[repost] a reminder on how r/btc and Bitcoin Cash came to be
I realized that many people in this sub still don't have the full history of how Bitcoin Cash came to be. It goes back to all of the blocked attempts at onchain scaling that were made since 2014. Bitcoin was always supposed to get larger blocks: on that the record is very, very clear. (Edit: correct link here) Blockstream employees working on the Bitcoin Core project blocked original Bitcoin team members from upgrading Bitcoin Core to support larger blocks, so the original devs created Bitcoin XT, Classic, and Bitcoin Unlimited. By spring/summer 2017, miner support for large blocks had exceeded 50%. Meanwhile, support for Segwit was stuck at around 30%, despite a massive, organized campaign to rid the Bitcoin ecosystem of "up to 90%" of us big block early adopters. Thus, rbtc was born. When the small block community realized that Segwit was stuck at 30% signaling and big blocks were above 50% they launched UASF / BIP148 and then the subsequent New York bait-and-switch to get Segwit activated anyway. You will note that I and many others realized the NYA was a bait-and-switch from the start. Activation of Segwit required us to preemptively fork BCH in order to preserve a Segwit-free fork of Bitcoin with full onchain scaling capability which Segwit degrades. Unfortunately the mining majority went along with the fraudulent New York bait-and-switch and followed the 1MB4EVA chain, expecting that it would lead to the promised 2MB hardfork upgrade. By the time the majority realized that 2MB was never going to happen it was far too late. Learn more about the tragic attack on Bitcoin scaling here.
Hi I'm the moderator of r/bitcoinforks and r/bitcoin mods tried to take over my subreddit
Hey Everyone, I am a long time bitcoiner, and a while back I started my own subreddit: bitcoinforks. Since then I wanted to let the forum organically grow as I knew more forks were going to happen. Furthermore, Ive been slowly researching each bitcoin fork so I can add some more robust data to the forum over time. Well it just so happens one of the most vocal moderators ofbitcoin (will only abbreviate his name, others have tried too) tried to take over my forum by putting in a request with Reddit's main moderation team. The claim is that I was squatting, my name is supposedly a parody, and that the forum was inactive. Coincidently these multiple requests written by the mod 'S&D,' took place at the same time CryptoCurrency had seen some moderation changes. I am here to tell you these cultists will not take my forum without a fight like they have done by monopolizing every bitcoin forum they can capture. bitcoin mods isn't it enough you guys monopolize bitcointalk, the wiki, Bitcoin.org, and a vast amount of domains and groups? Theymos is in charge of every group I just mentioned. Another bitcoin mod is in charge of the largest Facebook group and Google Plus group. Telegram groups have been taken over by this monopoly as well. Don't believe me search for the Telegram group @resolutions and see for yourself. The mods are all connected and they are same. Remember that Bitcoin.com lawsuit Telegram group? Funnily enough it is now the BTCC channel run by Trigz and the Clashic developer. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH. We need to expose this further. We need to fight back against this monopolizing force by continuously showing the world how they are attempting to take over everything they can, and continue exposing their lies and censorship. I am inviting everyone here to Bitcoin Forks to post about any bitcoin fork in existence. I am a bitcoin cash fan I won't deny that, you can see this from my profile, and it is my favorite fork alongside bitcoin private. My subreddit is open for discussions and all are welcome without censorship.
Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until a top of $20000 before correcting to where we are today. During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it) In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited. For more threads like this see UASF
A reminder of how r/btc and Bitcoin Cash (BCH) came to be
I realized that many people in this sub still don't have the full history of how Bitcoin Cash came to be. It goes back to all of the blocked attempts at onchain scaling that were made since 2014. Bitcoin was always supposed to get larger blocks: on that the record is very, very clear. Blockstream employees working on the Bitcoin Core project blocked original Bitcoin team members from upgrading Bitcoin Core to support larger blocks, so the original devs created Bitcoin XT, Classic, and Bitcoin Unlimited. By spring/summer 2017, miner support for large blocks had exceeded 50%. Meanwhile, support for Segwit was stuck at around 30%, despite a massive, organized campaign to rid the Bitcoin ecosystem of "up to 90%" of us big block early adopters. Thus, rbtc was born. When the small block community realized that Segwit was stuck at 30% signaling and big blocks were above 50% they launched UASF / BIP148 and then the subsequent New York bait-and-switch to get Segwit activated anyway. You will note that I and many others realized the NYA was a bait-and-switch from the start. Activation of Segwit required us to preemptively fork BCH in order to preserve a Segwit-free fork of Bitcoin with full onchain scaling capability which Segwit degrades. Unfortunately the mining majority went along with the fraudulent New York bait-and-switch and followed the 1MB4EVA chain, expecting that it would lead to the promised 2MB hardfork upgrade. By the time the majority realized that 2MB was never going to happen it was far too late. Learn more about the tragic attack on Bitcoin scaling here.
