10 Courses To Know How Bitcoin Works - Henry Harvin
cryptography Info Page - metzdowd.com
Cryptography news and discussions
Cryptography is the art of creating mathematical assurances for who can do what with data, including but not limited to encryption of messages such that only the key-holder can read it. Cryptography lives at an intersection of math and computer science. This subreddit covers the theory and practice of modern and *strong* cryptography, and it is a technical subreddit focused on the algorithms and implementations of cryptography.
I recently did some study on how bitcoin was used in different e-commerce areas. I read up that bitcoin is also used in casino as a form of payment, and proceeded to discover a supposedly quite old dice gambling site, just-dice.com. This dice site links to blogspot where it display the various statistics related to the game. Within this blog, there is one post dated way back in 2007 which seemed separated from the rest of the content (as displayed on the right side timeline bar), because the next content was only posted starting from 2013, and has been continuously doing so until today. I was curious to know what was written in 2007 before the inactivity period started. Upon clicked on it, I discovered this: https://just-dice.blogspot.com/2007/07/bitcoin-back-to-future-of-money.html As far as I know, the first mention of the word 'Bitcoin' was on August 2008, when the domain bitcoin.org is registered. Satoshi very first appearance was on 31st October 2008, when he wrote an email about the creation of Bitcoin: https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-Octobe014810.html. The crypto community generally agreed that the word 'Bitcoin' is only first mentioned on that day. So this post back in 2007 could be related back to Satoshi himself. Another thing is whoever posted this mentioned he needed a "cool sounding Japanese pseudonym". This further shows that the poster is the Bitcoin founder himself. Satoshi himself even said that he started working on Bitcoin around 2007, which coincide with the year this post was written. From here, we can have two conclusions:
The poster IS Satoshi Nakamoto: Everything in the short post already shows that the poster is Satoshi himself. Mystery solved!
The poster IS NOT Satoshi Nakamoto: This begs the questions, how did he come out with the word 'Bitcoin' way back in 2007, a year before the domain is even registered and the paper published? And how did he thought of needing a "cool sounding Japanese name"? There might be too many coincidences to ignore this. Subtly, the poster also said "already have most of the details figured out", which could be another coincidence where Satoshi immediately published his implementation paper in his first appearance, instead of starting a discussion first just like any other projects.
You might noticed that the poster is 'Chris Moore'. He is the founder of the just-dice.com site I mentioned previously. I did some findings and found that he has a lot of social media accounts on various sites. But the most significant one that could give us more helpful insight is his account on BitcoinTalk, where he had posted hundred of posts. His profile: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3420. I read up his posts and I think he might, or could lead us to Satoshi. Reason is: both Satoshi and him are prolific programmers, they both knows C++, both used Ubuntu as main OS, and very helpful in answering technical questions related to Bitcoin. Another subtle thing is, it looks like both has the same style of writing. Their style of writing was more of a "professional" and "strict" feeling type, with very standard English words, very minimal emoji usage, and less punctuation like '!', but these are not really solid proof because other English writer might have same style. Keep in mind that these are all just speculations. Would like to have an open discussion for more details.
Does satoshi really mean he wants bitcoin fully under law?
When someone suggest WikiLeaks should use bitcoin in 2010, Satoshi said no. No, don't "bring it on". The project needs to grow gradually so the software can be strengthened along the way. I make this appeal to WikiLeaks not to try to use Bitcoin. Bitcoin is a small beta community in its infancy. You would not stand to get more than pocket change, and the heat you would bring would likely destroy us at this stage. https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1735.msg26999#msg26999 I think he just don't want WikiLeaks to ruin bitcoin when it's vulnerable back in 2010. -----------------------------------GOV----------------------------------- Here is something satoshi talk about government. Yes, but we can win a major battle in the arms race and gain a new territory of freedom for several years. Governments are good at cutting off the heads of a centrally controlled networks like Napster, but pure P2P networks like Gnutella and Tor seem to be holding their own. It's a battle. https://www.metzdowd.com/pipermail/cryptography/2008-Novembe014823.html What do you think?
[repost] a reminder on how r/btc and Bitcoin Cash came to be
I realized that many people in this sub still don't have the full history of how Bitcoin Cash came to be. It goes back to all of the blocked attempts at onchain scaling that were made since 2014. Bitcoin was always supposed to get larger blocks: on that the record is very, very clear. (Edit: correct link here) Blockstream employees working on the Bitcoin Core project blocked original Bitcoin team members from upgrading Bitcoin Core to support larger blocks, so the original devs created Bitcoin XT, Classic, and Bitcoin Unlimited. By spring/summer 2017, miner support for large blocks had exceeded 50%. Meanwhile, support for Segwit was stuck at around 30%, despite a massive, organized campaign to rid the Bitcoin ecosystem of "up to 90%" of us big block early adopters. Thus, rbtc was born. When the small block community realized that Segwit was stuck at 30% signaling and big blocks were above 50% they launched UASF / BIP148 and then the subsequent New York bait-and-switch to get Segwit activated anyway. You will note that I and many others realized the NYA was a bait-and-switch from the start. Activation of Segwit required us to preemptively fork BCH in order to preserve a Segwit-free fork of Bitcoin with full onchain scaling capability which Segwit degrades. Unfortunately the mining majority went along with the fraudulent New York bait-and-switch and followed the 1MB4EVA chain, expecting that it would lead to the promised 2MB hardfork upgrade. By the time the majority realized that 2MB was never going to happen it was far too late. Learn more about the tragic attack on Bitcoin scaling here.
Satoshi Nakamoto in 2008: Visa processes 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth. If the network were to get that big, it would take years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal.
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node. The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices. If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal. Satoshi Nakamoto
https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09964.html Satoshi expected that overtime not everyone would run full nodes, he expected specialized much much bigger blocks and need for dedicated servers. No segwit, no side-chains, off-chains, 2chains, up chains or lightning chains. Just simply bigger blocks. I'm not even that big into bitcoin myself, I just cannot believe how utterly brainwashed the other side is that they think that myriad of side chains runned by "totally not banks" for network to be functional at all is somehow more decentralized than upgrading hardware and bandwidth every decade or so (which keeps getting faster and cheaper). I wonder how many of them actually believe this and how many simply cannot admit they were wrong/mislead. If your side has nothing but price memes and conspiracy theories to blame everyone from CIA to North Korea, you already lost.
