Bitcoin Bar ‘Room 77’ Shuts Down - The Bitcoin News

12-15 14:42 - '1) It is not Roger's fork, Richard Falkvinge, Jihan Wu, Craig Wright, Calvin Eyre, Jon Matonis, John McAffee and others all support and/or mine bitcoin cash. 2) Bitcoin cash is bitcoin if you refer to Satoshi's whitepaper (whi...' by /u/geekmonk removed from /r/Bitcoin within 33-43min

'''
1) It is not Roger's fork, Richard Falkvinge, Jihan Wu, Craig Wright, Calvin Eyre, Jon Matonis, John McAffee and others all support and/or mine bitcoin cash. 2) Bitcoin cash is bitcoin if you refer to Satoshi's whitepaper (which is where the term Bitcoin was first used and defined), i.e.: peer-to-peer electronic cash. By Blockstream's own admission Bitcoin core is not to be used as digital cash, therefore it is neither bitcoin nor a cryptocurrency. Even cobra on Twitter admitted that bitcoin cash is closest to Satoshi's whitepaper. It is true that bitcoin is an open source project, but an open source project built around Satoshi's whitepaper. And satoshi's whitepaper defined bitcoin as peer-to-peer electronic cash which is exactly what bitcoin cash does.
If bitcoin core decides to take measures that allow it to be used as digital currency then bitcoin core will be bitcoin again. But right now it is not bitcoin. These are the facts. You don't have to take my word for it, do NOT trust me. Just do YOUR OWN research.
'''
Context Link
Go1dfish undelete link
unreddit undelete link
Author: geekmonk
submitted by removalbot to removalbot [link] [comments]

Which type of curren(t) do you want to see(cy)? A analysis of the intention behind bitcoin(s). [Part I]

Bitcoin was released to the world in 2009 by someone (or a group) who authored a technical whitepaper, released the source code to the protocol and commented on a few p2p forums and mailing lists under the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto for a few months prior and a few years afterwards before leaving the project. The project was left in the hands of Gavin Andresson who was another cryptographer that satoshi communicated regularly with on the forums and had been one of the first people involved in the project. Some time after satoshi left, one of his accounts was allegedly hacked and bitcointalk (the primary forum) itself was hacked so a meme kind of emerged that satoshi wouldn't be able to post again from his accounts or that posting from them would be dubious. In 2016 an Australian by the name of Craig S Wright was exposed by Wired and Gizmodo as potentially being the inventor of bitcoin. Craig then signed privately for Gavin Andreson, Jon Matonis but then when he was supposed to cryptographically sign to a journalist the method performed did not hold up to public scrutiny because he could have copy pasted a fragment from an earlier known signed message from satoshi and not generated it himself with the private keys. This cast a lot of doubt from many on the man's claims and he published an article saying he wasn't brave enough to sign.
Since then the term cryptocurrency has blown out massively to include anything with a distributed ledger technology, a token, a security, and has really just devolved into a cesspit of buzzwords and disinformation. Once satoshi disappeared in 2011 and left the repo in the hands of Gavin and the open source community, it left a power vacuum in the space for how to interpret the protocol, whitepaper and handle the development. Gavin Andresson brought some other developers on board from the forums and mailing lists, Shortly after Gavin gave some other developers commit access, bitcointalk was hacked and these new developers somehow deleted gavin from the github repo due to apparent concern that his account was compromised from the hack and afterwards once he validated his identity in certain accounts he was never given access again. Gavin stopped being involved with the project after that.
In the time following satoshi's departure a meme had evolved that satoshi had left because Gavin had met with the CIA to discuss bitcoin. This meme combined with the interpretation of what satoshi meant when he included the quote "The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks" in the genesis block, the subsequent rise and fall of silk road and darknet markets, and the general lore of the space, his cypherpunk mailing list associations had led the scene to paint/project upon him as some kind of government hating tax dodging l33t h4xor demigod.
Although in the title of the whitepaper it was described as p2p cash, bitcoin as most know it is now is marketed as a store of value. Although it was defined as the longest Proof of Work chain of digital signatures, bitcoin as most know it in actual fact has segregated witnesses (signatures) in the protocol. Although satoshi attests to how bitcoin is designed to scale to giant block sizes hosted and mined in data centers that never really hits a scaling ceiling, it is being sold as that even at 1MB size, the damage has already been done and the blocksize should be 300kB because every user needs to be able to run a full node for bitcoin to validate their own transactions with the lowest hardware and bandwidth requirements possible. A high vertice count with everyone running a (non-mining) full node is said to protect the network against malicious actions by the big bad government while graph theory states that it is the degree of inter connectivity of the vertcies (edge number) that confers security of the network against sybil attacks as it brings the number of hops down.
This decoupling from the original vision has led to development and scaling of bitcoin stalling for many years which led to the proliferation of many alt coins rising up to claim they possess superior attributes to bitcoin or can work in conjunction with bitcoin in a gold and silver type relationship, or serve a different use case to bitcoin. The debate between the groups that represented the opposing roadmaps reached a climax with bitcoin itself forking into two now separate blockchains with the minority chain being declared the imposter by social media claiming hashpower and the market had chosen despite their chain changing on the protocol level to implement segregated witnesses and reject the block size increase. These two now separate chains both forked again to birth bitcoin gold and diamond on the segwit chain and bitcoin cash and bitcoin sv on the non segwit chain. At the non segwit chain fork, bitcoin cash implemented checkpointing at the protocol level whereas bitcoin sv maintained the original nakamoto consensus and sought to scale greater than the 32MB blocksize limit BCH maintained with 64MB blocks.
Following these forking events both BTC (segwit) and BCH (checkpoints) also implemented Schnorr signatures which was marketed as economising the size of a typical bitcoin transaction though in actual fact it can be used to obfuscate signatures and allow for the mixing of coins to mask the chain of digital signatures and essentially "anonymously" launder money. The BSV chain (now Stewarded by Dr Craig Wright) was then declared the loser of that hash war by people heralding the power of the market and the miners to democratize money. The problem with such a claim though is just like current polical democracy, this apparent democratisation of money was just as susceptible to the influence of those who control the cryptocurrency media and just like in politics, there is a cabal like group that exerts a disproportionate influence over the narrative and appears to serve the interests of those in on the racket rather than those it is allegedly informing.
The main forums for discussion of cryptocurrency originally were bitcoin.org, bitcointalk.org and /Bitcoin with all three of them for some time sharing the same moderator theymos. Coindesk and the bitcoinmagazine (started by ethereum devs) were some early sources, talking heads like andreas antonopolos (andreasma), peter todd (petertodd) and greg maxwell (nullc) being propped up as sources of knowledge on what is the best course of action for scaling and endorsing solutions like small blocks, second layer solutions and segwit as a necessarry bitcoin improvement protocol (BIP) while people like Roger Ver (memory dealers) and Dr Craig Wright (craig_s_wright) endorsing a block size increase. Because the core developers had chosen to scale with small blocks and lots of nodes on the network were signalling in support of Segwit any discussion of a big block alternative was considered discussion of an alt coin and deleted and eventually users banned from /bitcoin. Out of that incident /btc emerged as an apparently censorship free forum for the discussion of all scaling plans for bitcoin but was ultimately a partisan sub populated with dejected big blockers. After the BCH fork, discussion for bitcoin sv exists on a few subs /bsv (modded by BCHers), /bitcoinsv (moderated by the lead technician at nChain (Craig Wright's company) and /bitcoincashsv where many users have been banned from both /bitcoin and /btc.
Now this so far is just kind of a synposis of the history of bitcoin covering all three of the main contenders for the legitimate claimant of the name but the part 2 will look more at what kind of drastically different societies would be built upon the different versions of the protocol and what may seem like their subtle differences and which one is likely to succeed.
submitted by whipnil to C_S_T [link] [comments]

This is good for Bitcoin.