There are 1.8 million mined coins, still unspent. (Fun facts about mined blocks)
Here are some fun mining facts. Many early Bitcoin blocks had mining rewards paid, but never spent. They remain in the address assigned at mining, "unspent". Block 9 had the first famous (Satoshi to Hal) spent coins, and then block 78 is the first to be all-spent (Hal's paper wallet), but most of the early blocks were unspent. All the early blocks (before Block 79,764) were also mined to a single payout address -- something you don't see often any more. Today, 36,293 addresses contain unspent coins from single-address mining, totaling 1,813,859 BTC. Almost all of that (1,801,945 BTC) is in blocks mined for 50 BTC* (Before #210,000, 2012 Nov) In comparison, only 11,590 BTC remains in addresses mined for 25 BTC (before #420,000) Only 32 blocks mined 12.5 BTC to one address and left all of it untouched. (324 BTC total) Notably:
The last untouched earnings are in #448064, which contained only the DayahDover love poem. Love unrequited, bitcoin unspent?
Encryption of the wallet private keys was not in the early versions of software, having only been added in July 2011. This means that all blocks earlier than #135,000 or so were probably mined to an unencrypted wallet. That's 35,426 addresses with 1,769,905 BTC, all unencrypted at the time of their origin, and never spent.
From Wiki : In Block 124724, user midnightmagic mined a solo block to himself which underpaid the reward by a single Satoshi and simultaneously destroyed the block's fees. This the the only known reduction in the total mined supply of Bitcoin.
EDIT: This page from Antoine Le Calvez describes more destroyed Bitcoin: https://medium.com/@alcio/how-to-destroy-bitcoins-255bb6f2142e It's thought that Counterparty intentionally removed 2,130 BTC from circulation, along with 3.66 burned in OP_RETURN and 10.2 BTC to incorrect (reduced) miner rewards. Interesting!
Core/Blockstream are now in the Kübler-Ross "Bargaining" phase - talking about "compromise". Sorry, but markets don't do "compromise". Markets do COMPETITION. Markets do winner-takes-all. The whitepaper doesn't talk about "compromise" - it says that 51% of the hashpower determines WHAT IS BITCOIN.
They've finally entered the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase - now they're begging for some kind of "compromise". But actually, markets aren't about compromise. Markets are about competition. Markets are about winner-takes-all. And the Bitcoin whitepaper never mentions anything about "compromise". It simply says that 51% of the hashpower determines what is Bitcoin. And as we know - the best coin will win. Which will probably be Bitcoin Unlimited with its market-based blocksizes - and not SegWit with its 1.7MB centrally planned blocksize based on a dangerous anyone-can-spend spaghetti-code soft-fork. Let's review how this played out:
Core/Blockstream accepted $76 million in "fantasy fiat" from the "legacy ledger" of central bankers via their buddies at AXA.
And Core/Blockstream accepted censorship on the sad subreddit of r\bitcoin.
And lo and behold, Core/Blockstream's reliance on fiat funding and central planning and censorship has culminated in this pathetic piece of shit called SegWit, with the following worthless "features" that nobody even wants:
Yet-another centrally-planned 1.7MB maybe-someday blocksize - combined with some random arbitrary 1-to-4 "discount" that nobody asked for,
Fixes for low-priority non-problems like malleability and quadratic hashing,
By listening to real people in the actual market, and by following Satoshi's principles as stated in the whitepaper, Bitcoin Unlimited has been able to (surprise! surprise!) offer what real people in the actual market actually want - which is currently:
FlexTrans is much better than SegWit Also, these independent, non-fiat-financed devs developed Flexible Transactions, which is way better than SegWit. Flexible Transactions can easily fix malleability and quadratic hashing - while also introducing a simple, easy-to-use, future-proof tag-based format similar to JSON or HTML permitting future upgrades without the need for a hard fork. So Flexible Transactions provides the same things as SegWit - without the dangerous mess of SegWit's "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork hack - which Core/Blockstream tried to force on everyone - because they want to take away our right to vote via a hard fork - because they know that if we actually had a hard fork a/k/a full node referendum, everyone would vote against Core/Blockstream. The market wants to decide the blocksize So more and more of the smart, non-Blockstream-aligned miners, starting with ViaBTC and now including many others, have been adopting Bitcoin Unlimited - because they understand that:
Market-based blocksizes are the right, consensus-based mechanism to provide simple and safe on-chain scaling to solve the urgent problems of transaction delays and network congestion - now and in the future
Every increase in the blocksize roughly corresponds to the same increase squared in terms of price
ie 2x bigger blocks will lead to 4x higher price, 3x bigger blocks will correspond with 9x higher price, etc. - which means that bigger blocks will make everyone happy: more profits for miners, and no more high fees or transaction delays for users.