The Bitcoin white paper describes the system Satoshi had already implemented
I actually did this kind of backwards. I had to write all the code before I could convince myself that I could solve every problem, then I wrote the paper. --Satoshi Nakamoto
Satoshi's white paper describes the system he coded. Those who argue that the paper describes something other than what Satoshi built either misunderstand the white paper, misunderstand how and why Bitcoin works, or most likely both. This misunderstanding has lead to the rise of arguments for altering the protocol to support ways of "punishing" miners who act to maximize their self-interest in accordance with the rules and incentives of the system. In every case so far proposed, these changes would introduce new attack vectors that radically alter the security assumptions of Bitcoin; assumptions so integral and fundamental that most users do not recognize they exist to be at risk. When these risks are pointed out the response is often denial, misrepresentation, and accusations that those calling attention to the problems are enemies of Bitcoin. Rational voices are drowned out by the roar of technically illiterate sycophants. Much like the proposed "solutions" increase the likelihood of network splits, the accompanying dialog seeks to splinter community support. Divide and conquer on multiple levels. If Satoshi accidentally described a better system than the one he implemented, that system should be built from scratch. There is no discernable reason why Bitcoin as it exists today, as it has existed since the genesis block, as Satoshi intended it to function, should be co-opted and mutated to fit the misinterpretation of anyone else. Let them prove the superiority of their grand ideas without destroying the system so many have fought to preserve.
Bitcoin was always meant to be used to purchase a cup of coffee or a can of soft drink or a candy bar
Afternoon, All. Just a friendly reminder: Bitcoin was always meant to be used to purchase a cup of coffee or a can of soft drink or a candy bar:
It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Once it gets bootstrapped, there are so many applications if you could effortlessly pay a few cents to a website as easily as dropping coins in a vending machine.
"Satoshi Nakamoto" the mysterious creator of Bitcoin is no other than the CIA
Bitcoin has surged to all time highs, Who created Bitcoin, and why? The creator of Bitcoin is officially a name, “Satoshi Nakamoto” – very few people believe that it was a single male from Japan. In the early days of Bitcoin development this name is associated with original key-creation and communications on message boards, and then the project was officially handed over to others at which point this Satoshi character never appeared again (Although from time to time someone will come forward saying they are the real Satoshi Nakamoto, and then have their posts deleted). Bitcoin could very well be the ‘one world currency’ that conspiracy theorists have been talking about for some time. It’s a kill five birds with one stone solution – not only is Bitcoin an ideal one world currency, it allows law enforcement a perfect record of all transactions on the network. It states very clearly on bitcoin.org (the official site) in big letters “Bitcoin is not anonymous” : Some effort is required to protect your privacy with Bitcoin. All Bitcoin transactions are stored publicly and permanently on the network, which means anyone can see the balance and transactions of any Bitcoin address. However, the identity of the user behind an address remains unknown until information is revealed during a purchase or in other circumstances. This is one reason why Bitcoin addresses should only be used once. Another advantage of Bitcoin is the problem of Quantitative Easing – the Fed (and thus, nearly all central banks in the world) have painted themselves in a corner, metaphorically speaking. QE ‘solved’ the credit crisis, but QE itself does not have a solution. Currently all currencies are in a race to zero – competing with who can print more money faster. Central Bankers who are in systemic analysis, their economic advisors, know this. They know that the Fiat money system is doomed, all what you can read online is true (just sensationalized) – it’s a debt based system based on nothing. That system was created, originally in the early 1900’s and refined during Breton Woods followed by the Nixon shock (This is all explained well in Splitting Pennies). In the early 1900’s – there was no internet! It is a very archaic system that needs to be replaced, by something modern, electronic, based on encryption. Bitcoin! It’s a currency based on ‘bits’ – but most importantly, Bitcoin is not the ‘one world currency’ per se, but laying the framework for larger cryptocurrency projects. In the case of central banks, who control the global monetary system, that would manifest in ‘Settlement Coin’ : Two resources available almost exclusively to central banks could soon be opened up to additional users as a result of a new digital currency project designed by a little-known startup and Swiss bank UBS. One of those resources is the real-time gross settlement (RTGS) system used by central banks (it’s typically reserved for high-value transactions that need to be settled instantly), and the other is central bank-issued cash. Using the Utility Settlement Coin (USC) unveiled today, the five-member consortium that has sprung up around the project aims to help central banks open-up access to these tools to more customers. If successful, USC has the potential to create entirely new business models built on instant settling and easy cash transfers. In interview, Robert Sams, founder of London-based Clearmatics, said his firm initially worked with UBS to build the network, and that BNY Mellon, Deutsche Bank, ICAP and Santander are only just the first of many future members. the NSA/CIA often works for big corporate clients, just as it has become a cliche that the Iraq war was about big oil, the lesser known hand in global politics is the banking sector. In other words, Bitcoin may have very well been ‘suggested’ or ‘sponsored’ by a banker, group of banks, or financial services firm. But the NSA (as we surmise) was the company that got the job done. And probably, if it was in fact ‘suggested’ or ‘sponsored’ by a private bank, they would have been waiting in the wings to develop their own Bitcoin related systems or as in the above “Settlement Coin.” So the NSA made Bitcoin – so what? The FX markets currently represent the exchange between ‘major’ and ‘minor’ currencies. In the future, why not too they will include ‘cryptocurrencies’ – we’re already seeing the BTC/EUR pair popup on obscure brokers. When BTC/USD and BTC/EUR are available at major FX banks and brokers, we can say – from a global FX perspective, that Bitcoin has ‘arrived.’ Many of us remember the days when the synthetic “Euro” currency was a new artificial creation that was being adopted, although the Euro project is thousands of degrees larger than the Bitcoin project. But unlike the Euro, Bitcoin is being adopted at a near exponential rate by demand (Many merchants resisted the switch to Euros claiming it was eating into their profit margins and they were right!). And to answer the question as to why Elite E Services is not actively involved in Bitcoin the answer is that previously, you can’t trade Bitcoin. Now we’re starting to see obscure brokers offering BTC/EUR but the liquidity is sparse and spreads are wacky – that will all change. When we can trade BTC/USD just like EUUSD you can bet that EES and a host of other algorithmic FX traders will be all over it! It will be an interesting trade for sure, especially with all the volatility, the cross ‘pairs’ – and new cryptocurrencies. For the record, for brokers- there’s not much difference adding a new symbol (currency pair) in MT4 they just need liquidity, which has been difficult to find. So there’s really nothing revolutionary about Bitcoin, it’s just a logical use of technology in finance considering a plethora of problems faced by any central bank who creates currency. And there are some interesting caveats to Bitcoin as compared to major currencies; Bitcoin is a closed system (there are finite Bitcoin) – this alone could make such currencies ‘anti-inflationary’ and at the least, hold their value (the value of the USD continues to deteriorate slowly over time as new M3 introduced into the system.) But we need to pay Here’s some interesting theories about who or whom is Satoshi: A corporate conglomerate Some researchers proposed that the name ‘Satoshi Nakamoto’ was derived from a combination of tech companies consisting of Samsung, Toshiba, Nakayama, and Motorola. The notion that the name was a pseudonym is clearly true and it is doubtful they reside in Japan given the numerous forum posts with a distinctly English dialect. Craig Steven Wright This Australian entrepreneur claims to be the Bitcoin creator and provided proof. But soon after, his offices were raided by the tax authorities on ‘an unrelated matter’ Soon after these stories were published, authorities in Australia raided the home of Mr Wright. The Australian Taxation Office said the raid was linked to a long-running investigation into tax payments rather than Bitcoin. Questioned about this raid, Mr Wright said he was cooperating fully with the ATO. “We have lawyers negotiating with them over how much I have to pay,” he said. Other potential creators Nick Szabo, and many others, have been suggested as potential Satoshi – but all have denied it: The New Yorker published a piece pointing at two possible Satoshis, one of whom seemed particularly plausible: a cryptography graduate student from Trinity College, Dublin, who had gone on to work in currency-trading software for a bank and published a paper on peer-to-peer technology. The other was a Research Fellow at the Oxford Internet Institute, Vili Lehdonvirta. Both made denials. Fast Company highlighted an encryption patent application filed by three researchers – Charles Bry, Neal King and Vladimir Oksman – and a circumstantial link involving textual analysis of it and the Satoshi paper which found the phrase “…computationally impractical to reverse” in both. Again, it was flatly denied. THE WINNER: It was the NSA The NSA has the capability, the motive, and the operational capacity – they have teams of cryptographers, the biggest fastest supercomputers in the world, and they see the need. Whether instructed by their friends at the Fed, in cooperation with their owners (i.e. Illuminati banking families), or as part of a DARPA project – is not clear and will never be known (unless a whistleblower comes forward). In fact, the NSA employs some of the best mathematicians and cryptographers in the world. Few know about their work because it’s a secret, and this isn’t the kind of job you leave to start your own cryptography company. But the real smoking Gun, aside from the huge amount of circumstantial evidence and lack of a credible alternative, is the 1996 paper authored by NSA “HOW TO MAKE A MINT: THE CRYPTOGRAPHY OF ANONYMOUS ELECTRONIC CASH” The NSA was one of the first organizations to describe a Bitcoin-like system. About twelve years before Satoshi Nakamotopublished his legendary white paper to the Metzdowd.com cryptography mailing list, a group of NSA information security researchers published a paper entitled How to Make a Mint: the Cryptography of Anonymous Electronic Cash in two prominent places, the first being an MIT mailing list and the second being much more prominent, The American Law Review The paper outlines a system very much like Bitcoin in which secure financial transactions are possible through the use of a decentralized network the researchers refer informally to as a Bank. They list four things as indispensable in their proposed network: privacy, user identification (protection against impersonation), message integrity (protection against tampering/substitution of transaction information – that is, protection against double-spending), and nonrepudiation (protection against later denial of a transaction – a blockchain!). It is evident that SHA-256, the algorithm Satoshi used to secure Bitcoin, was not available because it came about in 2001. However, SHA-1 would have been available to them, having been published in 1993. Why would the NSA want to do this? One simple reason: Control. As we explain in Splitting Pennies – Understanding Forex – the primary means the US dominates the world is through economic policy, although backed by bombs. And the critical support of the US Dollar is primarily, the military. The connection between the military and the US Dollar system is intertwined inextricably. There are thousands of great examples only one of them being how Iraq switched to the Euro right before the Army’s invasion. In October 2000 Iraq insisted on dumping the US dollar – ‘the currency of the enemy’ – for the more multilateral euro. The changeover was announced on almost exactly the same day that the euro reached its lowest ebb, buying just $0.82, and the G7 Finance Ministers were forced to bail out the currency. On Friday the euro had reached $1.08, up 30 per cent from that time. Almost all of Iraq’s oil exports under the United Nations oil-for-food programme have been paid in euros since 2001. Around 26 billion euros (£17.4bn) has been paid for 3.3 billion barrels of oil into an escrow account in New York. The Iraqi account, held at BNP Paribas, has also been earning a higher rate of interest in euros than it would have in dollars. The point here is there are a lot of different types of control. The NSA monitors and collects literally all electronic communications; internet, phone calls, everything. They listen in even to encrypted voice calls with high powered microphones, devices like cellphones equipped with recording devices (See original “Clipper” chip). It’s very difficult to communicate on planet Earth in private, without the NSA listening. So it is only logical that they would also want complete control of the financial system, including records of all electronic transactions, which Bitcoin provides. Could there be an ‘additional’ security layer baked into the Blockchain that is undetectable, that allows the NSA to see more information about transactions, such as network location data? It wouldn’t be so far fetched, considering their past work, such as Xerox copy machines that kept a record of all copies made (this is going back to the 70’s, now it’s common). Of course security experts will point to the fact that this layer remains invisible, but if this does exist – of course it would be hidden. More to the point about the success of Bitcoin – its design is very solid, robust, manageable – this is not the work of a student. Of course logically, the NSA employs individuals, and ultimately it is the work of mathematicians, programmers, and cryptographers – but if we deduce the most likely group capable, willing, and motivated to embark on such a project, the NSA is the most likely suspect. Universities, on the other hand, didn’t product white papers like this from 1996. Another question is that if it was the NSA, why didn’t they go through more trouble concealing their identity? I mean, the internet is rife with theories that it was in fact the NSA/CIA and “Satoshi Nakamoto” means in Japanese “Central Intelligence” – well there are a few answers for this, but to be congruent with our argument, it fits their profile. Where could this ‘hidden layer’ be? Many think it could be in the public SHA-256, developed by