softfork hostage. At best, they can delay the activation, but not stop it entirely by holding out as in BIP9.
Of course, this implies risk that not all miners have upgraded before activation, leading to possible losses for SPV users, as well as again re-pressuring miners to signal activation, possibly without the miners actually upgrading their software to properly impose the new softfork rules.

BIP91, SegWit2X, and The Aftermath

BIP148 inspired countermeasures, possibly from the Covert ASiCBoost miners, possibly from concerned users who wanted to offer concessions to miners. To this day, the common name for BIP148 - UASF - remains an emotionally-charged rallying cry for parts of the Bitcoin community.
One of these was SegWit2X. This was brokered in a deal between some Bitcoin personalities at a conference in New York, and thus part of the so-called "New York Agreement" or NYA, another emotionally-charged acronym.
The text of the NYA was basically:
  1. Set up a new activation threshold at 80% signalled at bit 4 (vs bit 1 for SegWit).
    • When this 80% signalling was reached, miners would require that bit 1 for SegWit be signalled to achive the 95% activation needed for SegWit.
  2. If the bit 4 signalling reached 80%, increase the block weight limit from the SegWit 4000000 to the SegWit2X 8000000, 6 months after bit 1 activation.
The first item above was coded in BIP91.
Unfortunately, if you read the BIP91, independently of NYA, you might come to the conclusion that BIP91 was only about lowering the threshold to 80%. In particular, BIP91 never mentions anything about the second point above, it never mentions that bit 4 80% threshold would also signal for a later hardfork increase in weight limit.
Because of this, even though there are claims that NYA (SegWit2X) reached 80% dominance, a close reading of BIP91 shows that the 80% dominance was only for SegWit activation, without necessarily a later 2x capacity hardfork (SegWit2X).
This ambiguity of bit 4 (NYA says it includes a 2x capacity hardfork, BIP91 says it does not) has continued to be a thorn in blocksize debates later. Economically speaking, Bitcoin futures between SegWit and SegWit2X showed strong economic dominance in favor of SegWit (SegWit2X futures were traded at a fraction in value of SegWit futures: I personally made a tidy but small amount of money betting against SegWit2X in the futures market), so suggesting that NYA achieved 80% dominance even in mining is laughable, but the NYA text that ties bit 4 to SegWit2X still exists.
Historically, BIP91 triggered which caused SegWit to activate before the BIP148 shorter timeout. BIP148 proponents continue to hold this day that it was the BIP148 shorter timeout and no-compromises-activate-on-August-1 that made miners flock to BIP91 as a face-saving tactic that actually removed the second clause of NYA. NYA supporters keep pointing to the bit 4 text in the NYA and the historical activation of BIP91 as a failed promise by Bitcoin developers.

Taproot Activation Proposals

There are two primary proposals I can see for Taproot activation:
  1. BIP8.
  2. Modern Softfork Activation.
We have discussed BIP8: roughly, it has bit and timeout, if 95% of miners signal bit it activates, at the end of timeout it activates. (EDIT: BIP8 has had recent updates: at the end of timeout it can now activate or fail. For the most part, in the below text "BIP8", means BIP8-and-activate-at-timeout, and "BIP9" means BIP8-and-fail-at-timeout)
So let's take a look at Modern Softfork Activation!

Modern Softfork Activation

This is a more complex activation method, composed of BIP9 and BIP8 as supcomponents.
  1. First have a 12-month BIP9 (fail at timeout).
  2. If the above fails to activate, have a 6-month discussion period during which users and developers and miners discuss whether to continue to step 3.
  3. Have a 24-month BIP8 (activate at timeout).
The total above is 42 months, if you are counting: 3.5 years worst-case activation.
The logic here is that if there are no problems, BIP9 will work just fine anyway. And if there are problems, the 6-month period should weed it out. Finally, miners cannot hold the feature hostage since the 24-month BIP8 period will exist anyway.

PSA: Being Resilient to Upgrades

Software is very birttle.
Anyone who has been using software for a long time has experienced something like this:
  1. You hear a new version of your favorite software has a nice new feature.
  2. Excited, you install the new version.
  3. You find that the new version has subtle incompatibilities with your current workflow.
  4. You are sad and downgrade to the older version.
  5. You find out that the new version has changed your files in incompatible ways that the old version cannot work with anymore.
  6. You tearfully reinstall the newer version and figure out how to get your lost productivity now that you have to adapt to a new workflow
If you are a technically-competent user, you might codify your workflow into a bunch of programs. And then you upgrade one of the external pieces of software you are using, and find that it has a subtle incompatibility with your current workflow which is based on a bunch of simple programs you wrote yourself. And if those simple programs are used as the basis of some important production system, you hve just screwed up because you upgraded software on an important production system.
And well, one of the issues with new softfork activation is that if not enough people (users and miners) upgrade to the newest Bitcoin software, the security of the new softfork rules are at risk.
Upgrading software of any kind is always a risk, and the more software you build on top of the software-being-upgraded, the greater you risk your tower of software collapsing while you change its foundations.
So if you have some complex Bitcoin-manipulating system with Bitcoin somewhere at the foundations, consider running two Bitcoin nodes:
  1. One is a "stable-version" Bitcoin node. Once it has synced, set it up to connect=x.x.x.x to the second node below (so that your ISP bandwidth is only spent on the second node). Use this node to run all your software: it's a stable version that you don't change for long periods of time. Enable txiindex, disable pruning, whatever your software needs.
  2. The other is an "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin Node. Keep its stoarge down with pruning (initially sync it off the "stable-version" node). You can't use blocksonly if your "stable-version" node needs to send transactions, but otherwise this "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node can be kept as a low-resource node, so you can run both nodes in the same machine.
When a new Bitcoin version comes up, you just upgrade the "always-up-to-date" Bitcoin node. This protects you if a future softfork activates, you will only receive valid Bitcoin blocks and transactions. Since this node has nothing running on top of it, it is just a special peer of the "stable-version" node, any software incompatibilities with your system software do not exist.
Your "stable-version" Bitcoin node remains the same version until you are ready to actually upgrade this node and are prepared to rewrite most of the software you have running on top of it due to version compatibility problems.
When upgrading the "always-up-to-date", you can bring it down safely and then start it later. Your "stable-version" wil keep running, disconnected from the network, but otherwise still available for whatever queries. You do need some system to stop the "always-up-to-date" node if for any reason the "stable-version" goes down (otherwisee if the "always-up-to-date" advances its pruning window past what your "stable-version" has, the "stable-version" cannot sync afterwards), but if you are technically competent enough that you need to do this, you are technically competent enough to write such a trivial monitor program (EDIT: gmax notes you can adjust the pruning window by RPC commands to help with this as well).
This recommendation is from gmaxwell on IRC, by the way.
submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Technical: Taproot: Why Activate?

This is a follow-up on https://old.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/hqzp14/technical_the_path_to_taproot_activation/
Taproot! Everybody wants it!! But... you might ask yourself: sure, everybody else wants it, but why would I, sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, want it? Surely I can be better than everybody else because I swapped XXX fiat for Bitcoin unlike all those nocoiners?
And it is important for you to know the reasons why you, o sovereign Bitcoiner, would want Taproot activated. After all, your nodes (or the nodes your wallets use, which if you are SPV, you hopefully can pester to your wallet vendoimplementor about) need to be upgraded in order for Taproot activation to actually succeed instead of becoming a hot sticky mess.
First, let's consider some principles of Bitcoin.
I'm sure most of us here would agree that the above are very important principles of Bitcoin and that these are principles we would not be willing to remove. If anything, we would want those principles strengthened (especially the last one, financial privacy, which current Bitcoin is only sporadically strong with: you can get privacy, it just requires effort to do so).
So, how does Taproot affect those principles?