Now Core/Blockstream are starting to bitch and moan and beg about "compromise" And actually, we couldn't answer "Sorry it's too late for compromise" even if we wanted to. Because markets and economics and cryptocurrencies aren't about compromises. Markets are about competition - they're about winner-takes-all. Nakamoto Consensus is about 51% of the hashpower decides what the rules are. Imagine if Yahoo Email were to suddenly start begging with Google Mail for "compromise". What would that even mean in the first place?? Yahoo wrote crappy email code - based on their crappy corporate culture - so the market abandoned their crappy (and buggy and insecure) email service. Core/Blockstream is similar in some ways to Yahoo. They wrote crappy code - because they have a crappy "corporate culture" - because they accept millions of dollars in fiat from central bankers at places like AXA - and because they accept censorship on shit-forums like r\bitcoin - which is why they have no clue about the real needs of real people in the real market in the real world. Censorship and fiat made Core/Blockstream fragile and out-of-touch Core/Blockstream devs enjoy the "luxury" of being able to put their head in the sand and hide from the reality of the "shreaking" masses of actual people actually trying to use Bitcoin, because:
They get millions of dollars in fiat shoveled to them by central bankers,
They conduct their "debates" in the fantasy-land of the shit-forum r\bitcoin where all the important comments get deleted and all the intelligent posters got banned long ago - including quotes from Satoshi.
And then (surprise! surprise!) the following happened:
At any moment now, at the Schelling point of our own choosing, more hashpower can also "dump Core" and start using Bitcoin Unlimited - which is why everyone involved with Core/Blockstream is now shitting in their pants.
But in a decentralized, permissionless, open-source system like Bitcoin, there is not a single thing that CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc at their shitty little AXA-funded startup Blockstream or u/theymos and u/bashco on their shitty little censored forum r\bitcoin can do to stop Bitcoin Unlimited from taking over the network - because in open-source and in economics and in markets, the best code and the best cryptocurrency wins. Everyone (except Core/Blockstream) predicted this would happen So now - predictably - the Core/Blockstream devs and their low-information supporters are all running around saying "Nobody could have predicted this!" But actually everyone has been shouting at the top of their lungs predicting this for years - including the most important old-time Bitcoin devs supporting on-chain scaling like Mike Hearn, Gavin Andresen and Jeff Garzik who were all "censored, hounded, DDoS'd, attacked, slandered & removed" - plus new-time devs like Peter Rizun u/Peter__R who provided major scaling innovations like XThin - by the vicious drooling toxic authoritarian goons involved with Core/Blockstream. Everyone has been predicting the current delays and congestion and high fees for years, out here in the reality of the marketplace, in the reality of the uncensored forums - away from Core/Blockstream's centralized back-room closed-door fiat-funded censorship-supported PowerPoint presentations in Hong Kong and Silicon Valley, away from years and years of Core/Blockstream's all-talk-no-action scaling stalling conferences. The Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about "compromise" and "censorship" and "central planning". The Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about yet-another centrally planned blocksize (Now with 1.7MB! SegWit is scaling!TM) which some economically ignorant fiat-funded dev team happened to pull out of their ass and bundle into a radical and irresponsible spaghetti-code SegWit soft-fork. Markets aren't about "compromise". Markets are about competition. As u/ForkiusMaximusrecently pointed out: The market couldn't even give a fuck if it wanted to - because markets and cryptocurrencies are not about the politics of "compromise" - they're about the economics of competition. Markets are about decentralization, and they're about Nakamoto Consensus, where 51% of the hashpower decides the rules and everyone else either gets on the bandwagon or withers away watching their hashpower and coin price sink into oblivion. So, anyone who even brings up the topic of "compromise" is simply showing that they have a fundamental misunderstanding of how markets work, and how Nakamoto Consensus works. This actually isn't very surprising. Blockstream CEO Adam Back u/adam3us and Blockstream CTO Greg Maxwell u/nullc and all the rest of the so-called "Core devs" and all their low-information hangers-on like the economic idiot Blockstream founder Mark Friedenbach u/maaku7 have never really understood Bitcoin or markets. And that's fine and normal. Plenty of individuals don't understand markets very well. But such people simply lose their own money - and they generally don't get put in charge of losing $20 billion of other people's money. Markets don't need managers or central planners. Markets run very well on their own - and they don't like central planning or censorship. Now Core/Blockstream has finally entered the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase So now some people at Core/Blockstream and some of their low-information supporters have have started bitching and moaning and whining about "compromise", as they sink into the Kübler-Ross "bargaining" phase - while their plans are all in shambles, and they've failed in their attempts to hijack our network and our currency. Meanwhile, the Honey Badger of Bitcoin doesn't give a fuck about a bunch of central planners and censors whining about "compromise". Bitcoin Unlimited just keeps stealing more and more hashpower away from Core - until the day comes when we decide to fork their ass into the garbage heap of shitty, failed alt-coins. Fuck Blockstream/Core and the central bankers and censors they rode in on We told them for years that they were only shooting themselves in the foot with their closed-door back-room fiat-financed wheeling and dealing and their massive censorship. We told them they were only giving themselves enough rope to hang themselves with. Now that it's actually happening, we couldn't say "it's too late for compromise" even if we wanted to - because there is no such thing as "compromise" in markets or cryptocurrencies. Markets are all about competition And Bitcoin is all about 51% of the hashpower.