NSA (which ironically, was the encryption algorithm of choice for Bitcoin – they could have chosen hundreds of others, which arguably are more secure): Claims that the NSA created Bitcoin have actually been flung around for years. People have questioned why it uses the SHA-256 hash function, which was designed by the NSA and published by the National Institute for Standards and Technology (NIST). The fact that the NSA is tied to SHA-256 leads some to assume it’s created a backdoor to the hash function that no one has ever identified, which allows it to spy on Bitcoin users. “If you assume that the NSA did something to SHA-256, which no outside researcher has detected, what you get is the ability, with credible and detectable action, they would be able to forge transactions. The really scary thing is somebody finds a way to find collisions in SHA-256 really fast without brute-forcing it or using lots of hardware and then they take control of the network,” cryptography researcher Matthew D. Green of Johns Hopkins University said in a previous interview. Then there’s the question of “Satoshi Nakamoto” – if it was in fact the NSA, why not just claim ownership of it? Why all the cloak and dagger? And most importantly, if Satoshi Nakamoto is a real person, and not a group that wants to remain secret – WHY NOT come forward and claim your nearly $3 Billion worth of Bitcoin (based on current prices). Did the NSA create Satoshi Nakamoto? The CIA Project, a group dedicated to unearthing all of the government’s secret projects and making them public, hasreleased a video claiming Bitcoin is actually the brainchild of the US National Security Agency. The video entitled CIA Project Bitcoin: Is Bitcoin a CIA or NSA project? claims that there is a lot of compelling evidences that proves that the NSA is behind Bitcoin. One of the main pieces of evidence has to do with the name of the mysterious man, woman or group behind the creation of Bitcoin, “Satoshi Nakamoto”. According to the CIA Project, Satoshi Nakamoto means “Central Intelligence” in Japanese. Doing a quick web search, you’ll find out that Satoshi is usually a name given for baby boys which means “clear thinking, quick witted, wise,” while Nakamoto is a Japanese surname which means ‘central origin’ or ‘(one who lives) in the middle’ as people with this surname are found mostly in the Ryukyu islands which is strongly associated with the Ry?ky? Kingdom, a highly centralized kingdom that originated from the Okinawa Islands. So combining Nakamoto and Satoshi can be loosely interpreted as “Central Intelligence”. Is it so really hard to believe? This is from an organization that until the Snowden leaks, secretly recorded nearly all internet traffic on the network level by splicing fiber optic cables. They even have a deep-sea splicing mission that will cut undersea cables and install intercept devices. Making Bitcoin wouldn’t even be a big priority at NSA. Certainly, anonymity is one of the biggest myths about Bitcoin. In fact, there has never been a more easily traceable method of payment. Every single transaction is recorded and retained permanently in the public “blockchain”. The idea that the NSA would create an anarchic, peer-to-peer crypto-currency in the hope that it would be adopted for nefarious industries and become easy to track would have been a lot more difficult to believe before the recent leaks by Edward Snowden and the revelation that billions of phone calls had been intercepted by the US security services. We are now in a world where we now know that the NSA was tracking the pornography habits of Islamic “radicalisers” in order to discredit them and making deals with some of the world’s largest internet firms to insert backdoors into their systems. And we’re not the only ones who believe this, in Russia they ‘know’ this to be true without sifting through all the evidence. Nonetheless, Svintsov’s remarks count as some of the more extreme to emanate from the discussion. Svintsov told Russian broadcast news agency REGNUM:“All these cryptocurrencies [were] created by US intelligence agencies just to finance terrorism and revolutions.”Svintsov reportedly went on to explain how cryptocurrencies have started to become a payment method for consumer spending, and cited reports that terrorist organisations are seeking to use the technology for illicit means. Let’s elaborate on what is ‘control’ as far as the NSA is concerned. Bitcoin is like the prime mover. All future cryptocurrencies, no matter how snazzy or functional – will never have the same original keys as Bitcoin. It created a self-sustained, self-feeding bubble – and all that followed. It enabled law enforcement to collect a host of criminals on a network called “Silk Road” and who knows what other operations that happened behind the scenes. Because of pesky ‘domestic’ laws, the NSA doesn’t control the internet in foreign countries. But by providing a ‘cool’ currency as a tool, they can collect information from around the globe and like Facebook, users provide this information voluntarily. It’s the same strategy they use like putting the listening device in the chips at the manufacturing level, which saves them the trouble of wiretapping, electronic eavesdropping, and other risky methods that can fail or be blocked. It’s impossible to stop a cellphone from listening to you, for example (well not 100%, but you have to physically rewire the device). Bitcoin is the same strategy on a financial level – by using Bitcoin you’re giving up your private transactional information. By itself, it would not identify you per se (as the blockchain is ‘anonymous’ but the transactions are there in the public register, so combined with other information, which the NSA has a LOT OF – they can triangulate their information more precisely. That’s one problem solved with Bitcoin – another being the economic problem of QE (although with a Bitcoin market cap of $44 Billion, that’s just another day at the Fed buying MBS) – and finally, it squashes the idea of sovereignty although in a very, very, very subtle way. You see, a country IS a currency. Until now, currency has always been tied to national sovereignty (although the Fed is private, USA only has one currency, the US Dollar, which is exclusively American). Bitcoin is a super-national currency, or really – the world’s first one world currency. Of course, this is all great praise for the DOD which seems to have a 50 year plan – but after tens of trillions spent we’d hope that they’d be able to do something better than catching terrorists (which mostly are artificial terrorists)
Very First Discussion of Bitcoin by Satoshi: BTC can Scale with specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.
In 2008 Nov, this is very first Satoshi's response after he published the white paper, answering the critic that Bitcoin network can't scale which also the first response to his white paer.... The scaling debate started in the inception of Bitcoin. Re: Bitcoin P2P e-cash paper Satoshi Nakamoto Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:56:27 -0800
We very, very much need such a system, but the way I understand your proposal, it does not seem to scale to the required size. For transferable proof of work tokens to have value, they must have monetary value. To have monetary value, they must be transferred within a very large network - for example a file trading network akin to bittorrent. To detect and reject a double spending event in a timely manner, one must have most past transactions of the coins in the transaction, which, naively implemented, requires each peer to have most past transactions, or most past transactions that occurred recently. If hundreds of millions of people are doing transactions, that is a lot of bandwidth - each must know all, or a substantial part thereof.