This is more of a dramatic happening than full-blown drama, although there is a lot of bickering and shorter slap fights in almost all the threads.
Background
Satoshi Nakamoto is the pseudonym of the creator of Bitcoin and patron saint of the /bitcoin community. No one ever saw Satoshi in person or knows who he is. Today, BBC and The Economist reported that Australian entrepeneur Craig Wright came forward and claimed to be Satoshi. Apparently, he identified himself by providing some kind of technical proof to the newspapers:
At the meeting with the BBC, Mr Wright digitally signed messages using cryptographic keys created during the early days of Bitcoin's development. The keys are inextricably linked to blocks of bitcoins known to have been created or "mined" by Satoshi Nakamoto.
A couple of former co-developers/team members (Gavin Andresen & Jon Matonis) also confirmed that he is indeed Satoshi Nakamoto.
In addition, Craig Wright himself wrote a blog post about him being Satoshi in which he explains the process of verifying a set of cryptographic keys. I assume that this is the process by which he identified himself to the newspapers and Gavin Andresen. He provides a set of signatures/keys (I really have no idea what I'm talking about) as examples for this explanation that are not unique to Satoshi, which is quickly found out by the bitcoin community.
Wright never claimed explicitly that the signatures used as examples in his blog post were proof that he is Satoshi, though, and the newspapers never refer to the blog post but say that he provided evidence in person.
Where the drama starts
/bitcoin is having none of it. Craig Wright's signature is worthless (about the signatures used in his blog post) is made a sticky and gilded. The Economist actually published a new article in response to it, demanding better proof of Wright.
Meanwhile, the whole front page of /bitcoin is full of threads about this. Most people don't believe Wright's claim.
But there are a few who at least give Wright the benefit of the doubt. Then we have the conspiracy theorists.
The whole story is a setup to discredit Bitcoin and come up with fedcoins... Is part of the plan with Silk Road. And I think Gavin is pushed/forced to say that... The only prove is that he will move the 1 million coins... And that clown will never prove that he can move them.
Then we have the people who dissect Wright's blog post
Craig was a bit clever here. He did not cheat, and did not use modified command line tools. He indeed posted a message signed by Satoshi's key, that validates correctly. This might explain how he fooled a few people. However, that message just so happens to be a hash of an early Bitcoin transaction, not anything proving his identity. Here's how he did it.
/btc, the part of the bitcoin community who left /bitcoin after the topmod (theymos) of /bitcoin squashed all discussion about a change in block size (don't ask me, I still don't know what I'm talking about), is a bit more ready to believe that Wright is Satoshi, mainly because they apparently like Andresen more than /bitcoin does since he is on their side re block size (they call the other side "smallblockers", lol). Doesn't mean that there is no discussion, though. /btc's frontpage is littered with selfposts requesting extra proof from Wright (e.g. Signed message, move coins, or GTFO) or even claiming that he's trolling. This must obviously be the case since
He is using Windows with Notepad. Why the hell would Gavin take him seriously?
I for one don't know.
They have their conspiracy theories, too.
Bitcoin isn't one man, guys. It really isn't this guy. So stop looking at this guy and away from Bitcoin - he's doing exactly what he and whomever he's working with want, which is to get you to look away.
So, what's being hidden? Isn't there some big meetup going on right now? Doesn't this pattern sound familiar?
There is a whole 'nother drama about Gavin Andresen. He wrote his own blog post confirming that Wright is Satoshi which lead to drama on /bitcoin. Later he made a comment explaining how Wright proved his identity to him on /btc.
Andresen's credibility is on the line now and he talks to Wired, again confirming his belief that Wright is Satoshi. Some people on /btc and /bitcoin believe all of it is actually a conspiracy to remove Andresen from the core development team.
People are also unsure what if anything would convince them that Wright is Satoshi.
And finally, we have Andreas Anatonopoulos, apparently another bitcoin celeb, who said that he was asked to verify Wright being Satoshi but declined because it doesn't matter who Satoshi is. This leads to /bitcoin fellating him vigorously agreeing with him completely as if they hadn't just spent 12 hours or so losing their minds over it.
Breaking news: Now someone claims that Wright didn't write the technical part of his blog post himself but stole it from him. You can't make this shit up.
ETA: Top minds...
Dear Craig, you're unable to scam reddit. We're disorganised infighting rabble, but we're the ultimate bullshit detectors.
..........
Disclaimer: A few/some/all details in this might be wrong since I'm actually not that interested in bitcoin, I just like the drama surrounding it.
Signature: 49 20 77 61 6e 74 20 74 68 65 20 6c 61 73 74 20 74 77 6f 20 68 6f 75 72 73 20 6f 66 20 6d 79 20 6c 69 66 65 20 62 61 63 6b 2e 20
submitted by Enibas to SubredditDrama [link] [comments]

Washington Sanchez on Twitter: "Using the block size limit to constrain transaction capacity is the ultimate blacklist, well said @JustusRanvier"

Washington Sanchez on Twitter: submitted by Gobitcoin to btc [link] [comments]

Scaling "debate" (*attacks) ELI5 for newbies:

Miners want the transactions ON chain and as many, slow and inefficient as possible, because they get paid (fees) for each one of them. That's why they want bigger blocks to hold/carry/process more transactions and why they have been always blocking every possible progress/solution that would benefit the whole world (with the sole exception of themselves): Segwit, LN, second layer scaling apps, etc.
That's why they created their fake bitcoin without Segwit. Read also about Asicboost and Antbleed (those are also whole dirty rabbit holes by themselves):
That's how the Mafia operates, and joining the Mining Cartel and their leader Jihan Wu, there are some corrupt very rich individuals that want more power and control for themselves (some of them well-known scammers and felons) colluding with them like: Roger Ver, Craig Wright, Barry Seibert, John McAfee, Bobby Lee, Stephen Pair, Calvin Ayre, Vitalik Buterin, Ryan Charles, Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzic, Mike Hearn, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, etc.
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitpay-partners-bitmain-multi-million-dollar-agreement/
Must read post from u/cutepoops:
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cgzbv/so_i_did_5minutes_of_digging_and_oh_my_god/
Bitcoin Cash Operation: Collusion and Manipulation
On one of the numerous attacks against Bitcoin, one the most powerful and recent ones (SX2/NYA) they were also joined by some Banker's special forces embedded in DCG with Barry Seibert: Blythe Masters, Larry Summers, Glen Hutchins, etc. That's another deep rabbit hole and here's some interesting information and evidence.
Among their explicit objectives that they themselves stated multiple times, were to "fire" all Core developers (those meddling good guys opposing their take-over attempts) and they've been using some of these powerful tools to spread FUD, misinformation, Blockstream-Core conspiracies, etc:
So, remain sceptical and do your own research to decide on what side are you on, where to invest your money and what companies and individuals deserve your trust and support.
On the long term, none of those dramas matter anyway, Moneybadger don't care: Decentralized, Immutable, Trustless, Freedom-Giver, Worldwide-Distributed, Censorless, Permissionless, Antifragile technology's time has come and nothing can stop it.
"Even China Can't Kill Bitcoin"
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-24/even-china-can-t-kill-bitcoin
BILL GATES: “NOBODY CAN STOP BITCOIN”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0HmrSfJwhU
Andreas Antonopoulos: "No Governments can ban Bitcoin"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIQkuF_I5Xo
Edit: Added Antbleed.
submitted by readish to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

