Mike Novogratz likes stocks, bitcoin ahead of the election ...

Crypto Banking Wars: Will Coinbase or Binance Become The Bank of The Future?

Crypto Banking Wars: Will Coinbase or Binance Become The Bank of The Future?
Can the early success of major crypto exchanges propel them to winning the broader consumer finance market?
https://reddit.com/link/i48t4q/video/v4eo10gom7f51/player
This is the first part of Crypto Banking Wars — a new series that examines what crypto-native company is most likely to become the bank of the future. Who is best positioned to reach mainstream adoption in consumer finance?
While crypto allows the world to get rid of banks, a bank will still very much be necessary for this powerful technology to reach the masses. We believe a crypto-native company, like Genesis Block, will become the bank of the future.
In an earlier series, Crypto-Powered, we laid out arguments for why crypto-native companies have a huge edge in the market. When you consider both the broad spectrum of financial use-cases and the enormous value unlocked through these DeFi protocols, you can see just how big of an unfair advantage blockchain tech becomes for companies who truly understand and leverage it. Traditional banks and fintech unicorns simply won’t be able to keep up.
The power players of consumer finance in the 21st century will be crypto-native companies who build with blockchain technology at their core.
The crypto landscape is still nascent. We’re still very much in the fragmented, unbundled phase of the industry lifecycle. Beyond what Genesis Block is doing, there are signs of other companies slowly starting to bundle financial services into what could be an all-in-one bank replacement.
So the key question that this series hopes to answer:
Which crypto-native company will successfully become the bank of the future?
We obviously think Genesis Block is well-positioned to win. But we certainly aren’t the only game in town. In this series, we’ll be doing an analysis of who is most capable of thwarting our efforts. We’ll look at categories like crypto exchanges, crypto wallets, centralized lending & borrowing services, and crypto debit card companies. Each category will have its own dedicated post.
Today we’re analyzing big crypto exchanges. The two companies we’ll focus on today are Coinbase (biggest American exchange) and Binance (biggest global exchange). They are the top two exchanges in terms of Bitcoin trading volume. They are in pole position to winning this market — they have a huge existing userbase and strong financial resources.
Will Coinbase or Binance become the bank of the future? Can their early success propel them to winning the broader consumer finance market? Is their growth too far ahead for anyone else to catch up? Let’s dive in.
https://preview.redd.it/lau4hevpm7f51.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=2c5de1ba497199f36aa194e5809bd86e5ab533d8

Binance

The most formidable exchange on the global stage is Binance (Crunchbase). All signs suggest they have significantly more users and a stronger balance sheet than Coinbase. No other exchange is executing as aggressively and relentlessly as Binance is. The cadence at which they are shipping and launching new products is nothing short of impressive. As Tushar Jain from Multicoin argues, Binance is Blitzscaling.
Here are some of the products that they’ve launched in the last 18 months. Only a few are announced but still pre-launch.
Binance is well-positioned to become the crypto-powered, all-in-one, bundled solution for financial services. They already have so many of the pieces. But the key question is:
Can they create a cohesive & united product experience?

Binance Weaknesses

Binance is strong, but they do have a few major weaknesses that could slow them down.
  1. Traders & Speculators Binance is currently very geared for speculators, traders, and financial professionals. Their bread-and-butter is trading (spot, margin, options, futures). Their UI is littered with depth charts, order books, candlesticks, and other financial concepts that are beyond the reach of most normal consumers. Their product today is not at all tailored for the broader consumer market. Given Binance’s popularity and strength among the pro audience, it’s unlikely that they will dumb down or simplify their product any time soon. That would jeopardize their core business. Binance will likely need an entirely new product/brand to go beyond the pro user crowd. That will take time (or an acquisition). So the question remains, is Binance even interested in the broader consumer market? Or will they continue to focus on their core product, the one-stop-shop for pro crypto traders?
  2. Controversies & Hot Water Binance has had a number of controversies. No one seems to know where they are based — so what regulatory agencies can hold them accountable? Last year, some sensitive, private user data got leaked. When they announced their debit card program, they had to remove mentions of Visa quickly after. And though the “police raid” story proved to be untrue, there are still a lot of questions about what happened with their Shanghai office shut down (where there is smoke, there is fire). If any company has had a “move fast and break things” attitude, it is Binance. That attitude has served them well so far but as they try to do business in more regulated countries like America, this will make their road much more difficult — especially in the consumer market where trust takes a long time to earn, but can be destroyed in an instant. This is perhaps why the Binance US product is an empty shell when compared to their main global product.
  3. Disjointed Product Experience Because Binance has so many different teams launching so many different services, their core product is increasingly feeling disjointed and disconnected. Many of the new features are sloppily integrated with each other. There’s no cohesive product experience. This is one of the downsides of executing and shipping at their relentless pace. For example, users don’t have a single wallet that shows their balances. Depending on if the user wants to do spot trading, margin, futures, or savings… the user needs to constantly be transferring their assets from one wallet to another. It’s not a unified, frictionless, simple user experience. This is one major downside of the “move fast and break things” approach.
  4. BNB token Binance raised $15M in a 2017 ICO by selling their $BNB token. The current market cap of $BNB is worth more than $2.6B. Financially this token has served them well. However, given how BNB works (for example, their token burn), there are a lot of open questions as to how BNB will be treated with US security laws. Their Binance US product so far is treading very lightly with its use of BNB. Their token could become a liability for Binance as it enters more regulated markets. Whether the crypto community likes it or not, until regulators get caught up and understand the power of decentralized technology, tokens will still be a regulatory burden — especially for anything that touches consumers.
  5. Binance Chain & Smart Contract Platform Binance is launching its own smart contract platform soon. Based on compatibility choices, they have their sights aimed at the Ethereum developer community. It’s unclear how easy it’ll be to convince developers to move to Binance chain. Most of the current developer energy and momentum around smart contracts is with Ethereum. Because Binance now has their own horse in the race, it’s unlikely they will ever decide to leverage Ethereum’s DeFi protocols. This could likely be a major strategic mistake — and hubris that goes a step too far. Binance will be pushing and promoting protocols on their own platform. The major risk of being all-in on their own platform is that they miss having a seat on the Ethereum rocket ship — specifically the growth of DeFi use-cases and the enormous value that can be unlocked. Integrating with Ethereum’s protocols would be either admitting defeat of their own platform or competing directly against themselves.

Binance Wrap Up

I don’t believe Binance is likely to succeed with a homegrown product aimed at the consumer finance market. Their current product — which is focused heavily on professional traders and speculators — is unlikely to become the bank of the future. If they wanted to enter the broader consumer market, I believe it’s much more likely that they will acquire a company that is getting early traction. They are not afraid to make acquisitions (Trust, JEX, WazirX, DappReview, BxB, CoinMarketCap, Swipe).
However, never count CZ out. He is a hustler. Binance is executing so aggressively and relentlessly that they will always be on the shortlist of major contenders.
https://preview.redd.it/mxmlg1zqm7f51.png?width=800&format=png&auto=webp&s=2d900dd5ff7f3b00df5fe5a48305d57ebeffaa9a

Coinbase

The crypto-native company that I believe is more likely to become the bank of the future is Coinbase (crunchbase). Their dominance in America could serve as a springboard to winning the West (Binance has a stronger foothold in Asia). Coinbase has more than 30M users. Their exchange business is a money-printing machine. They have a solid reputation as it relates to compliance and working with regulators. Their CEO is a longtime member of the crypto community. They are rumored to be going public soon.