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node. The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices. If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal. Satoshi Nakamoto https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09964.html
In the wake of all the questions of "why o why is a mere 2x increase in blocksize considered so EVIL by the community boohoo don't we need a blocksize increase at some point anyway?", let me explain why. TLDR: Blockchains do not scale, full stop. Layers on top of a blockchain might. Given a fixed amount of data bandwidth available worldwide, blockchains without a block size limit will lead to fewer transactions per second worldwide, than blockchains with a block size limit that backs more bandwidth-efficient transaction layers. (Data storage is not an issue, has never been an issue, and in the foreseeable future will never be an issue, so forget the $20 1Tb harddisks. Nobody cares about $20 1Tb harddisks.) Global bandwidth is limited due to physical and technical reasons. Our physical wires need to follow the curvature of the Earth, line-of-sight can't pass through rock and ocean, physical transmission media have maximum frequencies they can transmit before the signal erodes into noise. Technology is not magic. The very first reply to Nakamoto's Bitcoin paper points out the excessive bandwidth usage of a blockchain:
To detect and reject a double spending event in a timely manner, one must have most past transactions of the coins in the transaction, which, naively implemented, requires each peer to have most past transactions, or most past transactions that occurred recently. If hundreds of millions of people are doing transactions, that is a lot of bandwidth - each must know all, or a substantial part thereof.
Or in other words, every transaction needs to get sent to every network participant. But this is of course a necessity for a decentralized transaction finalization ("settlement") layer with no higher layer but pure physics (proof-of-work) to appeal to. (Satoshi's reply to the above post is basically "we can do SPV" but it is important to take note that Satoshi was expecting fraud proofs to actually be deployed on the network before people migrated to SPV (Satoshi called these "alerts" in section 8 of the whitepaper). Today to my knowledge the only available fraud proof is BIP180 for proving violations of the block size limit. Peter Todd was working on proofchains to lead eventually to client-side validation, but to my understanding it requires permanent inflation; in addition proofchains terminate at a coinbase, but there is no consensus rule specifying a maximum limit on the coinbase, so even with proofchains a miner can create an invalid block with 100,000 BTC fees in the coinbase, build up an invalid chain that splits it up and mixes it with some valid coins, then pay several thousand SPV users with fake BTC on the invalid chain, and steal more than what they would have earned with honest behavior. Finally, we need fraud proofs for every consensus rule really, and as consensus rules are added via softforks, we need even more fraud proofs to support those rules. Suffice it to say that today SPV is not safe for widespread use due to lack of available fraud proofs; we really do need to run our own fullnodes as much as possible.) So what can we do to reduce the bandwidth requirements of blockchains? That's what the higher layers are for. Lightning does not require broadcasting transactions to every other Lightning user in the world except in rare occasions such as actual fraud, or if you want to collect money on-chain for a big on-chain transaction (car or house purchase perhaps, where speed is not an issue (you still have to pack your stuff for the movers, for example) but single large-value atomic final payments are important). Instead, Lightning requires only that the transaction be sent only from the payer, through any intermediaries (who get paid in fees, so they do have a need to know the transaction anyway, being part of it economically however tiny), and finally to the payee. That is scaling blockchains cannot muster: only those involved in the Lightning transaction need know it, but blockchains must tell everyone and record the transaction permanently! Unfortunately Lightning requires some "higher judge" to appeal to in case of fraud; fortunately, an impartial perfect judge of correctness, the blockchain itself, already exists. So if you truly believe that we should scale.... ...that it is important that fees be low to enable many small economic transactions... ...and you understand that technology is not magic, but is limited by our ingenuity and by the real world .... ...then you will have no choice but to reject big blocks in favor of higher-layer networks. Because in a world where block sizes have much larger limits than available now, or with no limit, most of the available bandwidth to you, yes you, will be transactions you really personally wouldn't care about. But in a world where block size limit is imposed (and I will be honest, and say that perhaps the 4 Mweight limit is too low, but I must also raise the possibility that it is too high, and today we do not have enough information to judge for sure), then there is a bound to the bandwidth you will use for blockchain transactions, and most of your available bandwidth will be for transactions that you personally are involved in. Which world do you think will let you send and receive more of your own transactions? The world of big blocks or the world of small blocks? Perhaps we do indeed need a block size increase and perhaps the cost is not too onerous. But to show that, you need to show that the block size increase is necessary, that the cost on everyone's bandwidth is low, that the typical expected user can be expected to have this much bandwidth in total and we should allocate this much bandwidth to on-chain transactions (a shared cost imposed on all users) and this much bandwidth to off-chain transactions of the user. (And perhaps too SPV can be made to work: but still we need more work on making SPV safe, before we all dive into a world of widespread SPV; let us at least first consider things like UTXO commitments and private querying of blocks (e.g. Neutrino). And perhaps that will not be necessary, if instead we smallblock and use off-chain networks.)
I Am Pleased to Announce a Working Release of the Drop Zone Protocol - a Decentralized Marketplace Layer Written Fully on top of Bitcoin
It is a command line client written in Ruby. It allows for the selling, buying, and facilitation of secure messaging between buyers and sellers using nothing but the Blockchain and testnet. For those unfamiliar with the project, I released the original paper on the cryptography mailing list. Github Link Rubygem Link It is a command line only client for now, but it is perfectly functional, written in Ruby, and tested to the hilt.
Install ruby. This program was built on version 2.2.1
gem install dropzone_ruby
Run "dropzone help" to get started
Fund a testnet and mainnet key with BTC/tBTC
Create a seller or buyer profile, and start using Drop Zone
The immediate application for Drop Zone is as a nationwide marketplace. However, it is my hope that as adoption increases, Drop Zone will provide instantaneous, convenient hyper-local market services as well. I hope for active community participation. I would like to see users push for Drop Zone integrations in their preferred mobile wallets, and I hope that those interested in decentralized markets will take up the torch and begin building interesting applications on top of this protocol. All at once, Drop Zone solves the problem of disappearing marketplaces and their associated exit scams w/o need for running any additional supporting infrastructure. Drop Zone is Bitcoin. Please recognize, in the midst of this blocksize debate, that fungibility is truly the biggest problem facing Bitcoin. Please use the software and begin issuing bug requests. Also, while the Drop Zone release is at the forefront of everyone's minds, I ask that the dropzone subreddit be created. Feel free to make me a mod, though I will be moving on to other things as soon I feel like the project is in good hands. If you are the owner of the following wallets please contact me on Drop Zone:
Kleiman's writings generally fit the tone of Satoshi's far better than Wright
Kleiman's personality is a far better fit to Satoshi than Wright.