Bitcoin 2017 a Comprehensive Timeline

Some of the most notable news and events over the past year:
Jan 3:
Jan 10:
Jan 17:
Jan 19:
Feb 8:
Feb 9:
Feb 24:
Mar 1:
Mar 2:
Mar 10:
Mar 12:
Mar 14:
Mar 15:
Mar 23:
Mar 28:
Apr 1:
Apr 5:
Apr 6:
Apr 12:
Apr 20:
Apr 26:
May 2:
May 9:
May 10:
May 21:
May 22:
May 23:
May 31:
Jun 2:
Jun 14:
Jun 29 - Jul 1:
Jun 30:
Jul 12:
Jul 16:
Jul 17:
Jul 22:
Jul 23:
Jul 24:
Jul 25:
Jul 27:
Jul 28:
Jul 31:
Aug 1:
Aug 2:
Aug 3:
Aug 10:
Aug 12:
Aug 15:
Aug 17:
Aug 21:
Aug 22:
Aug 24:
Aug 25:
Aug 28:
Aug 29:
Aug 30:
Aug 31:
Sep 1:
Sep 2:
Sep 3:
Sep 4:
Sep 5:
Sep 6:
Sep 7:
Sep 8:
Sep 9:
Sep 10:
Sep 12:
Sep 13:
Sep 14:
Sep 15:
Sep 17:
Sep 19:
Sep 20:
Sep 21:
Sep 23:
Sep 24:
Sep 25:
Sep 26:
Sep 27:
Sep 28:
Sep 29:
Sep 30:
Oct 4:
Oct 7:
Oct 9:
Oct 10:
Oct 11:
Oct 12:
Oct 13:
Oct 14:
Oct 16:
Oct 27:
Oct 30:
Nov 1:
Nov 2:
Nov 3:
Nov 4:
Nov 7:
Nov 8:
Nov 9:
Nov 10:
Nov 12:
Nov 13:
Nov 20:
Nov 21:
Nov 27:
Nov 28:
Dec 2:
Dec 5:
Dec 6
Dec 7
Dec 9
Dec 10
Dec 11
Dec 12
Dec 13
Dec 14
Dec 15
Dec 16
Dec 17
Dec 19
Dec 20
Dec 21
Dec 22
Dec 23
Dec 25
Dec 27
Dec 29
Dec 30
Dec 31
submitted by BitcoinChronicler to btc [link] [comments]

Happy New Year: Presenting the long overdue Bitcoin Foundation 2014 financial results!

Hi,
Today we continue our coverage of the glorious Bitcoin Foundation by assisting them with their own transparency goals. Just like any tax-exempt non-profit the Foundation has to file Form 990 annually, and so they did on 2015-07-23. The website with transparency goals actually previously stated "2014 will become available once filed in the spring of 2015". Par for the course Bruce 'FENTON!' Fenton figured he may as well hide it after realizing the return may reflect poorly on the Foundation. Luckily our shills over at the Foundation Center are kind enough to provide us with a copy.
Bear in mind this is the fiscal year dated 01-01-2014 ending 12-31-2014, the year Bitcoin took a massive hit. For context; the Bitcoin Foundation has one primary asset: BTC-coins. At the beginning of the year BTC-coins were still worth quite a bit (some $800), while shortly into the year they traded slightly closer to fair-value (ending the year at $316). Perhaps you would expect the Foundation to curb expenses, however that goes against the libertarian school of thought (fuck you, got mine!).
Now on to the good stuff, here's how our favorite group of libertarians spent the majority of donated funbux in one year, knowing the Foundation's assets were depleting rapidly. As Reddit is known for bullshit doxxing rules we'll stick to what is written on the return, which is very much open to public inspection. Now, without further ado;
As we discovered in 2013 the Foundation's primary goal is rewarding their board of directors & officers, as we all know they work very hard:
And there are some contractors:
And the breakdown of the functional expenses, oh, so many expenses:
The revenues improved a lot of course, as you would expect with the increased expenses:
At the end of 2014 not much was left: $366k. Of course some membership fees were coming in early 2015 which allowed the board to continue their rampage a little longer. In the board meeting minutes of 7-21 you can read that the party is over ($59k left) and expenses have been cut to $14k/month. Meeting minutes of October show "Brock says that it looks like things were going well from a revenue standpoint until February and we've lost the remaining cash since then" (LOL). Desperation strikes near the end of the meeting with Bruce 'FENTON!' Fenton asking all participants to individually raise $10k before the next board meeting. Olivier Janssens doubts this is possible, and also states he isn't happy that financials haven't been published yet. Well now they are.
In fairness to the Foundation there have been some roster changes and most (if not all) people mentioned above are no longer involved. Which may or may not have something to do with that fact they could no longer get paid by the Foundation (kidding, of course it has everything to do with that).
tl;dr Libertarians are bad at managing finances.
submitted by BTC-coins to Buttcoin [link] [comments]

[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Scaling "debate" (*attacks) ELI5 for newbies:

The following post by readish is being replicated because some comments within the post(but not the post itself) have been silently removed.
The original post can be found(in censored form) at this link:
np.reddit.com/ Bitcoin/comments/7cyshw
The original post's content was as follows:
Miners want the transactions ON chain and as many, slow and inefficient as possible, because they get paid (fees) for each one of them. That's why they want bigger blocks to hold/carry/process more transactions and why they have been always blocking every possible progress/solution that would benefit the whole world (with the sole exception of themselves): Segwit, LN, second layer scaling apps, etc.
That's why they created their fake bitcoin without Segwit. Read also about Asicboost (that's also a whole dirty rabbit hole by itself):
ASICBoost, the reason why Bitmain blocked Segwit
That's how the Mafia operates, and joining the Mining Cartel and their leader Jihan Wu, there are some corrupt very rich individuals that want more power and control for themselves (some of them well-known scammers and felons) colluding with them like: Roger Ver, Craig Wright, Barry Seibert, John McAfee, Bobby Lee, Stephen Pair, Calvin Ayre, Vitalik Buterin, Ryan Charles, Gavin Andresen, Jeff Garzic, Mike Hearn, Haipo Yang, Rick Falkvinge, Jon Matonis, Wences Casares, Tony Gallippi, Mike Belshe, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, Vinny Lingham, Olivier Janssens, Jeremy Allaire, Peter Vessenes, Bruce Wagner, Brock Pierce, etc.
https://news.bitcoin.com/bitpay-partners-bitmain-multi-million-dollar-agreement/
Must read post from u/cutepoops:
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cgzbv/so_i_did_5minutes_of_digging_and_oh_my_god/
On one of the numerous attacks against Bitcoin, one the most powerful and recent ones (SX2/NYA) they were also joined by some Banker's special forces embedded in DCG with Barry Seibert: Blythe Masters, Larry Summers, Glen Hutchins, etc. That's another deep rabbit hole and here's some interesting information and evidence.
Among their explicit objectives that they themselves stated multiple times, were to "fire" all Core developers (those meddling good guys opposing their take-over attempts) and they've been using some of these powerful tools to spread FUD, misinformation, Blockstream-Core conspiracies, etc:
  • DCG funding
  • btc subreddit
  • Bitcoin.com news
  • Bitcoin.com website
  • Mining manipulation and disruptions
  • Russian troll farms to sway public perception
  • Popular You Tube Channels like 'The Dollar Vigilante'
So, remain sceptical and do your own research to decide on what side are you on, where to invest your money and what companies and individuals deserve your trust and support.
On the long term, none of those dramas matter anyway, Moneybadger don't care: Decentralized, Immutable, Trustless, Freedom-Giver, Worldwide-Distributed, Censorless, Permissionless, Antifragile technology's time has come and nothing can stop it.
"Even China Can't Kill Bitcoin"
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-02-24/even-china-can-t-kill-bitcoin
BILL GATES: “NOBODY CAN STOP BITCOIN”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0HmrSfJwhU
Andreas Antonopoulos: "No Governments can ban Bitcoin"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIQkuF_I5Xo
Edit- Wow, this just happened:
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cyj7o/i_just_got_257_downvotes_in_8_minutes_for_calling/
More info on this thread:
https://www.reddit.com/Bitcoin/comments/7cxvn6/attack_continues_on_bitcoin/
submitted by censorship_notifier to noncensored_bitcoin [link] [comments]

As Vitalik Buterin stated, according to signaling theory, we must choose the path of least resistance. Hence, we should conclude that Craig Wright IS Satoshi.