Bitcoin Core decided to bet on hard-coded centrally planned 1.7MB blocksize based on a a shitty spaghetti-code soft-fork. That's their choice. They made their bed now let them lie in it.
Meanwhile, Bitcoin Unlimited decided to bet on market-based blocksizes. And that's the market's choice. Bitcoin Unlimited listened to the market - and (suprise! surprise!) that's why more and more hashpower is now mining Bitcoin Unlimited blocks.
Source - https://coinscapture.com/blog/working-of-cryptocurrency-mining-pool Working of Cryptocurrency Mining pool Cryptocurrency is the most discussed and trending topic on various internet forums, communities, and social media. Many individuals are keen to enter the cryptoworld and unfold all the profits within it. Cryptocurrency can be bought from an exchange or mined through the mining pools. In this guide, we’ll understand the working of the cryptocurrency mining pool. What is Mining Pool? Cryptocurrency mining is the same as mining the metals from the earth. The individual or company that digs out the metal from the earth becomes the owner similarly the individual who discovers first the valid hash using the computational power becomes the owner and earns a block reward. The crypto mining can either be done solo using his/her own mining devices or through a mining pool. As more and more enthusiasts participated in mining to earn a block reward became equally difficult and it would take centuries for a miner to generate a block because the probability of finding the hash value first and generating a block is directly proportional to the computing power in the network. The smaller the computational power the smaller is the chance of generating the next block. Hence a solution, to this problem mining pools were formed. A mining pool is a group of miners pooling/combining their computational power together in order to mine a cryptocurrency quickly and earn a block reward consistently. Each contributing miner earns reward according to their investment in processing power. The working of mining pools depends on certain algorithms that are designed to check the authenticity and validity of the transactions. Miners are required to solve a complex math problem that requires millions of calculations with the help of High computational power. When the miners combined their computational power the block generation process happens at a much faster rate as compared to a single mining rig. For more understanding of mining please refer our previous blog (What is Bitcoin mining?) Types of Mining Pools
Single mining pools: This type of mining pool mine only single cryptocurrency
Multi-currency pools: This type of mining pool mine different cryptocurrencies and gives the miner a chance to choose the cryptocurrency for mining timely depending rewards points offered.
Cloud mining pools: Cloud-based mining can be combined with mining pools by making an online contract. This type of mining pool allows individuals to participate in mining activity without even buying specialized equipment.
How rewards are shared on mining pools? The rewards shared after successfully adding the new block to the blockchain vary from currency to currency. The reward sharings also depend on the factors like mining difficulty, the exchange rate between different coins, the hash rate and the block generation time. Some of the followed reward structures are as follows:
Pay-per-share (PPS): This method offers instant payout depending on the miner’s contribution to finding the block. The payment is done using the pool's existing balance and can be withdrawn immediately.
Shared Maximum Pay Per Share (SMPPS): It is the same as Pay-per-share (PPS) but limits the payout to the maximum that the pool has earned.
Equalized Shared Maximum Pay Per Share (ESMPPS): This method is similar to (SMPPS) but the rewards are distributed equally among all miners in the pool.
Proportional (PROP): The miner is rewarded the share that is proportional to the number of shares he has in the pool with respect to the pool’s total shares
Advantages of mining pools
Mining pools offer a more stable income
Mining pools lower costs of mining
Mining pools helps in generating a higher income
Disadvantages of Mining pools
There may be some interruptions in the Mining pools
There is a sharing of block rewards
There may be sometimes unfavorable pool reward structure
Widely-Used Mining Pools
Antpool: The largest pool available on the web offering mining of cryptocurrencies like BTC, BCH, LTC, ETH, ETC, ZEC, DASH, SCC, XMC, BTM
Minergate.com: A public mining pool mining of cryptocurrencies like ETH, ETC, ZEC, BTG, BCN, XMR, XMO, FCN, XDN, AEON
Btc.com: The most popular mining pool among miners offering cryptocurrencies BTC, BCH, ETH, ETC, LTC, UBTC, DCR to mine
BTCC: The largest Chinese pool in the world mining 7% of all existing blocks.
Slush: The most trusted mining pools on internet mining 7% of all available blocks.