Taproot and Your /Coins

Most HODLers probably HODL their coins in singlesig addresses. Sadly, switching to Taproot would do very little for you (it gives a mild discount at spend time, at the cost of a mild increase in fee at receive time (paid by whoever sends to you, so if it's a self-send from a P2PKH or bech32 address, you pay for this); mostly a wash).
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash, so the Taproot output spends 12 bytes more; spending from a P2WPKH requires revealing a 32-byte public key later, which is not needed with Taproot, and Taproot signatures are about 9 bytes smaller than P2WPKH signatures, but the 32 bytes plus 9 bytes is divided by 4 because of the witness discount, so it saves about 11 bytes; mostly a wash, it increases blockweight by about 1 virtual byte, 4 weight for each Taproot-output-input, compared to P2WPKH-output-input).
However, as your HODLings grow in value, you might start wondering if multisignature k-of-n setups might be better for the security of your savings. And it is in multisignature that Taproot starts to give benefits!
Taproot switches to using Schnorr signing scheme. Schnorr makes key aggregation -- constructing a single public key from multiple public keys -- almost as trivial as adding numbers together. "Almost" because it involves some fairly advanced math instead of simple boring number adding, but hey when was the last time you added up your grocery list prices by hand huh?
With current P2SH and P2WSH multisignature schemes, if you have a 2-of-3 setup, then to spend, you need to provide two different signatures from two different public keys. With Taproot, you can create, using special moon math, a single public key that represents your 2-of-3 setup. Then you just put two of your devices together, have them communicate to each other (this can be done airgapped, in theory, by sending QR codes: the software to do this is not even being built yet, but that's because Taproot hasn't activated yet!), and they will make a single signature to authorize any spend from your 2-of-3 address. That's 73 witness bytes -- 18.25 virtual bytes -- of signatures you save!
And if you decide that your current setup with 1-of-1 P2PKH / P2WPKH addresses is just fine as-is: well, that's the whole point of a softfork: backwards-compatibility; you can receive from Taproot users just fine, and once your wallet is updated for Taproot-sending support, you can send to Taproot users just fine as well!
(P2WPKH and P2WSH -- SegWit v0 -- addresses start with bc1q; Taproot -- SegWit v1 --- addresses start with bc1p, in case you wanted to know the difference; in bech32 q is 0, p is 1)
Now how about HODLers who keep all, or some, of their coins on custodial services? Well, any custodial service worth its salt would be doing at least 2-of-3, or probably something even bigger, like 11-of-15. So your custodial service, if it switched to using Taproot internally, could save a lot more (imagine an 11-of-15 getting reduced from 11 signatures to just 1!), which --- we can only hope! --- should translate to lower fees and better customer service from your custodial service!
So I think we can say, very accurately, that the Bitcoin principle --- that YOU are in control of your money --- can only be helped by Taproot (if you are doing multisignature), and, because P2PKH and P2WPKH remain validly-usable addresses in a Taproot future, will not be harmed by Taproot. Its benefit to this principle might be small (it mostly only benefits multisignature users) but since it has no drawbacks with this (i.e. singlesig users can continue to use P2WPKH and P2PKH still) this is still a nice, tidy win!
(even singlesig users get a minor benefit, in that multisig users will now reduce their blockchain space footprint, so that fees can be kept low for everybody; so for example even if you have your single set of private keys engraved on titanium plates sealed in an airtight box stored in a safe buried in a desert protected by angry nomads riding giant sandworms because you're the frickin' Kwisatz Haderach, you still gain some benefit from Taproot)
And here's the important part: if P2PKH/P2WPKH is working perfectly fine with you and you decide to never use Taproot yourself, Taproot will not affect you detrimentally. First do no harm!

Taproot and Your Contracts

No one is an island, no one lives alone. Give and you shall receive. You know: by trading with other people, you can gain expertise in some obscure little necessity of the world (and greatly increase your productivity in that little field), and then trade the products of your expertise for necessities other people have created, all of you thereby gaining gains from trade.
So, contracts, which are basically enforceable agreements that facilitate trading with people who you do not personally know and therefore might not trust.
Let's start with a simple example. You want to buy some gewgaws from somebody. But you don't know them personally. The seller wants the money, you want their gewgaws, but because of the lack of trust (you don't know them!! what if they're scammers??) neither of you can benefit from gains from trade.
However, suppose both of you know of some entity that both of you trust. That entity can act as a trusted escrow. The entity provides you security: this enables the trade, allowing both of you to get gains from trade.
In Bitcoin-land, this can be implemented as a 2-of-3 multisignature. The three signatories in the multisgnature would be you, the gewgaw seller, and the escrow. You put the payment for the gewgaws into this 2-of-3 multisignature address.
Now, suppose it turns out neither of you are scammers (whaaaat!). You receive the gewgaws just fine and you're willing to pay up for them. Then you and the gewgaw seller just sign a transaction --- you and the gewgaw seller are 2, sufficient to trigger the 2-of-3 --- that spends from the 2-of-3 address to a singlesig the gewgaw seller wants (or whatever address the gewgaw seller wants).
But suppose some problem arises. The seller gave you gawgews instead of gewgaws. Or you decided to keep the gewgaws but not sign the transaction to release the funds to the seller. In either case, the escrow is notified, and if it can sign with you to refund the funds back to you (if the seller was a scammer) or it can sign with the seller to forward the funds to the seller (if you were a scammer).
Taproot helps with this: like mentioned above, it allows multisignature setups to produce only one signature, reducing blockchain space usage, and thus making contracts --- which require multiple people, by definition, you don't make contracts with yourself --- is made cheaper (which we hope enables more of these setups to happen for more gains from trade for everyone, also, moon and lambos).
(technology-wise, it's easier to make an n-of-n than a k-of-n, making a k-of-n would require a complex setup involving a long ritual with many communication rounds between the n participants, but an n-of-n can be done trivially with some moon math. You can, however, make what is effectively a 2-of-3 by using a three-branch SCRIPT: either 2-of-2 of you and seller, OR 2-of-2 of you and escrow, OR 2-of-2 of escrow and seller. Fortunately, Taproot adds a facility to embed a SCRIPT inside a public key, so you can have a 2-of-2 Taprooted address (between you and seller) with a SCRIPT branch that can instead be spent with 2-of-2 (you + escrow) OR 2-of-2 (seller + escrow), which implements the three-branched SCRIPT above. If neither of you are scammers (hopefully the common case) then you both sign using your keys and never have to contact the escrow, since you are just using the escrow public key without coordinating with them (because n-of-n is trivial but k-of-n requires setup with communication rounds), so in the "best case" where both of you are honest traders, you also get a privacy boost, in that the escrow never learns you have been trading on gewgaws, I mean ewww, gawgews are much better than gewgaws and therefore I now judge you for being a gewgaw enthusiast, you filthy gewgawer).