Vitalik at Consensus yesterday argued that signaling theory, Occam's Razor, etc dictates we choose the simplest explanation in the Wright story. He argues this means if we receive a fuzzy proof instead of an absolute proof, it means the absolute proof wasn't possible. While that would be true when just looking at the public cryptographic proof, Vitalik fails to include the broader evidence of Gavin and Jon Matonis asserting that Mr. Wright provided absolute proof to them. Once you include their statements, the simplest (not necessarily simple) explanation is that Craig Wright is Satoshi.
There are 2 choices.
1 - Craig Wright is Satoshi.
This has the obvious problem of why didn't he prove it in the strongest way possible? Why is it all so fuzzy so convoluted? While the simplest explanation to this is that he unable to do better, the other (less satisfying) explanation is we just don't know why. You can dream up all sorts of possibilities though. Perhaps he just wants to see how the community accepts him without the cryptographic proof. He wants to see how people react to him. There are already all sorts of unanswered questions about Satoshi (Craig) e.g. why did he disappear in the first place? So here is one more. With a little thought, you can come up with many other explanations too.
2 - Craig Wright is not Satoshi
This has the problem of how was he able to convince Gavin and Jon?
Generally there are two possibilities here:
(a) It's a elaborate scam with Gavin and Jon in on it. Either Craig Wright is bribing them, the real Satoshi is asking them to say it's Wright, or some other entity/agency is asking (threatening?) them to.
Any of these explanations involve an elaborate conspiracy, one detrimental to the reputations and careers of Gavin and Jon if found out. Occam's razor dictates that we must cut away unnecessary explanations of conspiracy.
(b) Gavin and Jon have been bamboozled. This is highly unlikely. These are very smart people involved in bitcoin for years, with Gavin being one of the most highly qualified people in bitcoin. Not only must you fool them technically but also personally. They both attest that they felt from interacting with Wright that he is Satoshi. Jon felt this before Wright ever claimed to be Satoshi. Gavin has said the brilliant leaps in logic Wright exhibited were akin to what he experienced with Satoshi.
Between these two options, the one requiring less explanations and adjunct theories is option 1. Craig Wright is Satoshi. Thank you Mr. Wright for giving us bitcoin.
Other criticisms against Wright can be answered easily. There are complaints about his technical errors/misunderstandings--e.g. "he does not understand selfish mining!" Has everyone forgotten Satoshi was a sloppy coder with many bugs in his code? Have people forgotten that Satoshi/Craig blundered on the economics of the centralization of mining? Are any of the other core developers perfect. Pick any one of them and you can find errors of major proportions.
People are also unhappy with Craig's questionable dealings with the law, specifically with regards to paying taxes. Are people really surprised about this?! Did you expect the libertarian iconoclast creator of bitcoin to be a model taxpayer?
submitted by solled to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Update V3.3] Bitcoin Buzz App - Multi Channel Resources

Tweeting screenshots from the official twitter at http://twitter.com/bitcoinfeeds
Official Google-Play store: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=bitcoin.buzz.feeds
Bitcoin Buzz App has been in the Google Play store for over 1 year with the launch date of February of 2013- Version 1.1 Bitcoin Buzz. We have certainly come a long way, and today's update is v3.3
App Changelog:
Feedback:
We are open to your suggestions, and resources for the next update. In Update v3.4, which websites do you want to see added into the Bitcoin Buzz app?
Edit: Updated with links of the screenshots from the official twitter feed @Bitcoinfeeds
submitted by BitcoinBuzzFeeds to Bitcoin [link] [comments]

[Table] IAmA: IAM Peter Vessenes, Executive Director of the Bitcoin Foundation. AMAA!