Coinbase Strengths

Let’s look at what makes them strong and a likely contender for winning the broader consumer finance market.
  1. Different Audience, Different Experience Coinbase has been smart to create a unique product experience for each audience — the pro speculator crowd and the common retail user. Their simple consumer version is at Coinbase.com. That’s the default. Their product for the more sophisticated traders and speculators is at Coinbase Pro (formerly GDAX). Unlike Binance, Coinbase can slowly build out the bank of the future for the broad consumer market while still having a home for their hardcore crypto traders. They aren’t afraid to have different experiences for different audiences.
  2. Brand & Design Coinbase has a strong product design team. Their brand is capable of going beyond the male-dominated crypto audience. Their product is clean and simple — much more consumer-friendly than Binance. It’s clear they spend a lot of time thinking about their user experience. Interacting directly with crypto can sometimes be rough and raw (especially for n00bs). When I was at Mainframe we hosted a panel about Crypto UX challenges at the DevCon4 Dapp Awards. Connie Yang (Head of Design at Coinbase) was on the panel. She was impressive. Some of their design philosophies will bode well as they push to reach the broader consumer finance market.
  3. USDC Stablecoin Coinbase (along with Circle) launched USDC. We’ve shared some stats about its impressive growth when we discussed DeFi use-cases. USDC is quickly becoming integrated with most DeFi protocols. As a result, Coinbase is getting a front-row seat at some of the most exciting things happening in decentralized finance. As Coinbase builds its knowledge and networks around these protocols, it could put them in a favorable position to unlock incredible value for their users.
  4. Early Signs of Bundling Though Coinbase has nowhere near as many products & services as Binance, they are slowly starting to add more financial services that may appeal to the broader market. They are now letting depositors earn interest on USDC (also DAI & Tezos). In the UK they are piloting a debit card. Users can now invest in crypto with dollar-cost-averaging. It’s not much, but it’s a start. You can start to see hints of a more bundled solution around financial services.

Coinbase Weaknesses

Let’s now look at some things that could hold them back.
  1. Slow Cadence In the fast-paced world of crypto, and especially when compared to Binance, Coinbase does not ship very many new products very often. This is perhaps their greatest weakness. Smaller, more nimble startups may run circles around them. They were smart to launch Coinbase Ventures where tey invest in early-stage startups. They can now keep an ear to the ground on innovation. Perhaps their cadence is normal for a company of their size — but the Binance pace creates quite the contrast.
  2. Lack of Innovation When you consider the previous point (slow cadence), it’s unclear if Coinbase is capable of building and launching new products that are built internally. Most of their new products have come through acquisitions. Their Earn.com acquisition is what led to their Earn educational product. Their acquisition of Xapo helped bolster their institutional custody offering. They acqui-hired a team to help launch their staking infrastructure. Their acquisition of Cipher Browser became an important part of Coinbase Wallet. And recently, they acquired Tagomi — a crypto prime brokerage. Perhaps most of Coinbase’s team is just focused on improving their golden goose, their exchange business. It’s unclear. But the jury is still out on if they can successfully innovate internally and launch any homegrown products.
  3. Talent Exodus There have been numerous reports of executive turmoil at Coinbase. It raises a lot of questions about company culture and vision. Some of the executives who departed include COO Asiff Hirji, CTO Balaji Srinivasan, VP & GM Adam White, VP Eng Tim Wagner, VP Product Jeremy Henrickson, Sr Dir of Eng Namrata Ganatra, VP of Intl Biz Dan Romero, Dir of Inst Sales Christine Sandler, Head of Trading Hunter Merghart, Dir Data Science Soups Ranjan, Policy Lead Mike Lempres, Sr Compliance Vaishali Mehta. Many of these folks didn’t stay with Coinbase very long. We don’t know exactly why it’s happening —but when you consider a few of my first points (slow cadence, lack of innovation), you have to wonder if it’s all related.
  4. Institutional Focus As a company, we are a Coinbase client. We love their institutional offering. It’s clear they’ve been investing a lot in this area. A recent Coinbase blog post made it clear that this has been a focus: “Over the past 12 months, Coinbase has been laser-focused on building out the types of features and services that our institutional customers need.” Their Tagomi acquisition only re-enforced this focus. Perhaps this is why their consumer product has felt so neglected. They’ve been heavily investing in their institutional services since May 2018. For a company that’s getting very close to an IPO, it makes sense that they’d focus on areas that present strong revenue opportunities — as they do with institutional clients. Even for big companies like Coinbase, it’s hard to have a split focus. If they are “laser-focused” on the institutional audience, it’s unlikely they’ll be launching any major consumer products anytime soon.

Coinbase Wrap Up

At Genesis Block, we‘re proud to be working with Coinbase. They are a fantastic company. However, I don’t believe that they’ll succeed in building their own product for the broader consumer finance market. While they have incredible design, there are no signs that they are focused on or capable of internally building this type of product.
Similar to Binance, I think it’s far more likely that Coinbase acquires a promising young startup with strong growth.

Honorable Mentions

Other US-based exchanges worth mentioning are Kraken, Gemini, and Bittrex. So far we’ve seen very few signs that any of them will aggressively attack broader consumer finance. Most are going in the way of Binance — listing more assets and adding more pro tools like margin and futures trading. And many, like Coinbase, are trying to attract more institutional customers. For example, Gemini with their custody product.

Wrap Up

Coinbase and Binance have huge war chests and massive reach. For that alone, they should always be considered threats to Genesis Block. However, their products are very, very different than the product we’re building. And their approach is very different as well. They are trying to educate and onboard people into crypto. At Genesis Block, we believe the masses shouldn’t need to know or care about it. We did an entire series about this, Spreading Crypto.
Most everyone needs banking — whether it be to borrow, spend, invest, earn interest, etc. Not everyone needs a crypto exchange. For non-crypto consumers (the mass market), the differences between a bank and a crypto exchange are immense. Companies like Binance and Coinbase make a lot of money on their crypto exchange business. It would be really difficult, gutsy, and risky for any of them to completely change their narrative, messaging, and product to focus on the broader consumer market. I don’t believe they would ever risk biting the hand that feeds them.
In summary, as it relates to a digital bank aimed at the mass market, I believe both Coinbase and Binance are much more likely to acquire a startup in this space than they are to build it themselves. And I think they would want to keep the brand/product distinct and separate from their core crypto exchange business.
So back to the original question, is Coinbase and Binance a threat to Genesis Block? Not really. Not today. But they could be, and for that, we want to stay close to them.
------
Other Ways to Consume Today's Episode:
Follow our social channels: https://genesisblock.com/follow/
Download the app. We're a digital bank that's powered by crypto: https://genesisblock.com/download
submitted by mickhagen to genesisblockhq [link] [comments]