Mining pools can definitely be a change to the entire mining process offering the highest and the real income without spending years depending on the computational powers. Hence, investing in a mining pool can be beneficial but always choose the mining pool that fits your personal needs and facilities.
A Chairman at World Economic Forumhttps://www.weforum.org/people/glenn-h-hutchins/https://archive.is/kubAYGlenn Hutchins is chairman of North Island and a co-founder of Silver Lake, the global leader in technology investing. He is a director of both AT&T and NASDAQ OMX; a director of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York; vice chairman of both the Brookings Institution and the Economic Club of New York; and a member of the Executive Committee of the New York Presbyterian Hospital. He is an owner and member of the Executive Committee of the Boston Celtics basketball team. Mr. Hutchins is a director of the Harvard Management Company, which is responsible for the Harvard University endowment, and co-chairman of the University’s capital campaign. He is also a board member of the Center for American Progress as well as a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Previously, Mr. Hutchins served President Clinton in both the transition and the White House as a special advisor on economic and health-care policy. He was also previously chairman of the board of SunGard Data Systems, Inc. and Instinet, Inc. Mr. Hutchins and his wife, Debbie, founded the Hutchins Family Foundation which, among other projects, has created the Hutchins Center for African and African-American Research at Harvard University, which is chaired by Mr. Hutchins; the Hutchins Center on Fiscal and Monetary Policy at The Brookings Institution; and the Chronic Fatigue Initiative, which conducts basic research into the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome.
Advisory Board Larry Summers
Born in New Haven, Connecticut, Summers became a professor of economics at Harvard University in 1983. He left Harvard in 1991, working as the Chief Economist at the World Bank from 1991 to 1993. In 1993, Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs of the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury. While working for the Clinton administration Summers played a leading role in the American response to the 1994 economic crisis in Mexico, the 1997 Asian financial crisis, and the Russian financial crisis. He was also influential in the American advised privatization of the economies of the post-Soviet states, and in the deregulation of the U.S financial system, including the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act.
Following the end of Clinton's term, Summers served as the 27th President of Harvard University from 2001 to 2006. Summers resigned as Harvard's president in the wake of a no-confidence vote by Harvard faculty, which resulted in large part from Summers's conflict with Cornel West, financial conflict of interest questions regarding his relationship with Andrei Shleifer, and a 2005 speech in which he suggested that the under-representation of women in science and engineering could be due to a "different availability of aptitude at the high end," and less to patterns of discrimination and socialization.
After his departure from Harvard, Summers worked as a managing partner at the hedge fund D. E. Shaw & Co., and as a freelance speaker at other financial institutions, including Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Merrill Lynch and Lehman Brothers. Summers rejoined public service during the Obama administration, serving as the Director of the White House United States National Economic Council for President Barack Obama from January 2009 until November 2010, where he emerged as a key economic decision-maker in the Obama administration's response to the Great Recession. After his departure from the NEC in December 2010, Summers has worked in the private sector and as a columnist in major newspapers. In mid-2013, his name was widely floated as the potential successor to Ben Bernanke as the Chairman of the Federal Reserve, though after pushback from the left, Obama eventually nominated Federal Reserve Vice-Chairwoman Janet Yellen for the position.
DCG of course is an investor in both Blockstream and BTCC. DCG's money comes from:
Bain Capital Group
New York Life
Novel TMT Ventures
Solon Mack Capital
The Whittemore Collection
HCM International Co
DCG also owns Coindesk. BTCC and Bitfury are the only two large mining pools who are outspoken in their support of Bitcoin Core. The Bitfury Group Leadership to Present at Clinton Global Initiative (https://archive.is/MWKee) Full Video (Begins at 32:00) “The Bitfury Group is proud to be the world’s leading full service Blockchain technology company, we are deeply honored to represent this innovation to an audience of extremely dedicated game-changers, and we look forward to highlighting our company’s groundbreaking ‘Blockchain for global good’ work at such an important event, said Smith. “From the White House to the Blockchain, I know this technology has the power to deliver inclusion and opportunity to millions, if not billions, of people around the world and I am so grateful to work for a company focused on such a principled vision.” Bitfury Lightning Implementation
ACINQ’s US Headquarters is in Vienna, Virginia, a small town of only 16,000. Why would a global financial firm choose to locate here? -- Feeder community into Washington, D.C. Has an orange line metro stop. -- Located in Fairfax County, VA. -- The US Federal Government is the #2 largest employer -- Booz Allen Hamilton (NSA front company) is #6 largest employer -- In fact, most of the top employers in Fairfax County are either US Federal Gov’t or companies that provide services to Federal Government -- The county is home to the headquarters of intelligence agencies such as the Central Intelligence Agency, National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency, and National Reconnaissance Office, as well as the National Counterterrorism Center and Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Chairman: Avinash Vashistha
Former Chairman and CEO of Accenture in India
He has worked with numerous clients in Banking, Investment and Financial services - General Atlantic, Goldman Sachs, Warbug Pincus, JP Morgan Chase, Visa, Citi Ventures, Baird Capital, Norges Bank, UBS, AXA and has advised World Bank, IDB, ADB, USAID and other multi-lateral agencies over the last 20 years on country strategy and investments across Asia and Latin America.