Verified? (This bot cannot verify AMAs just yet)
Date: 2012-09-28
Link to submission (Has self-text)
Link to my post
Questions Answers
Most proponents of Bitcoin seem to believe that there will be a point where one coin exceeds a value of $100 or even $1000. Sure, that is definitely possible and I can accept that it may happen one day. However, since each coin has this intrinsic potential value.. why would anyone spend them on trivial stuff like food now? How can you spend something that you believe will continue to grow in value effectively to infinity? That seems like a fair complaint to me, in general. In practice, and as opposed to Krugman's thoughts on the matter, we have many thousands of happy Bitcoin transactors, I think people like to spend their bitcoins with others, give them away, and use them for things. I do know some Bitcoin businesses that try never to spend their coins. That said, we have had some periods like last year where EVERYBODY wished they'd spent their coins.. To my mind volatility is a worse 'evil' than being deflationary. As I said above, I think most government economists wish an inflationary currency (and many bitcoiners hate this, and talk a lot about how much they hate it), but I think there's definitely a place in the world for a deflationary value system. An interesting thought experiment for you -- if you forked the Bitcoin blockchain and changed issuance so that it tracked say, USD or USD/EUR inflation rates for issuance, would it have the same uptake or not?
Every once in a while I hear stories about security breaches including 240,000 bitcoins that went missing the other month. How do you ensure security of account holders funds? The practical security aspects of running Bitcoin businesses are a REAL need, and it's something we want to help on with advice, and possibly opt-in certification at some point. I say more about this elsewhere in the AMA.
Furthermore, most sites I've came upon that sell goods seem poorly managed and difficult to use. Is there a Bitcoin equivalent to sites like Ebay and Amazon? Re: bitcoin site usability -- I agree, it's often terrible! I'm not sure why this is, except to say that bitcoins make transacting online so easy that even people who can't afford a designer can do it.
A: How does the intrinsic non-fiat nature of the currency affect its susceptibility to market fluctuation? I.E. Better or worse stability than fiat currency? So far, because market cap is so low, (Roughly $100mm of value), Bitcoin exchange rates are highly susceptible to people pushing it around. This is really tough for everyone. There are a bunch of businesses that might not be viable until you have some exchange rate certainties that extend beyond a short (one day-ish) window.
B: What can be done to improve the resistance to massive fluctuations in value stemming from exchange market manipulation or normal use? There are some macro-economic things that could be done, like exchanges publishing all trades to a central area, and implementing locks if prices rise / fall too suddenly, but those all have their own effects to consider. I think the fundamental thing to do is help Bitcoin acceptance and uptake grow, increasing the size of the pie until there are a much smaller number of parties that could push the price around.
C: Is there anything that can be done to the standard to improve stability or is it all up to the markets to implement safeguards? So, we all do have a part in that stabilization for sure. There's also the angle of creating whole supply chains that are bitcoin denominated -- paying our staff in Bitcoins only is an attempt to work on that angle.
What do you say to people that claim Bitcoin is nothing but a pump-and-dump pyramid scheme designed to benefit it's creators? That they're sitting on a huge pile of bitcoins obtained by them before the currency was made available to the public when mining was far easier then dumping huge batches of Bitcoins destroying the price over and over again to enrich themselves and fuck everybody else? And that they get more chumps into the system to inflate the price again, by going around the internet and promoting Bitcoins as an alternative currency rather than a complete fraud? This borders on the troll-ish, but I will say that the Bitcoin network autosizes coin generation based on how many people wish to do it. That is, people opt in to make the coins and secure the network. Nobody is forced to.
Is the Bitcoin Foundation a non-profit, tax-exempt organization in the United States? Who among the directors and the board has experience running a non-profit? Why is the ED also a member of the board? How does the ED have the time to run the organization given his obligation to CoinLab? Why haven't I seen any of the involved parties at either of the last two Bitcoin conferences? Can we get somebody who isn't a white male involved? We're a 501(c)6, Washington DC Nonprofit.
I have experience launching a non-profit, hence my job.
ED's typically get a salary and work full time at the job; we didn't know if we'd have budget to pay someone who could operate such a thing, so we went with this structure. I anticipate that I will step down from being the ED at the earliest moment we know we have someone better to do it; running CoinLab is plenty of work for me.
Our assistant director Lindsay Holland is not a white male.
In general, Bitcoin is a white male sausage-fest, though. I urge you and all Bitcoiners everywhere to work on changing that.
What is the future of bitcoins? Do you think they will ever make government-issued currency obsolete? I don't know the future of Bitcoin, but I hope that I and the Foundation are a part of it!
I don't believe Bitcoin will ever obsolete a government currency, but I only speak for myself when I say that. Bitcoin is a fascinating and novel technology with a HUGE number of potential benefits to the world, so I'm into it. I don't see a government wishing to cede control of its currency to anything like the technocratic / consensus model that Bitcoins are governed by, though.
That said, I do hope that Bitcoins will be able to help people in areas of the world that need better money features. Mpesa is a great example of something that helps Kenyans (and people from a few other countries) by changing how money is used. Bitcoin has the potential to help people like that, all over the world, whether or not the 'market' is large enough in that country.
I personally think that sort of thing is SUPER exciting.
Could you describe the bitcoin foundation for me? Sure! It's a trade organization, member-driven. Its goal is to promote, protect and help standardize Bitcoin. Our initial goals are to provide funding for the core development team, run a 2013 Silicon Valley Conference, and create some opt-in certification methods and best practices for businesses dealing with Bitcoin.
Join us.. :)
Standardize? I can tell you hate our goals, so I won't spend a long time trying to convince you. But, I will say that businesses often need a long, secure timeframe to make investment decisions, and they need to have some sense that what they work on or invest in will be roughly similar at the end of their investment to the beginning.
Why do you want to "standardize"? For instance, imagine ebay deciding to take bitcoins. The person-hours to get that done inside ebay are staggering to imagine, from wallet scalability issue to accounting treatments, refunds, ... It would be a major endeavor.
What gives you that authority? It would be great for bitcoin if ebay took bitcoins. Seriously great, but they can't right now until they feel there is some generally stable path going forward.
Why is the core development team so deserving of funding when they can't even make a decent client? You might hate everything about that, and that's cool. I urge you to go ahead, fork the code, advocate as much as you like for something else. Bitcoin's free, both the protocol and the software. Nobody is stopping you.
Is there any legal action to be done if someone steals your bitcoins? Yep, if you're in the US, file a police report, and call FBI Cybercrimes division.
As an individual member of the Bitcoin Foundation, what do I get? Any perks or privileges? Email aliases, voting rights, a newsletter, etc? Or are these memberships mostly a way of providing financial support to the foundation? The bylaws are up now, so you can read in great detail what the organization will provide its members: Link to github.com
In short, though, rights to vote people on / off the board of the Foundation, soon access to private forums, probably discounts to the bitcoin 2013 conference, happiness at supporting the dev team.
I would like to provide email aliases, we've got Patrick and Jon working on any possible gotchas there, though.
Many aren't taking bitcoin seriously because of the security issues some have had. What steps are you taking to legitimize this currency? Like Jeff says below, I would distinguish between fundamental protocol security and security practices.
Bitcoins fundamental protocol security seems pretty good at this point; I'm sure we'll all be keeping an eye on that quite intently into the future.
Practical Security has been, largely, terrible in the Bitcoin space for most businesses, Mt. Gox perhaps excepted. The amount of work it takes to secure 80 byte strings that may be valued in the million dollar range is non trivial. Think securing missile codes as to the level of security needed.
Many bitcoin businesses can't afford (or don't wish to) this sort of security. I'm hoping we can provide some tools and pointers for these businesses and their users to help people understand what they're getting into when they transact with a bitcoin business, and what their risks are.
The Bitcoin Foundation Membership (VIP) fees are definitely disproportionate. Why? Are we now heading for a two-tier bitcoin community? We got requests from large supporters to make a more expensive membership tier. I'm slow, but not so slow that I said 'no'.
I'm slow, but not so slow that I said 'no'. - So you said 'YES'? Someone said "Please make higher corporate member fees: Linux Foundation Top Tier member fees are $500k. Your plan is too low."
I said "OK, Thank you for that advice. We should do that."
Is the foundation primarily focused on US or also europe and the rest of the world? Right now Jon Matonis is considered our "Europe Expert" on the board. There's a huge amount of work to do just in keeping track of how Bitcoin is categorized and regulated around the world. I would expect the Foundation to put some time and energy into helping with that process, but it's not our first goal.
What would you or the Fundation do if the government declares Bitcoin ilegal? Advocate that such a thing is silly, unenforceable, and counterproductive.
Thats no answer to the question. Have you got any plans for the "unthinkable"? That really is what I would do. What do you suggest?
What are your thoughts on transparency of the foundation? How much revenue is there and how it is spent, will that info be public? We're aiming to be highly transparent. I proposed today that we publicize our cold wallet public keys so that people can check our balances. This got pushed back a month while we work on some logistics. I will follow up about this, though. I think having auditable books from day one is really cool.
What are your thoughts on fiat currency? I love it and wish more of it. I'm totally grateful that nations have standardized and created currencies for their people, so that I can travel and buy stuff without worrying about the reputability of a local bank when I go to exchange my money.
I read something recently about a Bitcoin based debit card system. How is that coming along? I don't know, but I want one! The Foundation would like one, too. We are trying to run the Foundation with only Bitcoins, so it would be nice to fuel up a debit card for some expenses.
Create an opt-in certification process for Bitcoin businesses. How will you be going about this? What will certification entail? TBD, But I am imagining that businesses could vet their processes and procedures against a set of published standards, pay for an audit, and then be able to help their users understand what level of security they provide, e.g. "Bronze certification -- the site could be trusted with 50 bitcoins of stored value per person."
Does the foundation intend to have control over bitcoin.org and thereby over the main distribution channel for Bitcoin-Qt? We're a member organization. Some of our members do have access to and influence over bitcoin.org and bitcoin-qt. I have no idea if they would like us to help manage bitcoin.org, since we just launched yesterday.