List of Scott's most influential twitter followers

It seems like Scott/SSC has gotten much more mainstream recognition over the past year, so I was curious to know who the most influential SSC readers are now. Using twitter follower data for this isn't perfect (follower count is not a perfect proxy for influence, not all SSC readers follow the twitter account, etc.), but it's the best I could think of and I figured it would be a fun exercise regardless.
As an aside, a few interesting stats I learned about Scott's twitter followers (scraped on 12/30/17):
  1. Scott is followed by exactly two members of Congress: Justin Amash (Republican) and Jim Himes (Democrat)
  2. Scott has 351 bluecheck followers
  3. Of the top 100 most-followed followers, the gender breakdown (by my count) is 82 men vs 8 women (along with 10 organization or anonymous accounts). Among the top 50, it's 43 men and 1 woman (Liv Boeree)
  4. 385 followers (2% of the total) have bios including either "bitcoin", "ethereum", "crypto" or "blockchain"
  5. There are 67 followers whose bios include either "@Google", "@ Google", "at Google", or "Googler"
Note: When constructing the top 100 below, I excluded accounts that had extremely large Following counts, since I wanted the list to just consist of (likely) actual SSC readers. My exact rule was to exclude any account that follows >20K, include any that follows <10K, and include accounts in the 10K-20K range iff their following/follower ratio was less than 10% (this last condition was mostly just because I wanted to keep @pmarca on the list).
Anyway, below is the top 100. I also constructed lists for Eliezer, Robin Hanson, and gwern, and I can post those in the comments if anyone's interested.
Ranking Twitter Name Full Name Bio Bluecheck Follower Count Following Count
1 @NateSilver538 Nate Silver Editor-in-Chief, @FiveThirtyEight. Author, The Signal and the Noise (http://amzn.to/QdyFYV). Sports/politics/food geek. 1 2860782 1051
2 @ezraklein Ezra Klein Founder and editor-at-large, http://Vox.com. Come work with us! http://bit.ly/1ToAmQ8 1 2277052 1112
3 @timoreilly Tim O'Reilly Founder and CEO, O'Reilly Media. Watching the alpha geeks, sharing their stories, helping the future unfold. 1 1988716 1829
4 @paulg Paul Graham 1 1066366 322
5 @SamHarrisOrg Sam Harris Author of The End of Faith, The Moral Landscape, Waking Up, and other bestselling books published in over 20 languages. Host of the Waking Up… 1 974855 229
6 @techreview MIT Tech Review MIT Technology Review equips its audiences with the intelligence to understand a world shaped by technology. 1 794095 3367
7 @pmarca Marc Andreessen 1 672740 16319
8 @cdixon Chris Dixon programming, philosophy, history, internet, startups, investing 1 572260 3320
9 @RealTimeWWII WW2 Tweets from 1939 I livetweet the 2nd World War, as it happened on this day in 1939 & for 6 years to come (2nd time around). Created by Alwyn Collinson,… 0 516803 459
10 @VitalikButerin Vitalik Buterin See https://about.me/vitalik_buterin 1 458582 154
11 @Tribeca Tribeca Great stories from the greatest storytellers. 1 409581 18678
12 @bhorowitz Ben Horowitz Author of Ben's Blog (http://www.bhorowitz.com) and HarperBusiness book, THE HARD THING ABOUT HARD THINGS http://www.amazon.com/Hard-Thing-About-Things-Building-ebook/dp/B00DQ845EA/ref=sr_1_1… 1 405820 255
13 @mattyglesias Matthew Yglesias Fake news. Bad takes. Dad jokes. We’re actually on the Bad Place. 1 372341 754
14 @naval Naval Present. 0 339469 478
15 @SwiftOnSecurity SwiftOnSecurity I make stupid jokes, talk systems security, https://DecentSecurity.com + http://GotPhish.com, write Scifi, sysadmin, & use Oxford commas. Sprezzatura. 0 211672 7530
16 @alexismadrigal Alexis C. Madrigal staff writer @TheAtlantic in the real world, these just people with ideas Mexican, Oakland, Earthseed 1 203540 5682
17 @ScottAdamsSays Scott Adams Win Bigly: http://amzn.to/2myAGon 1 202042 788
18 @Khanoisseur Adam Khan Majordomo; Stuff at @Google @Twitter @SpaceX @Apple Exposing Trump https://www.gofundme.com/VolunteerJournalism… *Turn notifications on for breaking Trump… 0 183964 9359
19 @felixsalmon Felix Salmon Host and editor, Cause & Effect 1 180414 1832
20 @fmanjoo Farhad Manjoo (feat. Drake) NYT. DMs are open. signal: 4156836738. [email protected]. Instagram/Snapchat: fmanjoo 1 167592 4095
21 @VsauceTwo Vsauce2 Being Human. personal twitter: @kevleeb 0 151795 279
22 @russian_market Russian Market Swiss Financial Blogger. In Bitcoin we trust. 1 148866 939
23 @AaronDayAtlas Aaron Day CEO @Salucorp, Chairman @stark_360. #entrepreneur #btc #blockchain #healthcare #paleo #tech #dad Former candidate for #USSenate #ENTJ 0 133389 2075
24 @justinamash Justin Amash I defend #liberty and explain every vote at http://facebook.com/justinamash • 'Laws must be general, equal, and certain.' —F.A. Hayek 1 131997 5376
25 @Liv_Boeree Liv Boeree Poker player & Team Pokerstars Pro. Physics creature. Aspiring rationalist. Mountain goat. [email protected] 1 125366 451
26 @MaxCRoser Max Roser Researcher @UniOfOxford – Follow me for data visualizations of long-term trends of living standards – mostly from my web publication: http://www.OurWorldinData.org 1 114045 583
27 @Jonathan_Blow Jonathan Blow Game designer of Braid and The Witness. Partner in IndieFund. 0 112827 68
28 @andrewchen Andrew Chen Growth: @uber. Writer: http://andrewchen.co. Plus one: @briannekimmel 0 111077 6288
29 @charlescwcooke Charles C. W. Cooke Editor of National Review Online. Classical liberal. Immigrant. Jack’s Dad. Wino. ‘The American is the Englishman left to himself.’ 1 110071 872
30 @AlanEyre1 Alan Eyre Diplomat, U.S. State Dept, Energy Resources Bureau. Middle East/Asia Energy; ایران. RT doesn't =endorsement; 'likes' don't necessarily=likes, often… 1 106947 3514
31 @karpathy Andrej Karpathy Director of AI at Tesla. Previously a Research Scientist at OpenAI, and CS PhD student at Stanford. I like to train Deep Neural Nets on large datasets. 1 106643 445
32 @JamesADamore James Damore Nerd centrist interested in open discussions and improving the world by fixing perverse incentive structures. Author of the pro-diversity … 1 94580 210
33 @SherwoodStrauss Ethan Strauss Podcasting 1 88258 1204
34 @james_clear James Clear Author, weightlifter and travel photographer in 25+ countries. Over 400,000 people subscribe to my weekly newsletter on how to build better habits. 1 87968 218
35 @nk from the future Wealth and personal achievement expert 0 81712 591
36 @benthompson Ben Thompson AuthoFounder of @stratechery. Host of @exponentfm. @notechben for sports. @monkbent on other networks. Home on the Internet. 1 78746 1267
37 @matthewherper Matthew Herper Forbes reporter covering science and medicine 1 78698 2111
38 @JeremyCMorgan Jeremy Morgan Tech Blogger, Hacker, Pluralsight Author, and Volunteer Firefighter. Once held the world record for being the youngest person alive 0 78601 7365
39 @balajis Balaji S. Srinivasan CEO (http://Earn.com) and Board Partner (@a16z). I hear this Bitcoin thing might be kind of a big deal. You can reach me at http://earn.com/balajis. 1 70707 2936
40 @patrickc Patrick Collison Fallibilist, optimist. Stripe CEO. 1 68709 1875
41 @matthew_d_green Matthew Green I teach cryptography at Johns Hopkins. 0 68434 594
42 @delong Brad DeLong 🖖🏻 I'm trying to be smart, knowledgable, funny, and well-wishing. You try too--at least 2 of 4. Low volume: 1+ per day... 0 67968 1578
43 @flantz Frank Lantz game designer 0 66090 278
44 @MYSTIQUEWEST MYSTIQUE NYC The Mystique Gentlemen’s Strip Club offers the best in adult entertainment in New York City. With unique stage design, full bars and the most beautiful dancers. 0 64881 332
45 @AceofSpadesHQ TheOne&OnlyExpert I'm not #TheExpert, or the expert parodying #TheExpert. I'm the real expert. 0 64872 1464