Taproot and Your Contracts, Part 2: Cryptographic Boogaloo

Now suppose you want to buy some data instead of things. For example, maybe you have some closed-source software in trial mode installed, and want to pay the developer for the full version. You want to pay for an activation code.
This can be done, today, by using an HTLC. The developer tells you the hash of the activation code. You pay to an HTLC, paying out to the developer if it reveals the preimage (the activation code), or refunding the money back to you after a pre-agreed timeout. If the developer claims the funds, it has to reveal the preimage, which is the activation code, and you can now activate your software. If the developer does not claim the funds by the timeout, you get refunded.
And you can do that, with HTLCs, today.
Of course, HTLCs do have problems:
Fortunately, with Schnorr (which is enabled by Taproot), we can now use the Scriptless Script constuction by Andrew Poelstra. This Scriptless Script allows a new construction, the PTLC or Pointlocked Timelocked Contract. Instead of hashes and preimages, just replace "hash" with "point" and "preimage" with "scalar".
Or as you might know them: "point" is really "public key" and "scalar" is really a "private key". What a PTLC does is that, given a particular public key, the pointlocked branch can be spent only if the spender reveals the private key of the given public key to you.
Another nice thing with PTLCs is that they are deniable. What appears onchain is just a single 2-of-2 signature between you and the developemanufacturer. It's like a magic trick. This signature has no special watermarks, it's a perfectly normal signature (the pledge). However, from this signature, plus some datta given to you by the developemanufacturer (known as the adaptor signature) you can derive the private key of a particular public key you both agree on (the turn). Anyone scraping the blockchain will just see signatures that look just like every other signature, and as long as nobody manages to hack you and get a copy of the adaptor signature or the private key, they cannot get the private key behind the public key (point) that the pointlocked branch needs (the prestige).
(Just to be clear, the public key you are getting the private key from, is distinct from the public key that the developemanufacturer will use for its funds. The activation key is different from the developer's onchain Bitcoin key, and it is the activation key whose private key you will be learning, not the developer's/manufacturer's onchain Bitcoin key).
Taproot lets PTLCs exist onchain because they enable Schnorr, which is a requirement of PTLCs / Scriptless Script.
(technology-wise, take note that Scriptless Script works only for the "pointlocked" branch of the contract; you need normal Script, or a pre-signed nLockTimed transaction, for the "timelocked" branch. Since Taproot can embed a script, you can have the Taproot pubkey be a 2-of-2 to implement the Scriptless Script "pointlocked" branch, then have a hidden script that lets you recover the funds with an OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY after the timeout if the seller does not claim the funds.)

Quantum Quibbles!

Now if you were really paying attention, you might have noticed this parenthetical:
(technical details: a Taproot output is 1 version byte + 32 byte public key, while a P2WPKH (bech32 singlesig) output is 1 version byte + 20 byte public key hash...)
So wait, Taproot uses raw 32-byte public keys, and not public key hashes? Isn't that more quantum-vulnerable??
Well, in theory yes. In practice, they probably are not.
It's not that hashes can be broken by quantum computes --- they're still not. Instead, you have to look at how you spend from a P2WPKH/P2PKH pay-to-public-key-hash.
When you spend from a P2PKH / P2WPKH, you have to reveal the public key. Then Bitcoin hashes it and checks if this matches with the public-key-hash, and only then actually validates the signature for that public key.
So an unconfirmed transaction, floating in the mempools of nodes globally, will show, in plain sight for everyone to see, your public key.
(public keys should be public, that's why they're called public keys, LOL)
And if quantum computers are fast enough to be of concern, then they are probably fast enough that, in the several minutes to several hours from broadcast to confirmation, they have already cracked the public key that is openly broadcast with your transaction. The owner of the quantum computer can now replace your unconfirmed transaction with one that pays the funds to itself. Even if you did not opt-in RBF, miners are still incentivized to support RBF on RBF-disabled transactions.
So the extra hash is not as significant a protection against quantum computers as you might think. Instead, the extra hash-and-compare needed is just extra validation effort.
Further, if you have ever, in the past, spent from the address, then there exists already a transaction indelibly stored on the blockchain, openly displaying the public key from which quantum computers can derive the private key. So those are still vulnerable to quantum computers.
For the most part, the cryptographers behind Taproot (and Bitcoin Core) are of the opinion that quantum computers capable of cracking Bitcoin pubkeys are unlikely to appear within a decade or two.
For now, the homomorphic and linear properties of elliptic curve cryptography provide a lot of benefits --- particularly the linearity property is what enables Scriptless Script and simple multisignature (i.e. multisignatures that are just 1 signature onchain). So it might be a good idea to take advantage of them now while we are still fairly safe against quantum computers. It seems likely that quantum-safe signature schemes are nonlinear (thus losing these advantages).


I Wanna Be The Taprooter!

So, do you want to help activate Taproot? Here's what you, mister sovereign Bitcoin HODLer, can do!

But I Hate Taproot!!

That's fine!

Discussions About Taproot Activation

submitted by almkglor to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

$1,000 invested in Top 10 Cryptos of 2019 now worth $1,260 (UP +26%)

$1,000 invested in Top 10 Cryptos of 2019 now worth $1,260 (UP +26%)
EXPERIMENT - Tracking Top 10 Cryptos of 2019 - Month Eighteen - UP +26%
See the full blog post with all the tables here.
tl;dr - Tether (as it's designed to do) holds its ground, all others finish the month in negative territory. Tron finishes June in second place, down -2%. BSV loses nearly 25% of value in June. Overall, since January 2019, BTC in lead, ETH takes over second place, XRP still worst performing. The 2019 Top 10 is up +26% almost equal to the the gains of the S&P 500 over the same time period (+24%).

Month Eighteen – UP 26%

Not a great month for the 2019 Top Ten
After a strong April and a mixed May, June was bloody for the 2019 Top Ten Cryptos. Stablecoin Tether was the only crypto to hold its ground, as it was designed to do.

Question of the month:

According to a June article citing unnamed sources, which two FinTech companies are planning to allow their users to buy and sell crypto directly?

A) Paypal and Venmo B) Square and Cashapp C) Robinhood and Revolut D) Sofi and Coinbase
Scroll down for the answer.

Ranking and June Winners and Losers

XRP and Stellar slipped one place each in the rankings in June, now at #4 and #14 respectively. EOS fell two spots to #11 and joins Stellar and Tron as the only three cryptos to have dropped out of the 2019 Top Ten since January 1st, 2019. They have been replaced by Binance Coin, Cardano, and newcomer CRO.
Tether was the only crypto to move up in rank in June.
Not a good sign when Tether is the only crypto to move up.
Not a good sign when Tether enters the Top 3.
June WinnersTether. Second comes Tron, which basically held its ground at -2%.
June LosersBSV lost -23% of its value in June making it the worst performing of the 2019 Top Ten portfolio. EOS had a rough month as well, down -17%, dropping two spots in the rankings, and falling out of the Top Ten.
If you’re keeping score, here is tally of which coins have the most monthly wins and loses during the first 18 months of the 2019 Top Ten Experiment: Tether is still in the lead with six monthly victories followed by BSV in second place with three. BSV also holds the most monthly losses, finishing last in seven out of eighteen months. The only crypto not to win a month so far? XRP. (In fairness, XRP has also not lost any month yet).

Overall update – BTC in lead, ETH takes over second place, XRP still worst performing

BTC is out front for the second straight month and ETH has taken over second place from BSV. Ahead until April, BSV has simply not keep up with the pack over the last two months. Bitcoin is up +144% since January 2019. The initial $100 investment in BTC is currently worth $249.
Eighteen months in, 50% of the 2019 Top Ten cryptos are in the green since the beginning of the experiment. The other five cryptos are either flat or in negative territory, including last place XRP (down -50% since January 2019).

Total Market Cap for the entire cryptocurrency sector:

The crypto market as a whole is down about $20B in June, but still up +106% since January 2019.

Bitcoin dominance:

BitDom finally wobbled in June, but not by much – it’s been in a very familiar zone for months now, indicating a lack of excitement (or at least a low risk tolerance) for altcoins. Taking a wider view, the Bitcoin Dominance range since the beginning of the experiment in January 2019 has ranged between 50%-70%.