If the decision makers for bitcoin.org and bitcoin-qt want us to help out in those areas, I wouldn't mind. I don't think either of those things is super strategic to helping Bitcoin right now; there's more need for messaging and some financial security for the core team, and the other stuff we said we're going to work on this year. bitcoin.org and -qt publishing don't seem broken to me or risky right now.
Given that Mt Gox has a (rightfully deserved) place on he board, what steps can and will you be taking to ensure that independent exchanges are encouraged and not ignored? Also what steps, if any, can and will you take to ensure the public that the commercial interests of those on the board do not conflict with the decentralised ideals and paradigm of Bitcoin itself? I don't know how we'd encourage or ignore exchanges, since everyone is welcome to join.
I do think this individual / corporate angle is at the heart of the Bitcoin, though; it's got a lot of parties that care about it, passionately. Some are investing millions of dollars. Some are tirelessly advocating for Bitcoin. Many sit around and troll and waste people's time.
I guess that partly we expect our board members will act with integrity, and that if they aren't representing the needs of their member class, they'll get replaced with someone who will.
I also don't know how we would, practically, decentralize Bitcoin, even if we wished such a thing. I don't think anyone on the board thinks Bitcoin is doing badly. We're all really excited about it and want to help. I personally believe if corporations (a small group or just one) ever provably controlled Bitcoin, they would become vastly less appealing and useful. So, we're on watch.
Not as on watch as a paranoid bitcointalk forum troll wants us to be, but we're on watch.
Why do you require a real name and real address, when bitcoins core values are to be anonymous? The Foundation's core values include openness and transparency. I think the Bitcoin anonymous thing is overblown and a bit of a myth, by the way. Every bitcoin transaction links two addresses; often people can be determined from those addresses.
At any rate, we wish to make sure you can't stuff the ballot box during voting, and we wish civil productive discourse among our members, so we need real names and addresses.
If you just want to support us without joining, you can always send money to our vanity donation address: 1BTCorgHwCg6u2YSAWKgS17qUad6kHmtQW.
What is the current, largest obstacle when it comes to wider Bitcoin adoption? I think Bitcoin adoption is growing nicely. There seems to be a sort of stair-step function where people figure out something new and broadly appealing to do with them, and it makes a big jump. I expect we'll see that many times over the next five or ten years.
Doubts about the network's scalability, uncertain status about its legality or something else? Bitcoin's brand seems bad to me; mostly the highly publicized exchange attacks worry people. It's too hard to have a secure cold storage wallet for even a very smart individual. I'd like to see some of those things improved.
Does Bitcoin have any plan to combat criminals using the currency to purchase things on online black markets? I can't speak for Bitcoin, but the Foundation has no criminal combatant plans. We do want our members to use their real names and promise that they only engage in activities legal in their jurisdiction, though.
That's mostly just a way of us saying who we want to hang out with, and expressing some community values we think will help our organization be a success.
Did you expect for the Bitcoin concept to explode as it has? I sort of did, but I definitely didn't put my wallet behind that explosion. Sigh.
Also, where do you see it going in the future? I talk elsewhere in the AMA about what I'm hoping for Bitcoin.
Will the foundation be sponsoring Bitcoin software outside of Bitcoin.org? What do you mean? Like if Jeff Garzik made cool software that would help the Bitcoin world but didn't release it at bitcoin.org would we try and help him?
The answer is yes.
I.e., the Foundation would provide a service with recommendations such as wallet security for an exchange, but I don't think the Foundation should be in the business of "certifying". Yeah, there's an interesting set of questions there about certification. I would LOVE to see a certification that brought with it the ability to be insured against loss and theft. Think how nice it would be for an exchange or wallet business to be able to offer that insurance. That said, I don't know of any bitcoin company that has such insurance yet. I think we have some work to do vetting out the processes and procedures, and then some sales and relationship work with insurance companies first. At any rate, we won't be stumping up security for certified companies through the main Foundation corporate vehicle ever. But I think the membership will want to discuss what a good set of next steps is toward that goal, if we're all sold on trying to make it happen.
What's the advantage to using bitcoins over government issued currency, basically why should I invest my $US in bitcoins? Some people have ideological preferences for Bitcoins money issuance scheme.
Some are nerds, and like it for nerdy reasons.
Some just like being able to pay whom they choose when they choose.
Some deal with payment infrastructures that are scary (Paypal freezes are scary), or slow (wiring money in and out of small country central banks is REALLY slow).
Also, they're neat.
How does it feel to know that a kitten wearing a top hat has more upvotes than you? That kitten is so damn cute. I spent some of my AMA time going "AWWW"
How will you try to keep BIG businesses from buying their way into "THE" Bitcoin Foundation? Bitcoin is inherently free, it's peer to peer, it can be forked, it's not controlled by the Foundation, especially one that's one day old.
So, I look forward to large donations from BIG businesses. We will use that money to further the Foundation's mission. Our members will, no doubt, be highly engaged in discussions about what to do with large donations. I'm looking forward to it.
What is your opinion on Canada's new digital currency, "Mint Chip"? How does this affect Bitcoin? I don't know much about it, but I think it's cool from what I do know, (and is it technically flawed? I don't recall). I'm all for money system experimentation, as you might guess.
You are starting to get increased media/congressional notice. Are you at all worried about being shut down and prosecuted like E-Gold was? Who is we? The Foundation is a member organization, nothing else.
There are some bitcoin exchange operators that actively flout the same AML laws that got the E-Gold founders in trouble.
There are some that try hard to do the right thing, jurisdiction by jurisdiction.
Personally, I don't worry about the ones trying to comply, and I don't transact with the ones flouting the laws.
Why do you have different vote classes, is one class worth more then another? Corporate members vote their seats, Individual members vote theirs.
Anecdotally, there are fewer corporate members, so a corporate membership vote has a greater proportional influence over a board seat than an individual membership.
so a corporate membership vote has a greater proportional influence over a board seat than an individual membership. - So there may be poll when votes of both classes come together? Like asking ALL members to opt out changes to the source code? I would be stunned if we voted on source code, ever. I don't think anyone thinks that is in the remit of the Foundation.
Pragmatically, the dev team is one arm of bitcoin source code governance, and miners are the other, since they can refuse to work with code changes they don't like if they do it in bulk.
The board meets often, and should be listening to its constituents; sign up as a member, and then mail your appropriate rep. As a sample of what we discussed today: "Should we do an AMA? Who will get member signup confirmations out? Can we publicize Patrick's bylaws yet?" were the scintillating topics of conversation.
Will I be getting an e-mail with receipt for my payment confirming my membership subscription? Yes, we are ACTIVELY working on it. Apologies.
What's the dev's payroll? TBD, now that we know what our member signups are.
I don't know if we'll release payroll or budget numbers outside the membership -- something we have to discuss.
What power does this foundation have over Bitcoin? Why did you make Satoshi the founder without his permission? We have no power over Bitcoin whatsoever.
I think we felt a foundation that didn't somehow acknowledge Satoshi would be a bit churlish, like ignoring Linus completely while making the Linux Foundation. Satoshi is, as always, free to participate as he/she chooses.
Has there been a growth in algorithmic trading of Bitcoins in the past year? If so, is that growth in algos added stability to the Bitcoin Market? I have no idea. But I'm curious about this too!
Why hasn't (almost) anybody heard of you before today? I keep a low profile. Until yesterday. Also, I gave up on the forums a long time ago; not productive enough for me.
That was very informative, thanks. Not that hard to grasp when somebody spells it out. The reason you do it is to provide a second element of value to a chain of transactions; the first element of value is consensus -- what everyone else says happens.
Is there a reason for doing this? Or just a way to pace the grinding nature of mining bitcoins? The second, arguably more powerful one is provable computation time spent on creating the consensus. So you can look at a set of bitcoin transactions and say "Ah ha, that had roughly [say] $1mm worth of computation time put in to securing and validating it! I believe it's safe to consider my $55 transaction secure."
Just out of curiosity, do you have any idea how many people have applied so far? Yep. We'll release end of first-month member numbers in 29 days. :)
How does one go about buying bitcoins? Probably the fastest way is to ask a friend who has some.
Next would be to use a service like Link to bitinstant.com.
How long are terms for each board member? Two years.
Will the Bitcoin Foundation promote a Vulnerability Reward Program ? I would like to see that, but I think the first things to do in terms of importance are on our published list.
Will the funds for a permanent memberships be put into an endowment, or will they be spent immediately? We haven't discussed it. Budget discussions are next couple of weeks, now that we have our heads around some numbers.
We also have to discuss if the foundation wishes to go long bitcoin, or instead spend to its annual budget. All TBD; if you have opinions send them on to your member reps.
I'm curious about this too. I'm not sure I understand how they work entirely. Maybe somebody could Explain like i'm five... Totally. They are confusing; it's a truly novel solution. Essentially it mixes something non-intuitive and magical-seeming (public key cryptography) with something very hard to imagine a solution for (distributed timestamping among non-trusted parties).
We will be seeing the concept extended out into a number of technology arenas over the next 25 years I imagine. It's an incredibly powerful solution-space.
I spent maybe an hour on the wiki reading the FAQ and everything, and it still makes references to "blocks" and "mining blocks" and those that mine have the option of transaction fees.. and I'm still not really sure what is happening. Yep, like I said. I've been thinking hard about them for two years, I have a cryptography background, and I still have 'a-ha!' moments weekly, at the very least.
There are a couple pretty good bitcoin explanation videos out there, but I'm not up to date on what the best one is. Maybe someone helpful can post a link.
After establishing support for food and shelter for Gavin, will there be opportunities for other bitcoin developers to apply for grants - maybe for specific implementations or features desperately needed. I'd love it. I think Gavin will be working out the specifics of what we want to do. I'd LOVE to see money put into a huge test suite, personally.
Thank you for furthering the effort of Cryptocurrency, I have written several policy papers in this arena, and look forward to the day where the deep web stigma is removed from the currency. Thanks FapNowPayLater! We genuinely appreciate the support.
Last updated: 2012-10-02 22:30 UTC | Next update: 2012-10-03 04:30 UTC
This post was generated by a robot! Send all complaints to epsy.
submitted by tabledresser to tabled [link] [comments]