That's it for now, maybe we can do some more digging. I refuse to believe that Wright is Satoshi, and prefer to believe (and I think more evidence speaks for) Dave Kleiman is the brains and author of Bitcoin (possibly with outside help) and that Wright is simply trying to claim the fame and possible windfall.
[uncensored-r/Bitcoin] Today's Celebration: Satoshi Nakamoto published the bitcoin whitepaper 9 years ago! HODL and NO2X!!!
The following post by MRDAT21 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/79mvkb The original post's content was as follows:
Critical Misunderstanding: "Bitcoin=Digital Gold (This post was posted to r/bitcoin and removed by their thought police. Gee, these people are assholes.)
Critical Misunderstanding: "Bitcoin=Digital Gold" (self.Bitcoin) submitted 7 days ago by KingofKens Bitcoin is not digital gold at all. The asset class, type and characteristic is very different. Bitcoin has a similar characteristic to company stocks than precious metals. Only finite amount of gold exists. Nobody can't use alchemy to create gold or similar precious metals. On the other hand we can copy & paste the code of Bitcoin and we can create unlimited # of alt coins which have the same or similar function of bitcoin. We got to think the whole bitcoin network as a DAO. The service that we provide is an alternative money service to government fiat. The value that we transferring is share of the DAO. It is like a company's services become more popular, the stock of company will go up. Bitcoin price will always follow by popularity. If it become useless and unpopular, the value will go down. This is nothing like gold. There are no alternative to the gold. Gold is gold always. Bitcoin artificial scarcity helps to establish the value but it won't guarantee the long term value of Bitcoin. Bitcoin is just one of the competing crypto currencies in the completely free market. You can't stop new comers and competitors. Yes, it stores value, but It only stores the value of popularity of the coin. Facebook's share stores the value. Myspace's share is as well but not much any more. Cryptocurrencies are far far from gold. It can't be digital gold even that we want. The value is much more dynamic and it can be million also can be 0 as well. That is not gold at all. We got to think through where the value of Bitcoin derives. If we keep providing slow, expensive services with a crazy internal warfare. People simply move one coin to others. Eventually it will be replaced by other coins. Then Bitcoin will be obsolete and won't have much value. Gold will exist next thousand years? We safely can say yes. How about Bitcoin? This question is same as you are asking google will exist next thousand years or not. Bitcoin will dominate the market next tens of years like google did? Yeah, that is entirely possible, but no guarantee because of the perfect competition of crypto currency market. Bitcoin is and was design as "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". The original design of bitcoin is clear, "A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". Not digital gold store values. http://nakamotoinstitute.org/bitcoin/ Satoshi was very clearly thinking on chain scaling to compete with the visa level as well. https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09964.html He invented Bitcoin, “A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System”, to combat to inflationary government fiats which issued by the central banks and fractional reserve banking system. His political intention is very clear. http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source?id=2003008%3ATopic%3A9402&page=1#comments I don't think the current technician team of Bitcoin DAO, Core, understands this basic design concept and philosophy. I really hate people so easily dismiss his original vision for security. Engineers are important but they are not CEO or founder who make big visions of the company. Engineers jobs to make the original vision secure, not alter the original vision. If core members think they are super genius, make the original vision happens safely. Below are Satoshi's original writings. Read your self and make your mind. Satoshi on government fiats, central banks and fractional reserve banking system “The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust. Banks must be trusted to hold our money and transfer it electronically, but they lend it out in waves of credit bubbles with barely a fraction in reserve. We have to trust them with our privacy, trust them not to let identity thieves drain our accounts. Their massive overhead costs make micropayments impossible.” Satoshi Nakamoto on February 11, 2009 http://p2pfoundation.ning.com/forum/topics/bitcoin-open-source?id=2003008%3ATopic%3A9402&page=1#comments Satoshi white paper: "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System" “A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted third party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as a majority of CPU power is controlled by nodes that are not cooperating to attack the network, they'll generate the longest chain and outpace attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcast on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. ” Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System Satoshi Nakamoto October 31, 2008 http://nakamotoinstitute.org/bitcoin/#selection-7.4-19.27 Satoshi on Bitcoin scaling “Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware. A server farm would only need to have one node on the network and the rest of the LAN connects with that one node. The bandwidth might not be as prohibitive as you think. A typical transaction would be about 400 bytes (ECC is nicely compact). Each transaction has to be broadcast twice, so lets say 1KB per transaction. Visa processed 37 billion transactions in FY2008, or an average of 100 million transactions per day. That many transactions would take 100GB of bandwidth, or the size of 12 DVD or 2 HD quality movies, or about $18 worth of bandwidth at current prices. If the network were to get that big, it would take several years, and by then, sending 2 HD movies over the Internet would probably not seem like a big deal. “ Satoshi Nakamoto Sun, 02 Nov 2008 17:56:27 -0800 https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09964.html
“We have proposed a system for electronic transactions without relying on trust.” – Satoshi Nakamoto
On October 31, 2008, the programmeprogrammers known as Satoshi Nakamoto published this paper through a metzdowd.com cryptography mailing list that describes the Bitcoin currency and solves the problem of double spending so as to prevent the currency from being copied.
Bitcoin was always meant to be used to purchase a cup of coffee or a can of soft drink or a candy bar
Afternoon, All. Just a friendly reminder: Bitcoin was always meant to be used to purchase a cup of coffee or a can of soft drink or a candy bar:
It might make sense just to get some in case it catches on. If enough people think the same way, that becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. Once it gets bootstrapped, there are so many applications if you could effortlessly pay a few cents to a website as easily as dropping coins in a vending machine.
HIGHLY SPECULATIVE: Saotshi's bitcoin in a trust managed by Ian Grigg, Joseph Vaughn Perling et al
PLEASE NOTE: these are not facts. This is just a picture someone is slowly painting over last months. This does not mean "this is reality". This means "someone is painting this picture, and will later reveal how things really are". Or maybe won't. You know how these "reveal" things go I will be reading this as if it were fiction, and therefore I will go on a COMPLETE "Suspension of disbelief" mode. Don't trust anybody. Don't trust ME. In 2011 Kleiman wrote to Wright speaking of a Tulip Trust. This document was leaked last year
I, Dave Kleiman, have received 1,100,111 Bitcon from Craig Wright ... I will form a trust to be managed by at least three people ...