46 @btaylor Bret Taylor President, Chief Product Officer of @Salesforce. Previously CEO Quip, CTO Facebook, CEO FriendFeed, co-creator Google Maps. Stanford fan, @Twitter… 1 64829 687
47 @wycats Yehuda Katz Tilde Co-Founder, OSS enthusiast and world traveler. 1 63933 849
48 @jahimes Jim Himes Connecticut Congressman. Reader. Runner. Swimmer. And I make maple syrup. 1 62820 411
49 @abnormalreturns Tadas Viskanta Financial Educator, Author and Editor of Abnormal Returns. 0 61693 413
50 @BrendanNyhan Brendan Nyhan @Dartmouth political science professor, @UpshotNYT contributor, and @BrightLineWatch co-organizer. Before: @CJR / Spinsanity / All the President'… 1 61508 6149
51 @matt_levine Matt Levine da, wo Menschen arbeiten, wird es immer Fehler geben 1 61314 990
52 @BretWeinstein Bret Weinstein Professor in Exile If we don't harness evolution, it will harness us. 1 61049 536
53 @gaberivera Gabe Rivera Blame me for @Techmeme and @mediagazer. Nicer than my tweets. Often sarcastic. DMs are open. 2+2â‰5. Retweets are endorphins. 1 59927 5599
54 @SarahTheHaider Sarah Haider Promotes free-speech, human rights, liberalism, atheism. Director of Outreach,Ex-Muslims of North America. Pakistani by birth, American by… 0 59574 292
55 @TheInfinite_T ✨Infinite_T✨ NSFW Send GoogleWallet to [email protected] pls send all your tokens to http://mfc.im/infinite_t/t Wishlist: http://a.co/8taURYD 0 59061 645
56 @cblatts Chris Blattman Political economist studying conflict, crime, and poverty, and @UChicago Professor @HarrisPolicy and @PearsonInst. I blog at … 0 57670 2445
57 @jamestaranto James Taranto Editorial Features Editor, in charge of @WSJ op-ed pages. Best of the Web columnist 2000-17. 1 56733 174
58 @nitashatiku Nitasha Tiku Senior writer @Wired covering Silicon Valley [email protected], DM for Signal 1 56133 4327
59 @DKThomp Derek Thompson Writer at @TheAtlantic. Author of HIT MAKERS. Talker on NPR's @hereandnow. Economics of work and play. derek[at]theatlantic[dot]com 1 53387 1116
60 @aliamjadrizvi Ali A. Rizvi Pakistani-Canadian author of The Atheist Muslim (SMP/Macmillan). Amazon order link below. Co-host of @SecularJihadist podcast. Contact:… 1 52806 784
61 @RameshPonnuru Ramesh Ponnuru @NRO, @BV, @AEI, @CBS. Husband of @aprilponnuru. 1 51721 613
62 @JYuter Rabbi Josh Yuter "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways" Is. 55:8. Jewish stuff + bad jokes. All opinions subject to change. 1 50731 2599
63 @meganphelps Megan Phelps-Roper “You're just a human being, my dear, sweet child.” Speaking requests: [email protected] Contact: [email protected] 1 49678 792
64 @albertwenger Albert Wenger VC at http://usv.com 1 49107 1794
65 @paulbloomatyale Paul Bloom Psychologist who studies and writes about human nature—including morality, pleasure, and religion 1 48579 391
66 @conor64 Conor Friedersdorf Staff writer at The Atlantic, founding editor of The Best of Journalism–subscribe here: https://www.ponyexpress.io/subscribe/thebestofjournalism… 1 46977 1405
67 @EricRWeinstein Eric Weinstein Managing director @ Thiel Capital. Some assembly required. Spelling not included. May contain math. Tweets are my own. 1 46263 850
68 @adamdangelo Adam D'Angelo CEO of Quora 1 45545 526
69 @robbystarbuck Robby Starbuck Director + Producer + Founder at RSM Creative - Husband to @imatriarch - Dad to 3 Kids + 2 Dogs - Futurist - Cuban American - Fan of Civilized Debate 1 45308 1842
70 @clairlemon Claire Lehmann Principle before affiliation. Founder, editor http://quillette.com. Contact me at http://earn.com/clairelehmann 1 45305 2000
71 @tombennett71 Tom Bennett Director of researchED- https://researched.org.uk Chair of @educationgovuk Behaviour group. Free training available here http://www.tombennetttraining.co.uk 1 43859 3698
72 @m2jr Mike Maples The woods are lovely, dark and deep, But I have promises to keep,And miles to go before I sleep,And miles to go before I sleep.-Robert Frost 0 43629 3915
73 @DavidDidau David Didau Education writer and speaker. Ginger. #PsychBook OUT NOW! https://goo.gl/xyDIjO; #WrongBook still available: http://amzn.to/1Opyach 0 43531 1092
74 @ByronTau Byron Tau congress et al. for @wsj. interested in law, lobbying, nat'l security, investigations, gov't ethics and . contact me securely: http://bit.ly/2s2HTfG 1 43026 2699
75 @MichaelKitces MichaelKitces One nerd’s perspective on the financial planning world… CFP, #LifelongLearner, Entrepreneur-In-Denial, Advisor #FinTech, & publisher of the Nerd’s Eye View blog 1 42304 459
76 @rahulkapil Rahul Kapil Come to observe. Stay to play. 0 41987 975
77 @michaelbatnick Irrelevant Investor Long-distance reader 0 41620 1076
78 @yegg Gabriel Weinberg CEO & Founder, @DuckDuckGo. Co-author, Traction. I want to publish zines and rage against machines. DM for Signal. 1 39470 151
79 @Jesse_Livermore Jesse Livermore Trader, Speculator, Bucketeer 0 39190 4459
80 @iconominet ICONOMI Digital Assets Management Platform for the Decentralised Economy 0 39030 1942
81 @IKucukparlak İlker Küçükparlak Psikiyatrist http://ihtisastramvayi.com 0 38018 757
82 @vdare Virginia Dare The Twitter account for the editors of VDARE. Featured at the 2016 Republican National Convention 0 37723 4429
83 @juliagalef Julia Galef SF-based writer & speaker focused on reasoning, judgment, and the future of humanity. Host of the Rationally Speaking podcast (@rspodcast) 1 37530 340
84 @nicknotned Nick Denton Internet publisher 1 36708 2524
85 @JeremyMcLellan Jeremy McLellan Standup Comedian, Papist-in-training, biryani extremist, alleged member of the Muslim Cousinhood, US ambassador to the Pindi Boyz, spy pigeon trainer 1 36253 1538
86 @collision John Collison Co-founder of @stripe. 0 35995 1290
87 @narcissawright ♕ Narcissa fledgling seer 1 35375 1266
88 @panzer Matthew Panzarino Editor-in-Chief, TechCrunch. Telecom stories killed: 0. PGP Key https://keybase.io/panzer 1 35162 2902
89 @EconTalker Russell Roberts How Adam Smith Can Change Your Life (http://amzn.to/1o72lYh), EconTalk host, econ novelist, co-creator of Keynes/Hayek rap videos, http://www.wonderfulloaf.org/ 0 34611 669
90 @nktpnd Ankit Panda Senior Editor @Diplomat_APAC in NYC. Thinking/writing/speaking on global security, politics, and economics. Via @WilsonSchool. Views mine & RTâ‰â€¦ 1 34041 995
91 @Official_Quame Kwame A. A Opoku Futurist• Global Business Speaker, Founder @fobaglobal, @wefestafrica, @ideafactorylive • CEO Mary&Mary LLC • Entrepreneur • Tedx Speaker •Influencer 0 33924 3526
92 @dylanmatt Dylan Matthews I know, I know, I don't like me either. Retweets are proposals of marriage. 1 33262 5579
93 @Jonnymagic00 Jon Finkel I'm a magic player who also manages a hedge fund. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Finkel 0 33234 284
94 @Heminator Mark Hemingway "After all these years of professional experience, why can’t I write good?" Senior Writer @WeeklyStandard. Husband of @MZHemingway. 1 33034 4877
95 @sweenzor Onson Sweemey 0 32044 5288
96 @PhilosophersEye Philosopher's Eye Philosophy updates, pop culture, fun stuff, and links to resources from the Wiley Blackwell Philosophy Team. 0 31931 6503
97 @VladZamfir Vlad Zamfir Absurdist, troll. 0 31764 418
98 @m_clem Michael Clemens Fellow @[email protected]_bonn. My views only. Assoc. Editor @JPopEcon & @WorldDevJournal. Author of @WallsofNations, coming in 2018.… 1 31746 3650
99 @RudyHavenstein Rudolf E. Havenstein ReichsBank®President 1908-1923; Central Bank consultant. 'My way of joking is to tell the truth' - GB Shaw. Tweets solely for my own amusemen… 0 31115 1293
100 @tikhon Tikhon Bernstam CEO & Founder of Parse (YC S'11, acquired by Facebook for $85M in 2013). Founder @Scribd (YC S'06). @ycombinator alum. 0 31030 5184
submitted by disumbrationist to slatestarcodex [link] [comments]