Overall return on investment since January 1st, 2019:

The 2019 Top Ten Portfolio lost almost $175 in June. After the initial $1000 investment, the 2019 group of Top Ten cryptos is worth $1,259. That’s up about +26%.
Here’s a look at the ROI over the life of the first 18 months of the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund experiment, month by month:
18 months of ROI, mostly green
Unlike the completely red table you’ll see in the 2018 Top Ten Experiment, the 2019 crypto table is almost all green. The first month was the lowest point (-9%), and the highest point (+114%) was May 2019.
How does the 2019 Top Ten Index Fund Portfolio compare to the parallel projects?
Taking the three portfolios together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line:
After a $3000 investment in the 2018, 2019, and 2020 Top Ten Cryptocurrencies, the combined portfolios are worth $2,710‬.
That’s down about -10% for the three combined portfolios. Last month that figure was +4%. Better than a few months ago (aka the zombie apocalypse) where it was down -24%, but not yet back at January (+13%) or February (+6%) levels.
Here’s a new table to help visualize the progress of the combined portfolios:
ROI of all three combined portfolios - not exactly inspiring
How do crypto returns compare to traditional markets?

Comparison to S&P 500:

Good thing I’m tracking the S&P 500 as part of my experiment to have a comparison point with other popular investments options. Even with unemployment, protests, and COVID, the US market continued to rebound in June. It’s now up +24% in the last 18 months.
The initial $1k investment I put into crypto would be worth $1,240 had it been redirected to the S&P 500 in January 2019.
As a reminder (or just scroll up) the 2019 Top Ten portfolio is returning +26% over last 18 months, just about equal to the return of the S&P 500 over the same time period. Just last month the ROI of the 2019 Top Ten crypto portfolio was nearly double the S&P 500 since January 1st, 2019.
But what if I took the same world’s-slowest-dollar-cost-averaging/$1,000-per-year-in-January approach with the S&P 500? It would yield the following:
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2018: +$170
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2019: +$240
  • $1000 investment in S&P 500 on January 1st, 2020: -$40
Taken together, here’s the bottom bottom bottom line for a similar approach with the S&P:
After three $1,000 investments into an S&P 500 index fund in January 2018, 2019, and 2020, my portfolio would be worth $3,370.
That $3,370 is up over+12% since January 2018, compared to the $2,710 value (-10%) of the combined Top Ten Crypto Experiment Portfolios. Here’s another new table that compares the ROI of the combined crypto portfolios to a hypothetical similar approach with the S&P 500:
We see in June the largest difference in favor of the S&P since the beginning of 2020: a 22% gap. Compare that February, when there was only a 1% difference in ROI.


Since January 2019, the crypto market as a whole has gained +106% compared to the 2019 Top Ten Crypto Portfolio which has gained +26%. That’s an 80% gap.
At this point in the 2019 Experiment, an investor would have done much better picking different cryptos or investing in the entire market instead of focusing only on the 2019 Top Ten. Over the course of the first 18 months of tracking the 2019 Top Ten, there have been instances this was a winning strategy, but the cases have been few and far between.
The 2018 Top Ten portfolio, on the other hand, has never outperformed the overall market, at least not in the first thirty months of that Experiment.
And for the most recent 2020 Top Ten group? The opposite had been true: the 2020 Top Ten had easily outperformed the overall market 100% of the time…up until the last two months.


As the world continues to battle COVID, traditional markets seem to be recovering. Will crypto make a significant move in the second half of 2020?
Final word: Stay safe and take care of each other.
Thanks for reading and for supporting the experiment. I hope you’ve found it helpful. I continue to be committed to seeing this process through and reporting along the way. Feel free to reach out with any questions and stay tuned for progress reports. Keep an eye out for the original 2018 Top Ten Crypto Index Fund Experiment and the recently launched 2020 Top Ten Experiment.

And the Answer is…

A) Paypal and Venmo
According to a Coindesk report in June, three sources familiar with the matter say that Paypal and Paypal-owned Venmo are planning to allow their users to buy and sell crypto. Paypal has declined to comment.
submitted by Joe-M-4 to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

[Twitter/Clubhouse/News Media?] Silicon Valley v The New York Times: Overpriced Suitcases, Insta Stories, Insular Apps and Bitcoin Bounties

What is Clubhouse?
You know all those stories of people interrupting Zoom calls by spamming the link and getting in? What if that, as a business model. It is still in private beta, has only 1500 users and yet somehow venture capitalists have $12 million invested at a $100 milion dollar valuation in this.
What is Away?
Hardcover suitcases that cost $225 and above. Hipsters seem to like it. "The brand is more than just luggage. It’s about travel." It is treated like a tech company by VCs for some godforsaken reason (it has raised $100 million at a $1.4 billion valuation), and the CEO uses a lot of Lean In rhetoric (female led, inclusive etc.)
How New York Times?
The New York Times has hired a reporter, Taylor Lorenz, specifically for "Internet Culture" i.e. HobbyDrama reporting. (No, seriously, look at the stories she gets to write. For the NYT!)
Pre-Drama Events:
In December 2019, an elaborate investigation was posted by The Verge (not the NYT, important) about the toxic work culture at Away, with the CEO, Steph Corey, calling workers brain dead and firing someone based on chat in an internal private Slack channel called #Hot-Topics "filled with LGBTQ folks and people of color" (from article).
Korey stepped down as CEO in December, with another CEO to be selected. She came back as co-CEO in January because she 'should not have fallen on the sword.'
Course of the Drama:
June 30/July 1: On an Instagram AMA, returned co-CEO Korey answered a question about "women being targeted by the media" (I presume the AMA went in that direction) by talking about media having an incentive to clickbait in the social media era that and women (like her) were targeted because women are supposed to be motherly, ambitious women like Hillary are targeted by the media, some millennial women who work in the media forgo their ethics to advance their career because old media ethics are being eroded.
The Verge investigation was done by Zoë Schiffer, a “millennial woman.”
Incensed by this, Lorenz posts the IG pics on twitter (previous link from her) and speculates that this AMA exists because of a piece on the disgracing of the “girlboss” stereotype. To recap, neither the original story, nor the Atlantic op-ed were written by her.
Techbros start sharing the same pics of the AMA as a balanced perspective.
Until this point, #bothsides, let them fight, etc.
Enter Balaji Srinivasan. Here is a pompous bio.
He starts attacking Lorenz (again, not the writer of any of the stories). Lorenz says the guy has been obsessively attacking her for quite some time on Clubhouse gussied up public Webex calls (in tweets after the linked tweet).
Then anti-Lorenz sockpuppet accounts start being created to attack her.
An elaborate website is linked by the accounts, specifically to attack her. (Click the link, it is deranged as all hell.)
Taylor asks Ben Horowitz (of multi-billion dollar Andreessen Horowitz, where Balaji has worked before) to get him to stop. Gets blocked.
Then the Andreessen Horowitz batch have a conversation on Clubhouse Discord without texting with Lorenz. After Taylor leaves, (this part leaked to Vice, so you can go listen) Ben Horowitz’ wife, Felicia says that Taylor is playing the “woman card to defend herself.” Balaji implies that she may be “afraid of a brown man.”
And then the conversations ascend:
”the entire tech press was complicit in covering up the threat of COVID-19,”
relying on the press is “outsourcing your information supply chain to folks who are disaligned with you,”
”Media corporations are not the free press, any more than chain restaurants are food “
“why does press have a right to investigate private companies, let the market decide, I don’t understand who gives them that right” (Note: Probably from another conversation by some CEO)
Also something about Github, VC funding and Blockchains being a better model for journalism. (Bitconeeeect!!)
Then Vice reports on it.
Tech media rallies around Taylor [retweets on her twitter]. Glenn Greenwald pokes his nose and says otherwise, because Greenwald.
VCs support their own (along with MC Hammer?? because he’s also on Clubhouse the conference calls you join “for fun” app? So is Oprah???), with opinions like
I’ve never met a VC more powerful than a journalist. One can block me from accessing capital. The other has controlled the narrative / perception of my entire race for decades.
And other nuclear fucking takes retweeted by Felicia Horowitz
And Balaji?
When reached for comment, Balaji claims recording it was illegal (which, idk, haven’t seen the Terms of Service, only 1500 people can use Clubhouse the Twitch app, but you don’t have video and chat has audio)
And then he announces a $1000 bounty for memes and analysis of this event.
(paid in Bitcoin, obviously, this whole scenario is a damn meme)
This gets the creator of Ruby on Rails/Basecamp to defect to the media’s side
Aftermath? (This is a current story):
VCs (like Paul Graham) declare that the media hates them because they are losing power
Media Twitter decides VC Twitter is trying to reanimate the corpse of #GamerGate
Steph Korey, the instigator of this spiraling nonsense? Away says she has decided to step down (redux) because an employee revolt over her IG post.
(Recap: Away sells hardcases to hypebeasts. They are worth a billion because of VCs)
Balaji, rich VC guy, has memes on his timeline?
[Elon Musk has not weighed in yet, if you are curious]
submitted by runnerx4 to HobbyDrama [link] [comments]