From 1986-1993 he worked for Information Management Consultants (imc) Ltd as a Technical Consultant with various federal government agencies. McLean, Virginia
1993-2000 Technical Consultant for Freddie Mac, in McLean Virginia
From 2000-2007, President of InterPro Global in Maryland
From 2011-2012, Director of VibbleTV in Columbia, Maryland
From 2008-Present has been Executive Director at ACINQ and Managing Partner at Vine Management, both in Vienna, Virginia.
BitFury Enhances Its Advisory Board by Adding Former CFTC Chairman Dr. James Newsome and Renowned Global Thought Leader and President of the Institute for Liberty and Democracy Hernando de Soto (Businesswire) Bitfury Board of Directors Robert R Dykes
Former CFO at Juniper Networks from 2005-2007, which had an NSA backdoor added to router software.
Greg Maxwell spent “several years at Mozilla”, leaving in August 2014
The other board members include two Bitfury founders, and an investor. Bitfury Advisory Board James Newsome
Ex-chairman of CFTC
Dr. Newsome was nominated by President Clinton and confirmed by the Senate to be at first a Commissioner and later a Chairman of CFTC. As Chairman, Newsome guided the regulation of the nation’s futures markets. Additionally, Newsome led the CFTC’s regulatory implementation of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 (CFMA). He also served as one of four members of the President’s Working Group for Financial Markets, along with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Chairmen of the Federal Reserve and the SEC. In 2004, Newsome assumed the role of President and Chief Executive Officer of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) where he managed daily operations of the largest physical derivatives exchange in the world. Dr. Newsome is presently a founding partner of Delta Strategy Group, a full-service government affairs firm based in Washington, DC.
Hernando de Soto
Hernando de Soto heads the Institute for Liberty and Democracy, named by The Economist one of the two most important think tanks in the world. In the last 30 years, he and his colleagues at the ILD have been involved in designing and implementing legal reform programs to empower the poor in Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East, and former Soviet nations by granting them access to the same property and business rights that the majority of people in developed countries have through the institutions and tools needed to exercise those rights and freedoms. Mr. de Soto also co-chaired with former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright the Commission on Legal Empowerment of the Poor, and currently serves as honorary co-chair on various boards and organizations, including the World Justice Project. He is the author of “The Other Path: the Economic Answer to Terrorism”, and his seminal work “The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else.”
Criticisms: -- In his 'Planet of Slums' Mike Davis argues that de Soto, who Davis calls 'the global guru of neo-liberal populism', is essentially promoting what the statist left in South America and India has always promoted—individual land titling. Davis argues that titling is the incorporation into the formal economy of cities, which benefits more wealthy squatters but is disastrous for poorer squatters, and especially tenants who simply cannot afford incorporation into the fully commodified formal economy. -- An article by Madeleine Bunting for The Guardian (UK) claimed that de Soto's suggestions would in some circumstances cause more harm than benefit, and referred to The Mystery of Capital as "an elaborate smokescreen" used to obscure the issue of the power of the globalized elite. She cited de Soto's employment history as evidence of his bias in favor of the powerful. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2000/sep/11/imf.commenthttp://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/hey_wait_a_minute/2005/01/the_de_soto_delusion.html
Dr. Tomicah Tillemann is Director of the Bretton Woods II initiative. The initiative brings together a variety of long-term investors, with the goal of committing 1% of their assets to social impact investment and using investments as leverage to encourage global good governance. Tillemann served at the U.S. State Department in 2010 as the Senior Advisor on Civil Society and Emerging Democracies to Secretary Hillary Clinton and Secretary John Kerry. Tillemann came to the State Department as a speechwriter to Secretary Clinton in March 2009. Earlier, he worked for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he was the principal policy advisor on Europe and Eurasia to Committee Chairmen, Senators Joe Biden and John Kerry. He also facilitated the work of the Senate's Subcommittee on European Affairs, then chaired by Senator Barack Obama. Tillemann received his B.A. magna cum laude from Yale University. He holds a Ph.D. with distinction from the School for Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University (SAIS) where he also served as a graduate level instructor in American foreign policy.http://live.worldbank.org/node/8468https://archive.is/raDHA
Secretary Clinton appointed Tomicah Tillemann, Ph.D. as the State Department’s Senior Advisor for Civil Society and Emerging Democracies in October 2010. He continues his service under Secretary Kerry.
Mr. Tillemann and his team operate like venture capitalists, identifying ideas that can strengthen new democracies and civil society, and then bring together the talent, technology and resources needed to translate promising concepts into successful diplomacy. He and his team have developed over 20 major initiatives on behalf of the President and Secretary of State.