KuCoin Exchange - Why I think it's Binance's first true competitor

KuCoin is an international exchange based out of Hong Kong. I discovered it last weekend and was impressed at first glance from a UI/UX perspective. They officially launched September 15.
I signed up and deposited a small amount of Bitcoin to test it out. So far trades have been as fast and smooth as Binance. I can see this developing into a sister site to Binance. The team has done great work on it so far and it's just beginning. I put together a few details below so you can see what KuCoin has to offer!

KuCoin Shares

KuCoin Shares (KCS) are the token that belongs to the exchange similar to BNB on Binance.
Total supply: ~181 million Circulating supply: 91 million ICO price: 0.000055 BTC Current price: 0.00007869 BTC (as of posting) Market Cap: ~$40 million USD
Whitepaper is linked on their Telegram announcements channel

Reasons to sign up!

80% trading fee discount (0.02% per trade) until October 27!
KuCoin will add ETH markets on October 14
Kucoin will list WaltonChain (WTC) on October 16
KuCoin shares 90% of trading fees with the users
For example, user Bob holds 10000 KCS in his account on our exchange. In October the average volume of our entire exchange per day is 10000 BTC, according to our current fee rate, the trading fee we collect per day is 20 BTC. So this user will get 20 * 50% * (10000/100000000) = 0.001 BTC per day, 0.03 BTC per month!
ETH, LTC, NEO/GAS, OMG, QTUM, PAY, CVC, EOS, SNT, KNC, BTM, BHC

Development Plan and Timeline

Oct 2017, Global promotion started. Nov 2017, Mobile apps (Android, iOS) released. Dec 2017, Over 50 mainstream cryptocurrency exchange pairs listed, daily exchange volume expected 5,000+ BTC. Jun 2018, Cryptocurrency exchange pair self-releasing feature available. Dec 2018, 1,000+ cryptocurrencies list, daily exchange volume expected 100,000+ BTC. Jun 2019, One of the Top 10 worldwide cryptocurrency exchange platforms.

Team

Michael Gan (CEO) Former technical expert of Ant Financial (Alibaba Group) with a good understanding of financial solutions similar to Alipay. He has successively held the posts of senior partner in several famous Internet companies like MikeCRM and Kf5.com, etc.
Eric Don (COO) Senior Researcher of the Internet and Systems Architect. He has accumulated over 10 years of experiences in working and starting businesses in the Internet industry and successively held the posts of CTO and senior partner of famous IT companies including Youling, Fengzheng Lianxian and Ruiyun Wulian, etc.
Top Lan (CTO) Technical expert of the Open Source Community and manager of several popular open source projects in github. He has accomplished the design and deployment of Kucoin financial trading system.
Kent Li (Operation Director) Expert of operations development and successively held the posts of Operation Director and architect in several Internet companies. He is also the regional Operation Supervisor of the REAP project initiated by Stanford University in Asia.
John Li (President of the Business Operations Group) President of Jianbang Communication and Project manager of famous domestic group-buying website. He is in charge of over 30 group-buying service centers around China with his main focus on consumer finance.
Jack Zhu (Marketing Director) Operations Director of the southwestern market of iBOX PAY. He is in charge of a marketing team with over 300 employees.

Sign up!

https://www.kucoin.com/#/signup?r=E2jLqv
^ This is my referral link! I appreciate anyone who signs up under me!
https://www.kucoin.com/#/signup
^ Here is a non-referral link if you don't want to give me credit for providing you with this information. :)
submitted by zigzagzig to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments]

Beginner’s Guide to Exchanges – Part 1

Beginner’s Guide to Exchanges – Part 1

Hola Compadres! It is me u/poop_dragon here with another guide. Today I would like to run through a list of ETH exchanges. This is just Part 1 of this list, and it covers established exchanges. Soon I will post Part 2 and 3 which will go into some other types of exchanges (derivative markets, coin converters, decentralized, and foreign exchanges) Side note, I have given rating to these exchanges based on some comparisons, news, and information which I have found online. Recently, EVERY exchange has been slow/unresponsive in their customer service due to the huge influx of new users. My intention is to help educate new users about the exchanges available. I am not trying to discredit, advertise, pump up, or damage reputations. If you feel something is inaccurate, please respectfully bring it up in the comments. I will be editing as we go. Last thing of note, I have only included the lowest level trading tier to calculate trading fees, which assumes the highest rates. Most exchanges offer lower fees for bigger orders, but I have gone with the assumption that everyone here is not dropping whale amounts of cash.

00 – Concepts and Definitions

01 –Digital Exchanges

Poloniex

Exchange Type Maker Taker
All Currencies .15% .25%
Feature Details
2FA Google Authenticator Available
Wallet Security ‘Majority’ of Funds in cold storage
Personal Information Encrypted and Stored Off-Site
Tier Level Name Email DOB Phone Address Official ID Bank Info KYC Limits
Level 1 X X $2,000 USD Daily Withdrawal Limit
Level 2 X X X X X X $7,000 USD Daily Withdrawal Limit
Level 3 X X X X X X $25,000 USD Daily Withdrawal Limit
Level 4 X X X X X X X X >$25,000 USD Daily Withdrawal Limit
What is a KYC? It stands for Know Your Customer Documentation. This varies between exchanges. However, like most things, if you have to ask, you probably can’t afford it.