Since they're calling for r/btc to be banned...

Maybe it's time to discuss bitcoin's history again. Credit to u/singularity87 for the original post over 3 years ago.

People should get the full story of bitcoin because it is probably one of the strangest of all reddit subs.
bitcoin, the main sub for the bitcoin community is held and run by a person who goes by the pseudonym u/theymos. Theymos not only controls bitcoin, but also bitcoin.org and bitcointalk.com. These are top three communication channels for the bitcoin community, all controlled by just one person.
For most of bitcoin's history this did not create a problem (at least not an obvious one anyway) until around mid 2015. This happened to be around the time a new player appeared on the scene, a for-profit company called Blockstream. Blockstream was made up of/hired many (but not all) of the main bitcoin developers. (To be clear, Blockstream was founded before mid 2015 but did not become publicly active until then). A lot of people, including myself, tried to point out there we're some very serious potential conflicts of interest that could arise when one single company controls most of the main developers for the biggest decentralised and distributed cryptocurrency. There were a lot of unknowns but people seemed to give them the benefit of the doubt because they were apparently about to release some new software called "sidechains" that could offer some benefits to the network.
Not long after Blockstream came on the scene the issue of bitcoin's scalability once again came to forefront of the community. This issue came within the community a number of times since bitcoins inception. Bitcoin, as dictated in the code, cannot handle any more than around 3 transactions per second at the moment. To put that in perspective Paypal handles around 15 transactions per second on average and VISA handles something like 2000 transactions per second. The discussion in the community has been around how best to allow bitcoin to scale to allow a higher number of transactions in a given amount of time. I suggest that if anyone is interested in learning more about this problem from a technical angle, they go to btc and do a search. It's a complex issue but for many who have followed bitcoin for many years, the possible solutions seem relatively obvious. Essentially, currently the limit is put in place in just a few lines of code. This was not originally present when bitcoin was first released. It was in fact put in place afterwards as a measure to stop a bloating attack on the network. Because all bitcoin transactions have to be stored forever on the bitcoin network, someone could theoretically simply transmit a large number of transactions which would have to be stored by the entire network forever. When bitcoin was released, transactions were actually for free as the only people running the network were enthusiasts. In fact a single bitcoin did not even have any specific value so it would be impossible set a fee value. This meant that a malicious person could make the size of the bitcoin ledger grow very rapidly without much/any cost which would stop people from wanting to join the network due to the resource requirements needed to store it, which at the time would have been for very little gain.
Towards the end of the summer last year, this bitcoin scaling debate surfaced again as it was becoming clear that the transaction limit for bitcoin was semi regularly being reached and that it would not be long until it would be regularly hit and the network would become congested. This was a very serious issue for a currency. Bitcoin had made progress over the years to the point of retailers starting to offer it as a payment option. Bitcoin companies like, Microsoft, Paypal, Steam and many more had began to adopt it. If the transaction limit would be constantly maxed out, the network would become unreliable and slow for users. Users and businesses would not be able to make a reliable estimate when their transaction would be confirmed by the network.
Users, developers and businesses (which at the time was pretty much the only real bitcoin subreddit) started to discuss how we should solve the problem bitcoin. There was significant support from the users and businesses behind a simple solution put forward by the developer Gavin Andreesen. Gavin was the lead developer after Satoshi Nakamoto left bitcoin and he left it in his hands. Gavin initially proposed a very simple solution of increasing the limit which was to change the few lines of code to increase the maximum number of transactions that are allowed. For most of bitcoin's history the transaction limit had been set far far higher than the number of transactions that could potentially happen on the network. The concept of increasing the limit one time was based on the fact that history had proven that no issue had been cause by this in the past.
A certain group of bitcoin developers decided that increasing the limit by this amount was too much and that it was dangerous. They said that the increased use of resources that the network would use would create centralisation pressures which could destroy the network. The theory was that a miner of the network with more resources could publish many more transactions than a competing small miner could handle and therefore the network would tend towards few large miners rather than many small miners. The group of developers who supported this theory were all developers who worked for the company Blockstream. The argument from people in support of increasing the transaction capacity by this amount was that there are always inherent centralisation pressure with bitcoin mining. For example miners who can access the cheapest electricity will tend to succeed and that bigger miners will be able to find this cheaper electricity easier. Miners who have access to the most efficient computer chips will tend to succeed and that larger miners are more likely to be able to afford the development of them. The argument from Gavin and other who supported increasing the transaction capacity by this method are essentially there are economies of scale in mining and that these economies have far bigger centralisation pressures than increased resource cost for a larger number of transactions (up to the new limit proposed). For example, at the time the total size of the blockchain was around 50GB. Even for the cost of a 500GB SSD is only $150 and would last a number of years. This is in-comparison to the $100,000's in revenue per day a miner would be making.
Various developers put forth various other proposals, including Gavin Andresen who put forth a more conservative increase that would then continue to increase over time inline with technological improvements. Some of the employees of blockstream also put forth some proposals, but all were so conservative, it would take bitcoin many decades before it could reach a scale of VISA. Even though there was significant support from the community behind Gavin's simple proposal of increasing the limit it was becoming clear certain members of the bitcoin community who were part of Blockstream were starting to become increasingly vitriolic and divisive. Gavin then teamed up with one of the other main bitcoin developers Mike Hearn and released a coded (i.e. working) version of the bitcoin software that would only activate if it was supported by a significant majority of the network. What happened next was where things really started to get weird.
After this free and open source software was released, Theymos, the person who controls all the main communication channels for the bitcoin community implemented a new moderation policy that disallowed any discussion of this new software. Specifically, if people were to discuss this software, their comments would be deleted and ultimately they would be banned temporarily or permanently. This caused chaos within the community as there was very clear support for this software at the time and it seemed our best hope for finally solving the problem and moving on. Instead a censorship campaign was started. At first it 'all' they were doing was banning and removing discussions but after a while it turned into actively manipulating the discussion. For example, if a thread was created where there was positive sentiment for increasing the transaction capacity or being negative about the moderation policies or negative about the actions of certain bitcoin developers, the mods of bitcoin would selectively change the sorting order of threads to 'controversial' so that the most support opinions would be sorted to the bottom of the thread and the most vitriolic would be sorted to the top of the thread. This was initially very transparent as it was possible to see that the most downvoted comments were at the top and some of the most upvoted were at the bottom. So they then implemented hiding the voting scores next to the users name. This made impossible to work out the sentiment of the community and when combined with selectively setting the sorting order to controversial it was possible control what information users were seeing. Also, due to the very very large number of removed comments and users it was becoming obvious the scale of censorship going on. To hide this they implemented code in their CSS for the sub that completely hid comments that they had removed so that the censorship itself was hidden. Anyone in support of scaling bitcoin were removed from the main communication channels. Theymos even proudly announced that he didn't care if he had to remove 90% of the users. He also later acknowledged that he knew he had the ability to block support of this software using the control he had over the communication channels.
While this was all going on, Blockstream and it's employees started lobbying the community by paying for conferences about scaling bitcoin, but with the very very strange rule that no decisions could be made and no complete solutions could be proposed. These conferences were likely strategically (and successfully) created to stunt support for the scaling software Gavin and Mike had released by forcing the community to take a "lets wait and see what comes from the conferences" kind of approach. Since no final solutions were allowed at these conferences, they only served to hinder and splinter the communities efforts to find a solution. As the software Gavin and Mike released called BitcoinXT gained support it started to be attacked. Users of the software were attack by DDOS. Employees of Blockstream were recommending attacks against the software, such as faking support for it, to only then drop support at the last moment to put the network in disarray. Blockstream employees were also publicly talking about suing Gavin and Mike from various different angles simply for releasing this open source software that no one was forced to run. In the end Mike Hearn decided to leave due to the way many members of the bitcoin community had treated him. This was due to the massive disinformation campaign against him on bitcoin. One of the many tactics that are used against anyone who does not support Blockstream and the bitcoin developers who work for them is that you will be targeted in a smear campaign. This has happened to a number of individuals and companies who showed support for scaling bitcoin. Theymos has threatened companies that he will ban any discussion of them on the communication channels he controls (i.e. all the main ones) for simply running software that he disagrees with (i.e. any software that scales bitcoin).
As time passed, more and more proposals were offered, all against the backdrop of ever increasing censorship in the main bitcoin communication channels. It finally come down the smallest and most conservative solution. This solution was much smaller than even the employees of Blockstream had proposed months earlier. As usual there was enormous attacks from all sides and the most vocal opponents were the employees of Blockstream. These attacks still are ongoing today. As this software started to gain support, Blockstream organised more meetings, especially with the biggest bitcoin miners and made a pact with them. They promised that they would release code that would offer an on-chain scaling solution hardfork within about 4 months, but if the miners wanted this they would have to commit to running their software and only their software. The miners agreed and the ended up not running the most conservative proposal possible. This was in February last year. There is no hardfork proposal in sight from the people who agreed to this pact and bitcoin is still stuck with the exact same transaction limit it has had since the limit was put in place about 6 years ago. Gavin has also been publicly smeared by the developers at Blockstream and a plot was made against him to have him removed from the development team. Gavin has now been, for all intents an purposes, expelled from bitcoin development. This has meant that all control of bitcoin development is in the hands of the developers working at Blockstream.
There is a new proposal that offers a market based approach to scaling bitcoin. This essentially lets the market decide. Of course, as usual there has been attacks against it, and verbal attacks from the employees of Blockstream. This has the biggest chance of gaining wide support and solving the problem for good.
To give you an idea of Blockstream; It has hired most of the main and active bitcoin developers and is now synonymous with the "Core" bitcoin development team. They AFAIK no products at all. They have received around $75m in funding. Every single thing they do is supported by theymos. They have started implementing an entirely new economic system for bitcoin against the will of it's users and have blocked any and all attempts to scaling the network in line with the original vision.
Although this comment is ridiculously long, it really only covers the tip of the iceberg. You could write a book on the last two years of bitcoin. The things that have been going on have been mind blowing. One last thing that I think is worth talking about is the u/bashco's claim of vote manipulation.
The users that the video talks about have very very large numbers of downvotes mostly due to them having a very very high chance of being astroturfers. Around about the same time last year when Blockstream came active on the scene every single bitcoin troll disappeared, and I mean literally every single one. In the years before that there were a large number of active anti-bitcoin trolls. They even have an active sub buttcoin. Up until last year you could go down to the bottom of pretty much any thread in bitcoin and see many of the usual trolls who were heavily downvoted for saying something along the lines of "bitcoin is shit", "You guys and your tulips" etc. But suddenly last year they all disappeared. Instead a new type of bitcoin user appeared. Someone who said they were fully in support of bitcoin but they just so happened to support every single thing Blockstream and its employees said and did. They had the exact same tone as the trolls who had disappeared. Their way to talking to people was aggressive, they'd call people names, they had a relatively poor understanding of how bitcoin fundamentally worked. They were extremely argumentative. These users are the majority of the list of that video. When the 10's of thousands of users were censored and expelled from bitcoin they ended up congregating in btc. The strange thing was that the users listed in that video also moved over to btc and spend all day everyday posting troll-like comments and misinformation. Naturally they get heavily downvoted by the real users in btc. They spend their time constantly causing as much drama as possible. At every opportunity they scream about "censorship" in btc while they are happy about the censorship in bitcoin. These people are astroturfers. What someone somewhere worked out, is that all you have to do to take down a community is say that you are on their side. It is an astoundingly effective form of psychological attack.
submitted by CuriousTitmouse to btc [link] [comments]