Mr. Tillemann came to the State Department as a speechwriter to Secretary Clinton in March 2009 and collaborated with her on over 200 speeches. Earlier, he worked for the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, where he was the principal policy advisor on Europe and Eurasia to Committee Chairmen, Senators Joe Biden and John Kerry. He also facilitated the work of the Senate's Subcommittee on European Affairs, then chaired by Senator Barack Obama. Mr. Tillemann’s other professional experience includes work with the White House Office of Media Affairs and five U.S. Senate and Congressional campaigns. He was a reporter with Reuters New Media and hosted a commercial radio program in Denver, Colorado.http://m.state.gov/md160354.htmhttps://www.newamerica.org/our-people/tomicah-tillemann/https://archive.is/u2yF0
Director of “Bretton Woods II” initiative at New America Foundation Bretton Woods was an international summit that led to the creation of the IMF and the IBRD, one of five members of The World Bank
Speaking to Clinton Global IntiativePrior to working at Edelman, my career has included serving as Deputy White House Press Secretary and Special Assistant to President Obama, Director of Public Affairs for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Director of Communications for the Senate Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee and its then Chairman Senator Rockefeller, Traveling Press Director for Secretary Hillary Clinton’s 2008 Presidential campaign, and Director of Communications for Secretary Madeleine K. Albright and her consulting firm, The Albright Group, LLC.https://medium.com/@jamieelizabethsmith/why-i-believe-in-the-blockchain-b19bf2014fab
Don Tapscott, co-author of the book “Blockchain Revolution,” hosted the meeting with his son and co-author Alex Tapscott at his family’s summer compound in Lake of Bays, Ontario. The group included some of blockchain’s biggest backers, including people with ties to IBM and JPMorgan. They considered ways to improve the governance and oversight of the technology behind the digital currency bitcoin as a way to fuel the industry’s growth. They included Jim Zemlin, executive director of the Linux Foundation; Brian Behlendorf, executive director of the Hyperledger Project, a blockchain supporter group that includes International Business Machines Corp., Airbus Group SE and JPMorgan Chase & Co.; and Ana Lopes, board member of the World Wide Web Foundation. Participants with blockchain industry ties include former deputy White House press secretary Jamie Smith, now chief global communications officer of BitFury Group Ltd., and Joseph Lubin, founder of startup Consensus Systems.
Was the founding director of the MIT Digital Currency Initiative -Left his 4 year post as White House Senior Advisor for Mobile and Data Innovation to go directly to the MIT DCI
Brian Forde has spent more than a decade at the nexus of technology, entrepreneurship, and public policy. He is currently the Director of Digital Currency at the MIT Media Lab where he leads efforts to mainstream digital currencies like Bitcoin through research, and incubation of high-impact applications of the emerging technology. Most recently he was the Senior Advisor for Mobile and Data Innovation at the White House where he spearheaded efforts to leverage emerging technologies to address the President’s most critical national priorities. Prior to his work at the White House, Brian founded one of the largest phone companies in Nicaragua after serving as a business and technology volunteer in the Peace Corps. In recognition of his work, Brian was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum and one of the ten most influential people in bitcoin and blockchain.https://www.linkedin.com/in/brianfordehttps://archive.is/WjEGU
Includes Accenture (See Avinash Vashistha), Allianz, Deloitte (Scaling Bitcoin platinum sponsor, Blockstream Partner), Citigroup, Bain & Company (parent of Bain Capital, DCG investor), Dalian Wanda Group (working on blockchain technology), Ernst & Young (see Paul Brody), HSBC (Li-Ka Shing, Blockstream investor, used to be Deputy Chairman of HSBC), IBM, KPMG International, Mastercard (DCG Investor), PwC (Blockstream partner, also sponsor of Scaling Bitcoin)
Future of Financial Services Report [PDF] The word “blockchain” is mentioned once in this document, on page 23 (http://i.imgur.com/1SxyneJ.png):We have identified three major challenge areas related to innovation in financial servicesthat will require multi-stakeholder collaboration to be addressed effectively. We are launching a project stream related to each area, with the goal of enabling tangible impact.... Decentralised systems, such as the blockchain protocol, threaten to disintermediate almost every process in financial services
Excerpt: BitFury - www.bitfury.com - The Bitfury Group develops and delivers software and hardware solutions for businesses, governments, organisations and individuals who want to securely move an asset across the Blockchain.