Bittrex

Exchange Type Maker Taker
All Currencies .25% .25%
Feature Details
2FA Google Authenticator Available
Wallet Security Multi-stage wallet Majority’ of Funds in cold storage
Personal Information IP Whitelisting restricts trading from new addresses
Tier Level Name Email DOB Phone Address Official ID Bank Info KYC Limits
Basic X X X 3 BTC or less daily
Enhanced X X X X X X 100 BTC or less daily

02– Fiat Exchanges - USA

Coinbase (GDAX)

Country Credit/Debit Linked Bank Account Wire Transfer
Australia 3.99% - -
Canada 3.99% - -
Europe 3.99% 1.49% SEPA- Free (€0.15)
Singapore 3.99% 1.49% -
UK 3.99% - SEPA Free (€0.15)
US 3.99% 1.49% $10 Deposit / $25 With / ACH Free
Exchange Type Maker Taker
ETH/FIAT 0% .30%
ETH/BTC 0% .30%
Tier Level Name Email DOB Phone Address Official ID Bank Info KYC Limits
Level 1 X X X
Level 2 X X X X X Crypto Only
Level 3 X X X X X X X Fiat Enabled
Level 4 X X X X X X X X Higher Fiat Limits
Feature Details
2FA Google Authenticator, Authy, SMS
Wallet Security 98% Assets in Cold Storage
Personal Information 3rd Party Verified, Secured, Stored Offline
Digital Currency Insurance Fully Insured by Lloyd’s of London
Fiat Insurance Up to $250,000 by FDIC
Bug Bounty Multiple bounties up to $10,000

Kraken

Country Linked Bank Account Wire Transfer
EUR Free SEPA €5-10 (€0.09 Withdrawal)
US Free SWIFT $10 ($60 Withdrawal)
UK Free SWIFT £10 (£60 Withdrawal)
CAN Free SWIFT Free ($10 Withdrawal)
Exchange Type Maker Taker
ETH/FIAT .16% .26%
ETH/BTC .16% .26%
Tier Level Name Email DOB Phone Address Official ID Bank Info KYC Limits
Level 0 X No Trading Allowed
Level 1 X X X X No Fiat, Unlimited Crypto
Level 2 X X X X Fiat $2,000Day/$10,000Mo
Level 3 X X X X X X Fiat $25,000Day/$200,000Mo
Level 4 X X X X X X X X Fiat $100,000Day/$500,000Mo
Feature Details
2FA Google Authenticator, Master Key Available
Wallet Security Majority Assets in Cold Storage
Personal Information PGP Encrypted Emails, Global Settings Lock
Digital Currency Insurance Maintain Full Reserves
Bug Bounty Multiple bounties

Gemini

Country Linked Bank Account Wire Transfer
USD Free Free
Exchange Type Maker Taker
ETH/ALL .10-.25% .25%
Tier Level Name Email DOB Phone Address Official ID Bank Info KYC Limits
Individual X X X X X X X None - Except for ACH
Feature Details
2FA Google Authenticator, Authy Available
Hot Wallet Security Hot Wallet Hosted by Amazon Web Services
Cold Wallet Stored in 2 tiers of cold and 'cryo' multi-sig storage
Personal Information Encrypted in Transit and Stored Offline
Digital Currency Insurance Fidelity bond by 'top-tier insurance company'
Fiat Insurance Up to $250,000 by FDIC

03– Fiat Exchanges - Hong Kong

Bitfinex

Country Credit/Debit Bank Transfer Express Bank Transfer
ALL - .1% ($20 Minimum) 1% ($20 Minimum)
Exchange Type Maker Taker
ETH/ALL .10% .20%
Tier Level Name Email DOB Phone Address Official ID Bank Info KYC Limits
Individual X X X X X X (2) X X No Stated Limits
Feature Details
2FA Google Authenticator, Twilio Available
Account Security New IP Addresses locked for 24 hours, require verification and detection
System Security Hosted and Backed-up on Linux, protection from DDoS
Personal Information Email encryption with OpenPGP
Wallet Security Only .5% of funds are stored in hot wallets
EDIT : Thank you to u/Ginger_Bearded_Man for the suggestion. Bittrex has been added.
submitted by poop_dragon to ethtrader [link] [comments]

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

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

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

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

Instead of voicing their concerns with the community and discussing, coming to a consensus on public forums, NYA have decided to talk to each other behind closed doors yet again and make an announcement together. This is the antithesis of decentralization.

https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-segwit2x/2017-Novembe000685.html
The people who signed this are Mike Belshe, Wences Casares, Jihan Wu, Jeff Garzik, Peter Smith and Erik Voorhees. Bitpay released similar annoucement.
Instead of voicing their concerns with the community and discussing and coming to a consensus on public forums, they have decided to talk to each other behind closed doors and make an announcement together. This is the antithesis of decentralization. Their decision to make these huge decisions for segwit2x fork behind close doors is further proof that they and their coin was not pro-decentralization in any matter.
Their decision to announce together what they had talked about in secret created a massive insider trading opportunity for them, their friends, and their family.
I do not know if they took this opportunity, but I assume they did because any rational person would. If you lost money today or yesterday, your money quite literally has been taken from you by these insider traders. They now have that money in their accounts, and insider trading is to blame. If they had chosen to discuss their concerns about segwit2x on public forums, then there would be no insider trading or massive event today.
I hope that all of you choose to blacklist these people who insider trade and hate decentralization. Please never support a centralized event, convention, or company that employs them.
I was lucky enough to be awake and on ts.whalepool.io when the news broke, and I was not harmed. But I would benefit even more if our community did not have these insider traders making deals behind closed doors and coming out with big announcements that make them very rich on insider trading. I'm sorry if you were hurt by today's events.
submitted by joyrider5 to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

KuCoin Exchange and KuCoin Shares (KCS) - Why I think it has potential

KuCoin is an international exchange based out of Hong Kong. I discovered it last weekend and was impressed at first glance from a UI/UX perspective. They officially launched September 15.
I signed up and deposited a small amount of Bitcoin to test it out. So far trades have been as fast and smooth as Binance. I can see this developing into a sister site to Binance. The team has done great work on it so far and it's just beginning. I put together a few details below so you can see what KuCoin has to offer!

KuCoin Shares

KuCoin Shares (KCS) are the token that belongs to the exchange similar to BNB on Binance.
Total supply: ~181 million Circulating supply: 91 million ICO price: 0.000055 BTC Current price: 0.00007869 BTC (as of posting) Market Cap: ~$40 million USD
Whitepaper is linked on their Telegram announcements channel

Reasons to sign up!

80% trading fee discount (0.02% per trade) until October 27!
KuCoin will add ETH markets on October 14
Kucoin will list WaltonChain (WTC) on October 16
KuCoin shares 90% of trading fees with the users
For example, user Bob holds 10000 KCS in his account on our exchange. In October the average volume of our entire exchange per day is 10000 BTC, according to our current fee rate, the trading fee we collect per day is 20 BTC. So this user will get 20 * 50% * (10000/100000000) = 0.001 BTC per day, 0.03 BTC per month!
ETH, LTC, NEO/GAS, OMG, QTUM, PAY, CVC, EOS, SNT, KNC, BTM, BHC

Team

Michael Gan (CEO) Former technical expert of Ant Financial (Alibaba Group) with a good understanding of financial solutions similar to Alipay. He has successively held the posts of senior partner in several famous Internet companies like MikeCRM and Kf5.com, etc.
Eric Don (COO) Senior Researcher of the Internet and Systems Architect. He has accumulated over 10 years of experiences in working and starting businesses in the Internet industry and successively held the posts of CTO and senior partner of famous IT companies including Youling, Fengzheng Lianxian and Ruiyun Wulian, etc.
Top Lan (CTO) Technical expert of the Open Source Community and manager of several popular open source projects in github. He has accomplished the design and deployment of Kucoin financial trading system.
Kent Li (Operation Director) Expert of operations development and successively held the posts of Operation Director and architect in several Internet companies. He is also the regional Operation Supervisor of the REAP project initiated by Stanford University in Asia.
John Li (President of the Business Operations Group) President of Jianbang Communication and Project manager of famous domestic group-buying website. He is in charge of over 30 group-buying service centers around China with his main focus on consumer finance.
Jack Zhu (Marketing Director) Operations Director of the southwestern market of iBOX PAY. He is in charge of a marketing team with over 300 employees.