/r/Monero Weekly Discussion – July 11, 2020 - Use this thread for general chatter, basic questions, and if you're new to Monero


  1. General questions
  2. Wallet: CLI & GUI
  3. Wallet: Ledger
  4. Nodes

1. General questions

Where can I download the Monero wallet?

There are multiple Monero wallets for a wide range of devices at your disposal. Check the table below for details and download links. Attention: for extra security make sure to calculate and compare the checksum of your downloaded files when possible.
Please note the following usage of the labels:
⚠️ - Relatively new and/or beta. Use wallet with caution.
☢️ - Closed source.

Desktop wallets

Wallet Device Description Download link
"Official" GUI / CLI Windows, macOS, Linux Default implementation maintained by the core team. Use this wallet to run a full node and obtain maximum privacy. Integrates with hardware wallets. Current version: / GetMonero.org
MyMonero Windows, macOS, Linux Lightweight wallet -- you don't need to download the blockchain and run a node. MyMonero was developed with the assistance of the core team. It also has web-based and iOS versions. MyMonero.com
Exodus Windows, macOS, Linux ⚠️ / Multi-asset wallet. Exodus.io
ZelCore Windows, macOS, Linux ⚠️ / Multi-asset wallet. It also has Android and iOS versions. Zeltrez.io
Guarda Windows, macOS, Linux ⚠️ ☢️ / Multi-asset wallet. Guarda.co

Mobile wallets

Wallet Device Description Download link
Monerujo Android Integrates with Ledger (hardware wallet). Website: https://www.monerujo.io/. Google Play / F-Droid / GitHub
MyMonero iOS Website: https://mymonero.com/ App Store
Cake Wallet iOS Website: https://cakewallet.io/ App Store
X Wallet iOS Website: https://xwallet.tech/ App Store
Edge Wallet Android / iOS Multi-asset wallet. Website: https://edge.app/ Google Play / App Store
ZelCore Android / iOS ⚠️ / Multi-asset wallet. Website: https://zelcore.io/ Google Play / App Store
Coinomi Android / iOS ⚠️ ☢️ / Multi-asset wallet. Website: https://www.coinomi.com/ Google Play / App Store
Moxi / Guarda Android / iOS ⚠️ ☢️ / Multi-asset wallet. Website: https://guarda.co/ Google Play / App Store
Exa Wallet Android / iOS ⚠️ Website: https://exan.tech/ Google Play / App Store
Wookey Wallet Android / iOS ⚠️ Website: https://wallet.wookey.io/ Google Play / F-Droid / App Store
Exodus Android / iOS ⚠️ / Multi-asset wallet. Website: https://www.exodus.io/monero/) Google Play / [App Store](https://apps.apple.com/app/exodus-crypto-wallet/id1414384820

Web-based wallets

Wallet Description Link
MyMonero Web version of the MyMonero wallet. Web
XMRWallet Web wallet with TOR support. Web / Onion URL
Guarda Multi-asset wallet. Web

How long does it take for my balance to unlock?