This trust holds Satoshi's treasure Then Wright comes out as Satoshi. Ian Grigg confirms he knows Craig Wright is part of the Satoshi team. In http://www.financialcryptography.com , he says:
I confirm that this is true, both from direct knowledge and a base of evidence. CARS.
Please note "direct knowledge". He also knows there was a team, and that Dave Kleiman was part of it
Craig credited the late Dave Kleiman as member of the team. I confirm Kleiman was a member of the team.
JVP: I met him at a conference in 2005, he wore the moniker. We discussed what became Bitcoin at great length. He knew all there was to know about Bitcoin in 2005, and he shared it with me. I did not learn his government-registered name until much later.
He also confirms having control of the tweeter account
AVW: So Ian and yourself are currently controlling that Twitter account? JVP: There may be others involved as well, but we are the ones that are taking the bullets.
For the rest he is VERY vague and full of "That's a story for another time." and "It is not my place to speculate". and "What I know and when I know it is not something I am interested in sharing" He defends Wright's actions, even if in convoluted ways:
He is following a wrong path, because he must. He is doing it the least-wrong way possible. He is on Meifumando. It is as it has to be.
But all his literary / zen talk suddenly change in a VERY precise talk when he delivers a message to Wright, a message from "the trustee of the Tulip trust that is controlling the coins that he wants to move" This is the message:
“The Tulip Trading Trust trustee, appointed by Dave Kleiman as of Oct 12nd 2012. It has been rumored that Craig Wright will need to access Tulip Trading Trust assets. Trustee acts in the interest of the beneficiary alone and must defend against undue influence by others. In order to authorize movements of trust assets the beneficiary must come forward and make a direct request of the trustee our way–NOT via 3rd party nor any intermediaries. Any coin movement affecting the trust asset without prior authorization will be considered a trust violation and invalid irrespective of any claim of constructive bailment. The Trust alone has control over its assets. Tampering or manipulating with trust assets by anyone (including the beneficiary) might have material legal and tax implications. Beneficiaries are invited to a conference call 12:00 UTC Friday to discuss interests. Principals only.”
There A LOT of attention going to phrasing on there. IANAL, but here are a few notes.
It has been rumored that Craig Wright will need to access Tulip Trading Trust assets.
IT HAS BEEN RUMORED. This means "we know, but we only know from the media, we haven't been officially told by Wright".
In order to authorize movements of trust assets the beneficiary must come forward and make a direct request of the trustee our way–NOT via 3rd party nor any intermediaries.
To move those coins, come to ask and talk.
Any coin movement affecting the trust asset without prior authorization will be considered a trust violation
AFFECTING THE TRUST ASSET. It's wider in meaning than "don't move or take the trust's money" . It's more generic, He should not do anything that affects the trust's assets. Such as having three guys send him £5 each, and then sending the same money back. Because perhaps Wright thought he could do it, defending himself saying "I didn't take money from the trust, I just gave those blokes their money back" Well, he can't. That would "affect the trust asset".
irrespective of any claim of constructive bailment
Also, he can't say "I have the keys, I have NOT stolen them, it's like I have them in bailment. So I can use them, and it's not illegal, as nobody told me not to" Well, now he has been told. He can't use them, it would not be "constructive bailment"
Tampering or manipulating with trust assets by anyone (including the beneficiary) might have material legal and tax implications.
LEAVE THE FUCKING COINS ALONE, even if you are the beneficiary
Beneficiaries are invited to a conference call 12:00 UTC Friday to discuss interests
Hear you tomorrow. There's a hint of the trustees appearing at the SANS conference in September. (oh, wow, another reveal!) There are interesting discrepancies between singular and plural. One would expect "trustees", but it says "trustee". It says "beneficiary", and at the end "beneficiaries" But anyway, it's interesting. A last point. In the last days on the Tulip Boy Tweeter account there is a cacophony of voices, some of them seem to come from JVP and some from Wright. But in the light of things that have happened, the odd phrase takes a new taste:
Starting April 11st 2016, this account is preserved and maintained by @iang_fc, @haq4good, XS and ...
It's almost as if this echoes the nature of a trust, preserved and maintained by the trustees for a beneficiary. I don't say all this is somehow provable. As I said it's just a picture someone wants us to look at. I just know I'll be watching that twitter account around 12 UTC EDIT: more hints at a conflict between the trust and Wright (et al), that might have or not have the keys but not be allowed to use them Ian Grigg posted:
More: control at any time does not necessarily indicate ownership, either in the minds of the team nor in the eyes of the law. Even if Craig manages to sign over a coin, it does not and cannot prove he is "the one," only that he was at one point in time a trusted member of the team. Albeit, the team that he founded, but a wise leader controls for all risks, including those risks posed by the leader himself.
"I've emotionally been through something similar and I believe him; he moved to R3 because he was disillusioned with bitcoin, not the other way around." - Vitalik Buterin
Fast forward to the middle of Hearn's last blog entry:
The idea that Bitcoin is inherently doomed because more users means less decentralisation is a pernicious one. It ignores the fact that despite all the hype, real usage is low, growing slowly and technology gets better over time. It is a belief Gavin and I have spent much time debunking. And it leads to an obvious but crazy conclusion: if decentralisation is what makes Bitcoin good, and growth threatens decentralisation, then Bitcoin should not be allowed to grow.
This is the observation Hearn makes and he correctly predicted that the scaling conference would not result in a block size increase. Is this really "whiny ragequitting" ? Maybe. But Consider the very first email that Mike ever had from Satoshi in 2009:
Long before the network gets anywhere near as large as that, it would be safe for users to use Simplified Payment Verification (section 8) to check for double spending, which only requires having the chain of block headers, or about 12KB per day. Only people trying to create new coins would need to run network nodes. At first, most users would run network nodes, but as the network grows beyond a certain point, it would be left more and more to specialists with server farms of specialized hardware.