Sign up!

https://www.kucoin.com/#/signup?r=E2jLqv
^ This is my referral link! I appreciate anyone who signs up under me!
https://www.kucoin.com/#/signup
^ Here is a non-referral link if you don't want to give me credit for providing you with this information. :)
submitted by zigzagzig to CryptoMarkets [link] [comments]

Bitcoin's specification (eg: Excess Blocksize (EB) & Acceptance Depth (AD), configurable via Bitcoin Unlimited) can, should & always WILL be decided by ALL the miners & users - not by a single FIAT-FUNDED, CENSORSHIP-SUPPORTED dev team (Core/Blockstream) & miner (BitFury) pushing SegWit 1.7MB blocks

TL;DR:
The market will inevitably prefer:
This means that the market of Bitcoin users and miners will reject Core/Blockstream's SegWit (with its centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize and dangerous "anyone-can-spend" soft-fork semantics) - and the market will prefer Bitcoin Unlimited, which supports market-based (user-configurable) blocksize based on a much simpler & safer hard fork - allowing essentially "unlimited" growth in Bitcoin adoption and price.
Details
Seriously folks, think about it:
How many successful broad-based socio-economic disruptive technologies allow their "community debate" about the high-level system specification to be centrally controlled and censored by a bunch of low-level (C++) implementation providers (and a bunch of central bankers funding them with fiat)?
The Bitcoin community never really asked for SegWit-as-a-soft-fork. It's being forced on us.
SegWit has been the horrendous misbegotten result of years of trolling from three stubborn out-of-touch devs who happened to get millions of dollars in fiat from central bankers: u/nullc and u/adam3us and the odd u/luke-jr who they carefully keep at arm's length - and a tiny army of lesser trolls, trotting out the same-old tired totally debunked, massively downvoted arguments - all supported by central banker trolls who provided $76 million in fiat to fund this misguided mess.
Many people in the Bitcoin community have never really participated in or even seen a serious, open, and honest debate about SegWit versus Bitcoin Unlimited - because there are basically only two kinds of people in the Bitcoin community now:
Bitcoin development used to be dominated by forward-thinking, community-responsive, devs supporting simple and safe on-chain scaling like Satoshi Nakamoto (whose quotes are banned on r\bitcoin), Gavin Andresen (ceaselessly hounded and attacked by an army of trolls) and Mike Hearn (whose greatest invention may have been the forgotten Lighthouse project - which could have given us bitcoin-funded ie non-fiat-funded development).
Now Bitcoin development is dominated by Debbie Downers and Dead Enders like u/nullc and u/adam3us and u/luke-jr who have never really believed that Bitcoin can scale on-chain and succeed the way that Satoshi said it could.
They've been doing everything they can to destroy Satoshi's successful experiment - refusing to remove Bitcoin's temporary 1MB anti-spam kludge for purely political and not technical reasons, and now trying to force everyone to adopt SegWit - the final, fatal kludge.
If it wasn't for the massive censoring on r\bitcoin, then a tsunami of true cypherpunk freedom and real community consensus would wash that cesspool clean, and the fiat-funded voices of u/nullc and u/adam3us and u/luke-jr (and the tiny minority of their vocal but misguided supporters) would sink the the bottom of every thread, a forgotten footnote of history with their shitty soft kludgy centrally-planned anyone-can-spend 1.7MB 1-to-4-discount SegWit soft-fork poison pill.
If Bitcoin gets upgraded the way Satoshi said it would (via flag days and/or hard forks - also known as a simple protocol upgrade or a full node referendum), then the community would reject Core/Blockstream's shitty centralized SegWit spaghetti-code soft fork, and Core/Blockstream would be forgotten - and their investors would be furious.
The Bitcoin community isn't stupid.
Economically intelligent Bitcoin users and miners will not vote against our own economic interests.
We will not "upgrade" to dangerous, messy, dead-end technology (SegWit) which needlessly overcomplicates our codebase and needlessly suppresses Bitcoin's userbase and price - when we can just as easily updrade to something clean and simple and growth-oriented like Bitcoin Unlimited, which keeps our codebase clean and simple and safe, while providing an open-ended, market-based, long-term solution for blocksize, supporting long-term (essentially "unlimited") growth in Bitcoin's userbase and price.
Everyone (ie, everyone who gets their information on uncensored forums like btc and who isn't getting millions of dollars in fiat from central bankers) knows by now that:
It is the very softness (ie: kludginess) of SegWit which would make future upgrades to Bitcoin so much more difficult and complicated (aka "technical debt").
Worst of all: SegWit would introduce a radical, unknown, untested exotic new threat vector: a totally new type of "51% attack" where old coins would now also be at risk (due to SegWit's "anyone-can-spend" semantics - which would be totally unnecessary to use if SegWit had been done as a clean and safe hard fork, instead of a messy and dangerous soft fork).
The stubbornness (and recklessness) of insisting on doing SegWit as this kind of dangerous and messy soft fork is 100% because Blockstream is afraid to do a clean and safe "hard" fork - because a hard fork lets Bitcoin users and miners actually have an explicit "vote" - or a "full node referendum" - and Core/Blockstream knows that the result would most likely be that Bitcoin users and miners would "dump" Core/Blockstream's shitty code with its centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize and its dangerous anyone-can-spend soft-fork hack.
So Core/Blockstream are trying to force more dangerous, less useful code on the network, using the toxic tools of fiat and censorship, purely for their own selfish "political" and "economic" reasons.
Core/Blockstream has millions of dollars in fiat now so they don't care if they continue to suppress the Bitcoin price like they have since they came on the scene in late 2014.
This trader's price & volume graph / model predicted that we should be over $10,000 USD/BTC by now. The model broke in late 2014 - when AXA-funded Blockstream was founded, and started spreading propaganda and crippleware, centrally imposing artificially tiny blocksize to suppress the volume & price.
https://np.reddit.com/btc/comments/5obe2m/this_traders_price_volume_graph_model_predicted/
Also see a similar graph in u/Peter__R's recent article on Medium - where the graph clearly shows the same Bitcoin price suppression - ie price uncoupling from adoption and dipping below the previous tightly correlated trend - starting right at that fateful moment when Blockstream came on the scene and told Bitcoiners that we can't have nice things anymore like on-chain scaling and increasing adoption and price: late 2014.
So, Core/Blockstream offers inferior, centrally planned, dangerous messy code - and they are responsible for not only splitting the community but also even arguably suppressing Bitcoin adoption and price - and now they're such bold arrogant fuckheads that they want to make their hegemony permanent by monopolizing Bitcoin governance forever in the future by sneaking in their shittier and shittier code starting with the Trojan Horse of SegWit-as-a-soft-fork with its centrally-planned hard-coded parameters and radical dangerous new anti-security model making all UTXOs "anyone-can-spend" - recklessly and needlessly exposing Bitcoin to exotic, unknown attack vectors which have never existed before in its 8 years of safe and successful growth.
Core/Blockstream don't give a fuck if they hurt us Bitcoin users and miners in the process - because they don't care about you - they only care about themselves - and the central bankers who are paying them.
Bitcoin Unlimited isn't influenced by censorship or fiat.
The bottom line is:
Evaluating our "upgrade options" in those (technological and economic and "governance") terms is the right way to evaluate these things - indeed it is the only way to evaluate these things - and everybody (except a bunch of unpopular out-of-touch devs and shills sucking the dicks of central bankers) knows that SegWit's messy technology, economic and scaling dead-end, and centralized governance is totally inferior to Bitcoin Unlimited, on all three counts.
Everyone knows that:
With Bitcoin Unlimited, the community continues to be in control - of our code, our governance, and our blocksize - not a tiny handful of fiat-funded devs and miners like Core/Blockstream and BitFury and a tiny minority of their outspoken supporters (who are well-known on this forum - just look at the bottom of every thread, where they are massively downvoted - but never censored! - after spouting their tired, tedious, repeatedly debunked astroturf arguments).
The next time those people try to attack the idea of market-based blocksize, we know how to make their heads explode, just by asking them:
If the users the miners shouldn't decide the blocksize - then who the fuck should??
And if that kind of conversation were to continue, it might go like:
Who should decide the blocksize - you or me?
_"Small-blockers" Blocksize central planners are satisfied with a centrally planned one-time hard-coded bump to 1.7MB blocks via a dangerous messy convoluted "soft" fork called SegWit which actually centralizes and suppresses Bitcoin by pricing most people off of the blockchain. Fine, that's your opinion and you're free to say it and we're free to downvote it and to reject your poorly written code with its centrally-planned 1.7MB blocksize and its anyone-can-spend hack.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of Bitcoin users and miners want to be free - and we want our code to be simple and safe. We support market-based blocksize so our code and our markets can be free of some ridiculous arbitrary centrally planned hard-coded 1MB 1.7MB blocksize - and we want our code to be fred of messy, dangerous hacks and kludges lke SegWit. Instead, we support decentralized governance and market-based, non-centrally-planned, open-ended Bitcoin debate and open-ended Bitcoin economic and social growth and adoption.
The Bitcoin community can and should and therefore eventually (inevitably) will adapt the software solution which explicitly supports users and miners deciding the blocksize in a clean, safe, future-proof "hard" fork called Bitcoin Unlimited.
In the end, the market will choose the approach (SegWit or Bitcoin Unlimited) which provides the most economic incentives, using the simplest and safest technology.
Economic incentives, based on using the simplest and safest technology, are what drives Bitcoin and makes it succeed.
  • Blockstream/Core and BitFury can "afford" to ignore the will of the Bitcoin community, and can "afford" to ignore their own economic incentives - because they have millions of dollars in fiat, and they communicate on censored forums. They're fiat-funded, centralized, censored, and fragile. They're fine with making their codebase even more centralized and fragile - by adopting SegWit.
  • The rest of the Bitcoin community communicates on non-censored forums, and we want to maximize the value of our investments in Bitcoin. We're community-oriented and our code supports market-based blocksize using simple and safe and flexible and upgradeable code - so we're adopting Bitcoin Unlimited.
You are free to choose between these two options - based on your own economic incentives, and based on your understanding of the best technology roadmap:
How rich are you gonna get with SegWit, now and in the long term?
  • SegWit is dangerous and messy, fiat-funded, censorship-supported centrally-planned soft-fork spaghetti code - creating zombie nodes and requiring millions of lines of risky code changes in all wallets, exchanges and business software - and in the end only offering an arbitrary pathetic 1.7MB blocksize - and recklessly making all transactions anyone-can-spend - while increasing "dev team lock-in" and continuing to centrally suppress Bitcoin's adoption and price. ... versus:
How rich are you gonna get with Bitcoin Unlimited, now and in the long term?
  • Bitcoin Unlimited is clean & safe community-supported non-fiat-funded, non-censorship-based code, providing a long-term scaling and governance solution offering market-based blocksize, where users and miners will continue to determine the size of blocks (as they actually quite successfully and profitably have for the past 8 years), based on our understanding of current financial and technological conditions, while continuing to support unlimited growth in Bitcoin's adoption and price (as we've also seen for the past 8 years).
The market of Bitcoin users and miners (ie, you) can and should (and therefore will) decide!
submitted by ydtm to btc [link] [comments]