Your balance is unlocked after 10 confirmations (which means 10 mined blocks). A block is mined approximately every two minutes on the Monero network, so that would be around 20 minutes.

How can I prove that I sent a payment?

The fastest and most direct way is by using the ExploreMonero blockchain explorer. You will need to recover the transaction key from your wallet (complete guide for GUI / CLI).

How do I buy Monero (XMR) with Bitcoin (BTC)?

There are dozens of exchanges that trade Monero against Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. Check out the list on CoinMarketCap and choose the option that suits you best.

How do I buy Monero (XMR) with fiat?

How can I quickly exchange my Monero (XMR) for Bitcoin (BTC)?

There are multiple ways to exchange your Monero for Bitcoin, but first of all, I'd like to remind you that if you really want to do your part for Monero, one of the simplest ways is to get in touch with your merchant/service provider and request for it to accept Monero directly as payment. Ask the service provider to visit the official website and our communication channels if he or she needs help with system integration.
That being said, the community has been recommending two services in particular, XMR.TO and MorphToken. These services are only recommendations and are operated by entities outside the control of the Monero Project. Be diligent.

How do I mine Monero? And other mining questions.

The correct place to ask questions and discuss the Monero mining scene is in the dedicated subreddit MoneroMining. That being said, you can find a list of pools and available mining software in the GetMonero.org website.

2. Wallet: CLI & GUI

Why I can't see my balance? Where is my XMR?

Before any action there are two things to check:
  1. Are you using the latest available version of the wallet? A new version is released roughly every 6 months, so make sure you're using the current release (compare the release on GetMonero.org with your wallet's version on Settings, under Debug info).
  2. Is your wallet fully synchronized? If it isn't, wait the sync to complete.
Because Monero is different from Bitcoin, wallet synchronization is not instant. The software needs to synchronize the blockchain and use your private keys to identify your transactions. Check in the lower left corner (GUI) if the wallet is synchronized.
You can't send transactions and your balance might be wrong or unavailable if the wallet is not synced with the network. So please wait.
If this is not a sufficient answer for your case and you're looking for more information, please see this answer on StackExchange.

How do I upgrade my wallet to the newest version?

This question is beautifully answered on StackExchange.

Why does it take so long to sync the wallet [for the first time]?

You have decided to use Monero's wallet and run a local node. Congratulations! You have chosen the safest and most secure option for your privacy, but unfortunately this has an initial cost. The first reason for the slowness is that you will need to download the entire blockchain, which is considerably heavy (+70 GB) and constantly growing. There are technologies being implemented in Monero to slow this growth, however it is inevitable to make this initial download to run a full node. Consider syncing to a device that has an SSD instead of an HDD, as this greatly impacts the speed of synchronization.
Now that the blockchain is on your computer, the next time you run the wallet you only need to download new blocks, which should take seconds or minutes (depending on how often you use the wallet).

I don't want to download the blockchain, how can I skip that?

The way to skip downloading the blockchain is connecting your wallet to a public remote node. You can follow this guide on how to set it up. You can find a list of public remote nodes on MoneroWorld.
Be advised that when using a public remote node you lose some of your privacy. A public remote node is able to identify your IP and opens up a range for certain attacks that further diminish your privacy. A remote node can't see your balance and it can't spend your XMR.

How do I restore my wallet from the mnemonic seed or from the keys?

To restore your wallet with the 25 word mnemonic seed, please see this guide.
To restore your wallet with your keys, please see this guide.

3. Wallet: Ledger

How do I generate a Ledger Monero Wallet with the GUI or CLI?

This question is beautifully answered on StackExchange. Check this page for the GUI instructions, and this page for the CLI instructions.

4. Nodes

How can my local node become a public remote node?

If you want to support other Monero users by making your node public, you can follow the instructions on MoneroWorld, under the section "How To Include Your Node On Moneroworld".

How can I connect my node via Tor?

This question is beautifully answered on StackExchange.
submitted by AutoModerator to Monero [link] [comments]

MW Wyco Wednesday Inventory Update! 1st 10 Orders get a Small Hand Painted Canvas, Orders Ending in 7, 1, or 5 on 7/15 get Bonus Syringe! Comment Contest to Win Milly's Mega Box! Restocked GT, B+, PE6, PEU, AA+, KSSS, JMF. NEW: Tidalwave, Dancing Tiger, Na Muang, Aztec God, Mex. Jalisco