Newbs might not know this, but bitcoin recently came out of an intense internal drama. Between July 2015 and August 2017 bitcoin was attacked by external forces who were hoping to destroy the very properties that made bitcoin valuable in the first place. This culminated in the creation of segwit and the UASF (user activated soft fork) movement. The UASF was successful, segwit was added to bitcoin and with that the anti-decentralization side left bitcoin altogether and created their own altcoin called bcash. Bitcoin's price was $2500, soon after segwit was activated the price doubled to $5000 and continued rising until here we are today at $15000. During this drama, I took time away from writing open source code to help educate and argue on reddit, twitter and other social media. I came up with a reading list for quickly copypasting things. It may be interesting today for newbs or anyone who wants a history lesson on what exactly happened during those two years when bitcoin's very existence as a decentralized low-trust currency was questioned. Now the fight has essentially been won, I try not to comment on reddit that much anymore. There's nothing left to do except wait for Lightning and similar tech to become mature (or better yet, help code it and test it) In this thread you can learn about block sizes, latency, decentralization, segwit, ASICBOOST, lightning network and all the other issues that were debated endlessly for over two years. So when someone tries to get you to invest in bcash, remind them of the time they supported Bitcoin Unlimited.
An objective score for Bitcoin mining decentralization (and other cryptos)
The Herfindahl index can be applied to objectively measure how decentralized a cryptocurrency's mining infrastructure is - and to directly compare cryptos in that regard. Perhaps more interesting, though more work, would be to graph how these change over time. Has bitcoin become more or less decentralized over the years? It's actually possible to answer, but I'll leave doing so up to others. The more mining pools there are, and the more their hash rates are evenly distributed, the more decentralized a cryptocurrency's mining economy is. This is the basis of the Herfindahl index, and we can use the reciprocal to obtain a decentralization score. Here is the procedure, followed by results and calculations for Bitcoin, Bitcoin Cash, and Ethereum.
Pick a number of blocks (N) to give you a sufficiently good estimate.
For all of those blocks, identify what pool/miner mined it.
For each unique pool/miner, count how many blocks they mined (n) out of the total (N), and then calculate (n/N)2 (squared market share).
Sum all of these squares up to give you the Herfindahl index (H).
Optionally, calculate the reciprocal (1/H). This makes the index proportional to decentralization and is IMO easier to understand in "bigger is better" terms.
Since steps 1-3 are the already used by many web stats to calculate miner hash rate proportions, you can work directly from hash rate proportions. Square each miner's proportional hash rate and add these all up to get H, then take the reciprocal. Higher values of the reciprocal Herfindahl index indicate greater decentralization. You can directly compare these between cryptos, but be aware that the index will fluctuate over time and will exhibit some variance. In my opinion this value is an important metric of the security of a cryptocurrency's network along with the total hash rate. Here are the current values for a few different cryptos. Higher is better. Bitcoin: 7.9 Bitcoin Cash: 6.0 Ethereum: 7.0 So, what is an acceptable value? That is the subjective part. I would personally suggest the current state of bitcoin is not decentralized enough, so a value of 7.9 does not satisfy me. Your own opinion may differ. How do we tell if the above values are different enough to warrant discussion? One method is through the use of significance tests. Or, it may be sufficient to simply plot such values on a graph an examine variability over time. I leave these as exercises for others... Raw calculations for Bitcoin:
Bitcoin (inoffizielle Abkürzung BTC) ist ein Open-Source-Softwareprojekt für die gleichnamige digitale Währung auf Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Basis, das 2009 von Satoshi Nakamoto ins Leben gerufen wurde. Über sogenannte Bitcoin-Adressen kann Geld anonym von einer Wallet-Datei (engl. Geldbörse) bzw. einem speziellen Service über das Netzwerk an andere Adressen überwiesen werden. Im Gegensatz zu ... BTCC DAX im Börsengeschäft mit Ethereum Classic (ETC), Ethereum (ETC) und einer neuen Niederlassung von Bitcoin - Bitcoin to Cash (BCC). Es ist möglich, Kryptowährungspaare wie ETC/BTC E/BTC und BTC/BTC zu handeln. Der Abzug von Geldern aus diesem Umtausch ist derzeit auf 20 BTC pro Tag begrenzt. Daher können sich große Spieler bei einem erheblichen Gewinn mit dem Abzug von Geldern ... How much was bitcoin worth in 2009? The value of the first bitcoin transactions were negotiated by individuals on the bitcoin forum with one notable transaction of 10,000 BTC used to indirectly purchase two pizzas delivered by Papa John's. This was the only major security flaw found and exploited in bitcoin's history. Based on bitcoin's open source code, other cryptocurrencies started to ... BTC.com is a web wallet originally created by Blocktrail and now owned by Bitmain Technologies. It also publishes an Android wallet, an iOS Wallet, a Bitcoin API, a block explorer, and a mining pool. On July 19, 2016 Blocktrail was acquired by Bitmain and subsequently re-branded to BTC.com. Digital money that’s instant, private, and free from bank fees. Download our official wallet app and start using Bitcoin today. Read news, start mining, and buy BTC or BCH.