Pro Stock Trader Vs Crypto ; I learned How To Trade ... Ist Bitcoin Trader Betrug? (Erfahrungen und Test) - YouTube ProTrader Mike - YouTube Bitcoin Trader Review *UPDATE* - Legit Profits or Scam ... Fixed income trader early to Bitcoin · Mike Komaransky

Bitcoin Pro embeds to a broker’s system such as the MT4 to automatically carry out the functions of a trader. The robot presents a highly intuitive user interface where traders can control it. Die Schönheit der Bitcoin Profit liegt nicht nur in seiner Einfachheit, sondern auch in seiner laufenden Genauigkeit und Effektivität. Jeff, Mike, und ein Support-Team von erfahrenem Software-Entwickler und Kryptowährung Händlern ist immer auf der Suche nach Möglichkeiten, um die Software weiter zu vereinfachen und erleichtern Sie mehr mit weniger Zeit gewidmet zu verdienen. Mike Hosking image hijacked for Bitcoin scam promoted via Google ads. Toby Manhire Editor. First the broadcaster was caught up in an online swindle using Facebook – now it’s surfaced via the ... Mike Novogratz likes stocks, bitcoin ahead of the election: 'The liquidity tsunami is just too big' Published Fri, Oct 23 2020 10:27 AM EDT Jesse Pound @jesserpound MOJO DAY TRADING (@ProTrader_Mike) ... Zuverlässigstes Bitcoin Profit Handelssystem Jemand stellte mich der Voodoo-Day-Trading-Community vor, in der ich die perfekte Atmosphäre zum Erlernen von Day-Trading und technischer Analyse fand: Twitter-Follower 215.608. Verordnung, also lasst uns anfangen. Tun Sie dies jeden Tag, im Grunde ist alles auf Sie. Häufigkeit ca. 2 Beiträge pro Monat. Ja ...

[index] [8340] [43373] [30007] [12992] [19859] [18104] [319] [45943] [5889] [16274]

Pro Stock Trader Vs Crypto ; I learned How To Trade ...

Bitcoin - 80 Trillion Dollar Exit. I talk about how Bitcoin will eventually become an exit ramp from the crashing 80 trillion dollar financial system, the ec... Bitcoin Trader is an automated trading tool that uses algorithms to... Sign up to Bitcoin Trader: https://bit.ly/3jl9Iej Bitcoin Trader 2029 Review - Updated. BITCOIN TRADING und PRO TRICKS ERKLÄRT! Kostenlose 310$ bei bybit: https://www.bybit.com/app/register?affiliate_id=1153&language=en&group_id=303&group_type... EP 179: Going all in—the fixed income trader early to Bitcoin; Mike Komaransky For many, this will likely be the first time hearing about Mike Komaransky, but those who know him already, know ... MOJO Day Trading is the ☝️ premier stock market education company in the world . Founded by ProTrader Mike and a team of ProTraders, we have developed the ⚙️ systems, tools and education ...

#