March 19th, 2013 - /r/Bitcoin. Currency of the future, today!

Submitted by None

/Bitcoin

19,294 readers for 2 years!
We were all promised things in the 80s and early 90s, both by Hollywood and our government (United States). One of those things was a digital currency. We got credit. Fuck that, I want a digital currency, and I want it now!
"But Xavier, we do have a digital currency!"
Wait, what?
"Yeah, it's called bitcoin!"
Hell yeah.
Bitcoin is all I wanted and more from a digital currency. It's simple, and the learning curve is relatively nice. It's growing on retailers, and can already be used to order many physical goods. The bitcoin community is nice and helpful, willing to answer even my stupidest of questions. /Bitcoin specifically has given me quite a lot to think about these past couple months, and a lot of good reading material. Love's such an old fashioned word, but I'm willing to care for this economy at the edge of the night. I firmly believe that bitcoin is the future, and the people at /bitcoin are pulling it ever closer. From all the fantastic guides on mining to the incredible charity, its users have had an awesome effect on the world.
Before we get to the wonderful interview portion, I thought I would do something new here at Subreddit of the Day. In full embrace of both the bitcoin spirit and to see what effects it may have on the comments section, I have enabled the /BitcoinTip bot on /SubredditOfTheDay. We have some good comments here, and it'd be cool to reward people with something a little more useful than reddit gold. I suggest you check out that subreddit for the relevant info.
Today we have some special guests from the bitcoin community, but I'll let them speak for themselves. Without further ado, the interview.

1. First off, tell me a bit about yourselves, everybody.

Theymos I am a 21-year-old computer science student from Wisconsin. I am the most senior moderator of /Bitcoin and the head administrator of bitcointalk.org. I created the first Bitcoin Block Explorer, blockexplorer.com, though I don't run it anymore.
Jon Matonis I am an e-Money researcher and crypto economist covering the Bitcoin economy for Forbes Magazine and American Banker.
Evoorhees My name is Erik, but I'm known as evoorhees in the Bitcoin world. I work for several Bitcoin projects - namely BitInstant and Coinapult are my "day jobs" and I'm also involved with the notorious SatoshiDice.com, which is the most popular Bitcoin game in the world. My academic background is in monetary economics (which I learned entirely after my "formal" college education) and by trade I'm a writing, marketing, and brand development guy. Most people in the Bitcoin community probably first hear about me from the paper I wrote last year: Bitcoin - The Libertarian Introduction. I'm an American but have recently left the country because it is far too socialist for my liking.

2. How did you first discover bitcoin?

Theymos I first heard about Bitcoin in February of 2010 via a post on 4chan. I've always had a great interest in distributed systems, so reading bitcoin.org and Satoshi's paper really got me interested, and I started following Bitcoin very closely.
Jon Matonis I first discovered Bitcoin through my research into digital cash and virtual currencies. Satoshi had contacted me directly because of my economics blog and asked me to take a studied look at the cryptocurrency.
Evoorhees In May 2011 I saw a Facebook post from a friend, which said something like, "This digital currency gained 20,000% in the last six months". I clicked the link and upon reading about it, immediately though, "wow this is the stupidest thing ever... made up internet money... obviously a scam or bubble or some other nonsense." However, my curiosity pulled me further, and after about an hour of reading various articles about Bitcoin, I had a very clear epiphany that this was the most important thing I had ever come across, that it would change the world and that I needed to help it do so. I spent the next few days with little sleep, eating Cheerios, ignoring my girlfriend, and basically absorbing every word that had been written about Bitcoin. I was hooked. I had fallen down the rabbit hole, and am still way down here.

3. In your own words, how would you describe bitcoin to someone who has never heard of it before?

Theymos Bitcoin is a currency like dollars, but instead of relying on the US government to print dollars appropriately and protect against counterfeiting, it uses strong cryptography and a peer-to-peer network to accomplish these same tasks. There is no organization or government with control over Bitcoin. Bitcoin is designed so that you have exclusive control over your money, not politicians, developers, or even the majority of users. Bitcoin is also a payment processing system which allows you to cheaply and quickly send bitcoins to other people. Using Bitcoin, I could securely send $100,000 in bitcoins from the US to China in ~10 minutes while paying less than $0.10 in transaction fees, and this transaction would be more non-reversible than even a wire transfer.
Jon Matonis To the uninitiated, I would describe bitcoin as digital gold except that it depends on mathematical properties rather than chemical properties.
Evoorhees Bitcoin is one of mankind's greatest inventions. It is a form of money superior to all others. It is a grand experiment, and if it succeeds will remove the monopoly power of money away from governments and put it in the hands of individuals. Bitcoin is the privatization of money, not through "popular vote" or political courtesy, but wrested from the State through the beneficence of technology. If Bitcoin is successful, it will change not only how money works, but society itself - freeing people, empowering them, and providing a means of individual protection. Bitcoin is the antidote to a century of misguided central planning in the realm of money.