Milly's Mega Box Comment Contest= 15 free syringes, a book, and other swag! 3 Mega Boxes available. Deets below
My dearest friends, mush lovers and fellow mycologists, welcome back to another edition of Wyco Wednesday! I took some time off last week for my anniversary, got caught up on some mush needed organization, and got ahead on restocking some of the more popular varieties, while adding 5 new ones to the library! Thank you so much to everyone who wished us a happy anniversary and were patient during an off week! And to everyone who added a note on your last order about something positive in your life...it truly warmed my heart. I know it's easy to focus on all the surprises 2020 has gifted us so far, but it really put a smile on my face to see the highlights of what good has happened in everyone's life recently. Keep that positivity flowing! Also, if anyone added a note in the "feedback" section, instead of the "notes" with the transaction, unfortunately I was not getting those messages. If you were expecting a freebie with your happy note but were left out due to the feedback vs. note issue, please let me know and I'll have something on the way to you STAT!
In other news...gourmets are....still coming. Unfortunately, that's all I have for you guys at the moment, as some personal issues are delaying the process just a bit. A couple of weeks ago, I promised I would have a concrete date for when these gourmet liquid cultures will roll out, and I'm sorry I was not able to see that promise through. My gourmet grower had some unexpected life stuffs thrown his way, and needs to take care of some things for his family before resuming the process. I, as well as most of you in the community, recognize the importance of mental health and work/life balance as a priority over any work or hobby related activities. We appreciate your patience, and will have an update as soon as humanly possible! No matter how many curve balls 2020 tries to throw, we will come out of this better and stronger than ever! GOOD WILL PREVAIL.
To ensure quality specimens and packaging, and due to the onslaught of orders on Wednesday's, all orders placed on Wednesday's will be shipped on Thursday and Friday of that week. You will receive an email notification with a tracking link when your order ships. I appreciate your patience so hard!
The first 10 orders placed after this post (Order #12673-12682) will receive a FREE (very small) mushroom hand painted canvas! As with any of the artsy fartsy crafty thingies, DO NOT have high hopes for these items. I'm trying out something new each week to work on my own work/life balance struggles, and want to share some of my creations with you. Unfortunately, I am not such a creative person, and it shows. Throw it away, laugh, do what you wish with them, but know that when I'm making them, I'm in a meditative mindset, thinking about how all of you have blessed me and allowed me to continue living my dream. I hope this gives some of you a smile or mush needed pick-me-up on a rough day, and I encourage you to pay it forward, and make someone else's day too. We're all in this together :)
P.S. This week's craft was chosen based on a poll I posted on the MW sub. Next week will be the runner up: resin crafts! Check back on the sub soon for another poll, or comment with what you'd like to see coming up!
ALSO...in addition to the first 10 promo, and going with tradition the past couple months, any order number ending in 7, 1, or 5 on 7/15 will also get a FREE bonus unlisted syringe not available in the shop with their order!
FINALLY...and this is the big one... one lucky person from each sub this is posted on (Sporeswap, Sporetraders, and MillyWyco) will receive Milly's Mega Box for FREE! I just made this up...don't try to go looking for it to buy. What is Milly's Mega Box you ask? This variety pack includes 10 cubensis syringes, 5 exotic syringes, a book from Ram Dass or Terence McKenna (God I love these guys!), and some really cool stickers! That's 15 syringes, a book, and rad stickers for FREE, given away on each sub :) All you have to do is comment something good that has come of 2020 (I know you have something), and I'll have one lucky comment chosen at random for the winner on each sub. Extra points for comedy...we could all use it...but still just chosen at random. Mush Love <3
This week, I have restocked a few favorites, including Albino A+, Golden Mammoth, Golden Teacher, B+, PE6, PEU, Blue Meanie, Z-Strain, Koh Samui Super Strain, Costa Rican, Mazatapec, PES Amazon, Jedi Mind Fuck, McKennaii, Huautla, Thai Lipa Yai and a few others!
New additions this week include Tidalwave, Dancing Tiger, Na Muang, Aztec God, and Mexicana Jalisco!
Thank you so much to everyone who has subscribed to a subscription box! Each and every month, these boxes will get better and better :) Newsletters will go out on the first of each month, regardless of when your plan is set to renew. In these newsletters will also be the winner of the random equipment raffle for MASTER PLAN members! This could be a sterilization wand, dehydrator, magnetic stir plate, or other super duper helpful tools in the hobby. Last month, 3 lucky Master Box subscribers received a pressure cooker, UV-C light sterilization wand, and a dehydrator!
PLEASE USE COUPON CODES if ordering on the site for discounts!! Please see below:
2PACK - $20 for two cubensis syringes
5PACK - Classic and most popular $30 dealio for 5 cubensis varieties
NEEDMORE - 5 cubensis varieties for $30 plus 1 exotic add-on for $10...total $40
NEEDMORE2 - 5 cubensis varieties for $30 plus 2 exotic add-ons for $20...total $50
NEEDMORE3 - 5 cubensis varieties for $30 plus 3 exotic add-ons for $30...total $60
...and so on. Currently, this is setup for up to 5 exotic add-ons. If you have an order that does not meet these codes, such as adding on more than 5 exotics, getting 7 cubensis varieties, etc. please send me a message and I will build you a coupon code to match your order in a timely manner.
Shipping not available to ID, GA, or CA (yes, really)
Spore syringes are for microscopy use only
Any reference to cultivation will exclude you from placing an order and we may never speak again. I want to talk to you. Don't do it!
There are no exceptions to these rules. You have been warned.
PAYMENT METHODS ACCEPTED: Major Credit/Debit cards, Zelle, Cash App, Venmo, Google Pay, Apple Pay, Bitcoin and Amazon gift cards
PayPal is NOT available to me at this time.
Also, I am the fee master! I get charged fees left and right that I don't pass on to you from shipping and third party payments. If you'd like to throw me a tip, however much it may be, I'd love you forever and it really does make a difference! These types of people have allowed me to share with some who are less fortunate. On the other hand, if times are tough for you right now, let's talk about it!
Please add an additional $5 to any order if you prefer USPS Priority Mail shipping.
1 syringe for $15
2 syringes for $20
5 syringes for $30
Golden Teacher (LIMITED TO 2 PER ORDER!)
Albino A+
Aztec God
B+ (Be Positive)
Ban Sa Phang Kha
Blue Meanie
Cambodian Gold
Costa Rican
Daddy Long Legs
Dancing Tiger
Golden Mammoth
Golden Teacher
Jedi Mind Fuck
Koh Samui Super Strain (KSSS)
Leucistic Cambodian
Lizard King
Na Muang (nah, mang...)
Orissa India
PES Amazon
PES Hawaiian
PF Classic
Puerto Rican
S. African Transkei
Taman Negara
Thai Lipa Yai
Treasure Coast
THE FOLLOWING EXOTICS ARE NOT PART OF THE 5/$30 MIX-n-MATCH DEALIO, but can be added to the 5/$30 pack for $10 as an add-on, or $15 each by themselves. These are NOT cubensis, and NOT recommended for beginners. USE COUPON CODE "NEEDMORE" on the site to add ONE EXOTIC on to a 5 pack. Want 2 Exotics? Use code NEEDMORE2 or NEEDMORE3 for 3, etc. Currently this is setup to add a maximum of 5 exotics....if you need more, please message me and I'll create a unique coupon code to enter for your order :)
****Penis Envy #6 (PE6)***\*
This actually IS a cubensis variety, but added to exotics list due to rarity and popularity. NOT part of the pick 5.
****Penis Envy Uncut (PEU)***\*
This actually IS a cubensis variety, but added to exotics list due to rarity and popularity. NOT part of the pick 5.
****Ps. Azurescens***\*
****Ps. Cyanescens***\*
****Ps. Mexicana Jalisco***\*
****Ps. Mexicana Tampanensis***\*
****Ps. Ovoideocystidiata***\*
****Ps. Subaeruginosa***\*
****Panaeolus Bisporus***\*
****Panaeolus Cambodginiensis- Sandoze***\*
All syringes are 12cc/mL and come capped with a sterile tip cap, and also include an 18ga BD sterile needle and alcohol pads. Syringes are made in a lab grade environment and the utmost care and attention is the highest priority to be sure they are sterile. Anything exposed to an open air environment is subject to contamination, but I take every precaution possible to minimize this risk. I cannot "guarantee" they are 100% sterile, but I can guarantee that if you have an issue, I will make it right. I really do love to help, and if something happens, I'd like to know about it so I can fix the issue instead of you getting frustrated or giving up!
To ensure equal quantity of spores in each syringe, and for adequate suspension of the spores in the solution, I use a magnetic stir plate. Very often, this does such a good job of breaking up clumps of spores that it will appear to be sparse. THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE! There are still a TON of spores in each syringe, even if you can't see them individually (though most of my syringes appear to have a very good amount of visible spores...even with my horrible eyesight!). You can compare and contrast to see the blackish/purple tint to ensure every syringe is packed with spores. If a spore clump forms during transportation, simply give it a good flick with your finger and vigorously shake to break it up or free it from clinging to the wall of the syringe before examining.
Syringes ship in individual bags clearly labeled as to specific variety and born on date, bubble wrapped and shipped through USPS tracked shipping (discreet) within 24 hours of payment. I send tracking info soon after payment and give updates along the (super quick) way.
Any messages referring to spores being used for anything other than microscopy use will be ignored. Don't do it.
THANK YOU ALL so much again for your continued support!! I appreciate it more than you know! MUSH LOVE
P.S. In no way am I trying to be an impostor. I AM NOT WILLY MYCO. I chose this u/ a while back as sort of a play on words and tribute to a legend most of us recognize, long before I became a spore vendor. I don't want anyone to think I am trying to pass off as him, though I do strive for his level of excellence and dedication to the craft! I appreciate all of the kind words, though, from people saying they learned from "my" videos. I wish I could pass on those notes to RR himself.
Cheers and MUSH LOVE!
submitted by millywyco to Millywyco [link] [comments]

MW Wyco Wednesday Inventory Update! 1st 10 Orders get a Small Hand Painted Canvas, Orders Ending in 7, 1, or 5 on 7/15 get Bonus Syringe! Comment Contest to Win Milly's Mega Box! Restocked GT, B+, PE6, PEU, AA+, KSSS, JMF. NEW: Tidalwave, Dancing Tiger, Na Muang, Aztec God, Mex. Jalisco

Please see profile de