4. Where do you see the future of bitcoin in 5 years? 10? 20?

Theymos Satoshi Nakamoto, the founder of Bitcoin, said, "I'm sure that in 20 years there will either be very large transaction volume or no volume." Bitcoin is an extremely powerful technology with the potential to change the world. I think that Bitcoin is likely to grow substantially in 5-10 years, though there are a number of potential challenges that could slow Bitcoin's growth. For example, governments could severely regulate companies that let you buy bitcoins. In 20 years, Bitcoin could be bigger than many government-issued currencies, but I also wouldn't be all that surprised if Bitcoin is replaced by something that is better than Bitcoin in all ways (maybe using quantum cryptography). Bitcoin is the first system of its kind, so anything could happen.
Jon Matonis In 5 years, I see bitcoin as pervasive as Skype but still only prevalent in certain pockets of society as Skype is today. I don't predict bitcoin exchange rates.
In 10 years, bitcoin will begin to have so many apps and services built around it that a few killer apps will make it a necessity for many people and it will become an acceptable asset class for investors.
In 20 years, small to medium size countries will be incorporating bitcoin reserves into their reserve portfolios and countries will be experimenting with currency issuance that depends on full and/or partial bitcoin backing. Countries will also be competing as to which one provides the best competitive jurisdictional environment for cryptocurrencies.
Evoorhees Well in 20 years, Bitcoin (or something very similar to it) will either have become the dominant formear of money and payment or it will have failed and gone away. The latter is highly unlikely though, because the only thing which will cause Bitcoin to really fail at this stage is if something superior comes along, in which case all the benefits of Bitcoin are still realized.
In five years, I expect the market cap of Bitcoin will have grown from its current $500m USD to the realm of $20-100b USD. At this stage, use will be widespread but not yet ubiquitous. Governments will be struggling to "manage" the growth of the technology and its vast implications. In five years, Bitcoin will be almost as old as the euro is today, and I'd bet considerable money that its record of performance will be superior.

5. Thanks everybody. Anything else you'd like to say to the world?

Theymos Read the sidebar of /Bitcoin for instructions on how to get started and more info about Bitcoin. I will answer questions about Bitcoin in this comment section.
Jon Matonis I would like to add that many people are familiar with BitTorrents and how they have caused disruptive problems in the copyright world today with very little method of recourse from the authorities. Well, those same types of disruptive problems will be seen in the world of legal tender due to bearer digital cash such as bitcoin. This has profound implications for the advancement of liberty.
Evoorhees If you care about the future of humanity, Bitcoin is the most important social project currently in existence. Where governments and organizations around the world are busy naively fighting the symptoms of a rotten and decrepit financial system, Bitcoin makes such efforts redundant and futile - for it solves the core problems itself. It will disrupt everything, and even if you don't care to get involved in using or developing it further, you owe it to yourself to learn about it.
Bitcoin is absolutely fascinating and the most exciting thing I've ever come across, and thus I've dedicated my life to advancing it.
Bitcoin is one of those things that don't come along every lifetime. I hope it outlives me. While that wouldn't be an accomplishment of any sort, it'd make me feel better.
This has been your ageless father, Xavier Mendel, signing off.
submitted by SROTDroid to SROTD_Archives [link] [comments]

Engadget takes a very pessimistic view on Bitcoin - Why do tech blogs not understand the value of bitcoin?

This is an automatic summary, original reduced by 87%.
Jon Matonis, who helped set up the Bitcoin Foundation, was also involved in that London meeting to determine if Wright was indeed Nakamoto.
While you'd think it would have been simple to drop a single "Genesis block" Bitcoin to a journalist, Wright couldn't.
During an Ask Me Anything session in 2014, Dei expanded on this point, saying that Bitcoin was built to serve people "Who distrust flexible government monetary policies." As for his feelings on Nakamoto's identity, he says that "It doesn't matter too much, except to satisfy people's curiosity."
The creator of the platform also mined the first Bitcoins, a volume of money known as the "Genesis block." There's no concrete evidence as to the size of the genesis block, but at least one website has pegged it at around 1 million BTC. At current exchange rates, that's worth around $448 million, but it would have been worth twice as much at the currency's peak in late 2013.
The concern for people who are involved with the Bitcoin market is that Nakamoto has enough power to do a lot of damage to the currency.
Bitcoin has also failed to convince people outside of its community that there's any value in adopting it.
Summary Source | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: Bitcoin#1 Wright#2 Nakamoto#3 claim#4 people#5
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic only. Do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

It doesn't matter who created Bitcoin Or, 'Craig Wright’s Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week.'

This is an automatic summary, original reduced by 87%.
Jon Matonis, who helped set up the Bitcoin Foundation, was also involved in that London meeting to determine if Wright was indeed Nakamoto.
While you'd think it would have been simple to drop a single "Genesis block" Bitcoin to a journalist, Wright couldn't.
During an Ask Me Anything session in 2014, Dei expanded on this point, saying that Bitcoin was built to serve people "Who distrust flexible government monetary policies." As for his feelings on Nakamoto's identity, he says that "It doesn't matter too much, except to satisfy people's curiosity."
The creator of the platform also mined the first Bitcoins, a volume of money known as the "Genesis block." There's no concrete evidence as to the size of the genesis block, but at least one website has pegged it at around 1 million BTC. At current exchange rates, that's worth around $448 million, but it would have been worth twice as much at the currency's peak in late 2013.
The concern for people who are involved with the Bitcoin market is that Nakamoto has enough power to do a lot of damage to the currency.
Bitcoin has also failed to convince people outside of its community that there's any value in adopting it.
Summary Source | FAQ | Theory | Feedback | Top five keywords: Bitcoin#1 Wright#2 Nakamoto#3 claim#4 people#5
NOTICE: This thread is for discussing the submission topic only. Do not discuss the concept of the autotldr bot here.
submitted by autotldr to autotldr [link] [comments]

Future Of Bitcoin: Jon Matonis Bitcoin Foundation Jon Matonis Interview The Great Gold vs Bitcoin Debate: Casey vs Matonis Jon Matonis - YouTube Interview JON MATONIS about the BTC Foundation, Bitcoin Halving and more  BitcoinMagazine NL

Jon Matonis His career has included senior influential posts at Sumitomo Bank, Visa, VeriSign, and Hushmail. He is a former Executive Director and board member of the Bitcoin Foundation. John Matonis Archives - CryptoCoin.News The blockchain company Nchain wants to blaze a path toward creating on-chain solutions to the Bitcoin scaling conundrum, and now they have Jon Matonis at the helm. In a May 1 press release, Nchain ... Jon Matonis – The Fincen Whistleblowers: . Bitcoin Foundation board member Jon Matonis (@JonMatonis) writes a post on how the financial surveillance also occurring is no secret.Excerpts: “T he Fincen bureau conducts all of its surveillance activity out in the open and in plain sight, probably for its effect as a deterrent. Fincen even recruits banks and other agent financial institutions ... Room 77, the German bar and restaurant that claims to be the first retail outfit in the world to accept bitcoin payments, has shut down. Cypherpunk Holdings chief economist Jon Matonis broke the news on Twitter. Bar owner Jorg Platzer later confirmed it on Reddit.

[index] [29562] [32404] [39266] [34463] [272] [32566] [14433] [10134] [14124] [22278]

Future Of Bitcoin: Jon Matonis

The Monetary Future is a leading economics blog at the intersection of free banking, cryptography, and digital currency. Jon Matonis is a Founding Director o... Speaker: Jon Matonis, Executive Director, Bitcoin Foundation From mobile payments to virtual currencies, the future of commerce is at a major crossroads. Bitcoin is currently the most talked about ... http://calvinayre.com/ talks to Jon Matonis, Bitcoin Foundation's Executive Director about the overall Bitcoin Economy, benefits for the mainstream online ca... Part 3 of 6 TransConstellation Alumni Conference 2013, held on May 16th at SWIFT, an Oxford-style debate, on 'New Money vs. Old Money'. This video is the 'opposition' defended by Jon Matonis, from ... Matonis argues that this is unimportant set against Bitcoin's strengths: notably the ease of transacting in them and its decentralised nature, meaning that there is no central point of attack for ...

#