This is a point that has been usurped by modern core developers who disagree with this fundamental idea of scaling. That's a problem if you originally bought into the idea of bitcoin as something that could grow. Core developers don't believe specialists should run nodes because they think everyone should. If you define the growth of bitcoin as "centralizing" because of less full nodes being run in proportion to users then you are validating hearns point above. edit: Keep in mind that XT approximated future growth at a level (40%) that would mean normal users with decent broadband connections could still run full nodes , forcing no one to really be a specialist.
https://preview.redd.it/c2af6qvnhzz11.jpg?width=660&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ac2a6aa0333fbc49519da3c92272a1677ccbbfb9 " El dinero electrónico (también conocido comoe-money,efectivo electrónico,moneda electrónica,dinero digital,efectivo digitalomoneda digital) se refiere adineroque, o bien se emite de formaelectrónica, a través de la utilización de unared de ordenadores,Internety sistemas de valores digitalmente almacenados como el caso delBitcoin, o es unmedio de pagodigital equivalente de una determinadamoneda, como en el caso delEcuadoroPerúLastransferencias electrónicas de fondos,depósitos directosy losgiros bancariosson ejemplos de dinero electrónico. Asimismo,no tiene unidad física y sus transacciones se realizan a través del intercambio de bits sin utilizar billetes, monedas o cualquier otro medio convencional. es posible hacer transacciones sin que necesariamente intervenga un banco u otra entidad financiera". (https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinero_electr%C3%B3nico). Citando esta referencia daré inicio a mi pequeña parte de la historia de una revolución en cuanto a la forma que vemos el dinero o bienes de valor como mejor ustedes dispongan a llamarles, a esta revolución que inicio a mediados de los años de la década del 2000 y cuyo alcance ha llegado a avanzar hasta la actualidad con las criptomonedas, de manera sorprendente la mayoría de las criptomonedas se basan en un cadena de bloques descentralizadas que se unen a una red de computadoras que confirman las transacciones de venta y compra de bienes o criptomonedas de manera independiente, los llamados mineros a este espacio llamado ademas Blockchain. En 2008, Satoshi Nakamoto publicó un artículo en la lista de criptografía de metzdowd.com donde describe el protocolo Bitcoin. El 3 de enero de 2009, la red P2P de Bitcoin entra en funcionamiento con la publicación del primer programa cliente, de código abierto, y la creación de los primeros bitcoins. Hasta la innción de Bitcoin era obligado que todos los pagos en el comercio electrónico se canalizaran a través de entidades centralizadas de confianza, generalmente bancos y otras empresas financieras, que gestionaban el seguimiento de todas las transacciones. https://preview.redd.it/gi297egrkzz11.jpg?width=450&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2b2bad67d4362df52442a682136f9c246147d9dd Todas las transacciones de compra y venta de activos dentro de la cadena de bloques son verificables. Durante sus inicios sus pioneros lograron obtener una gran cantidad de monedas, mineros y inversores, pero no fue fácil adoptar el termino criptomoneda y su adopción hasta la fecha todavía sigue en proceso, pero en un principio valía milésimas de dolar un bitcoin, su proceso ascendente comienza y se remonta hasta el año 2013 cuando su precio sobrepasa 1,000 dolares, por primera vez, muchos personas enfocadas al ámbito electrónico, Internet vieron en el un gran potencial, de allí en adelante comienza su ascenso astronómico. Algunos detractores de la tecnología asocian al bitcoin con el lavado de dinero, o compra de drogas o pagos fraudulentos por servicios o armas que se remontan a la Internet profunda o Deep Web, cierto muchos malhechores pagan en bitcoin, para realizar sus delitos, pero dada la naturaleza de poder verificar las transacciones dentro de la cadena de bloques son rastreables, las mismas por lo cual están emigrando a otras criptomonedas de alta privacidad como un ejemplo Monero, o Zcash, igual, todos los dineros fiat son utilizados para comprar drogas, armas, trata de personas, entre muchos delitos a nivel mundial. El bitcoin fue el pionero, al igual que en muchas ocasiones a través de la Historia el ser humano es inconforme y es curioso por lo cual no todos estaban conformes con la tecnología criptografica del Bitcoin, por lo cual utilizando su base se desarrollaron nuevas criptomonedas como Ethereum, Ripple, Litecoin, Dash, para gustos los colores cada uno enfocada en un tema referente al uso diario en la vida real... continuaremos la historia........
Old words from Satoshi, whether you respect, dismiss, or hate them.
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1347.msg15366#msg15366 "It can be phased in, like: if (blocknumber > 115000) maxblocksize = largerlimit It can start being in versions way ahead, so by the time it reaches that block number and goes into effect, the older versions that don't have it are already obsolete. When we're near the cutoff block number, I can put an alert to old versions to make sure they know they have to upgrade." (credit to Erik for the reference) mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg09964.html
Satoshi Nakamoto wrote:
I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third party.
Regardless of whether you respect, hate, dismiss Satoshi's words from years ago, many people were attracted to Bitcoin because of his vision and what the code did. 1mb = reliance on a trusted 3rd party
"Cryptography" is a low-noise moderated mailing list devoted to cryptographic technology and its political impact. Occasionally, the moderator allows the topic to veer more generally into security and privacy technology and its impact, but this is rare. Bitcoin was introduced to the public on November 1st, 2008 with an email from Satoshi Nakamoto to the [email protected] mailing list: > I've been working on a new electronic cash system that's fully peer-to-peer, with no trusted third part... It was a paper that was published to metzdowd.com which described the Bitcoin digital cryptocurrency. The first software responsible for launching the network and the first unit of Bitcoin currency appropriately titled Bitcoins was released by Nakamoto in January, 2009. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System Satoshi Nakamoto [email protected] www.bitcoin.org Abstract. A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main A Bitcoin wallet,( not to confuse with Bitcoin keys) is a physical or digital device that facilitates the trading of Bitcoin and allows users to track ownership of coins. Maybe the term “wallet” is a bit misleading, as Bitcoin’s decentralize nature means that it is never stored “in” a wallet, but rather decentrally parked on a block ...
Nakamoto distributed a paper on metzdowd.com's The Cryptography Mailing list in October 2008 called Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. ... bitcoins are worth considerably ... On 31 October 2008, he published a paper on the cryptography mailing list at metzdowd.com describing a digital cryptocurrency, titled "Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System". In light of the common assertions that Bitcoin was created by the CIA, or some other secret government organization, and as we progress through this video today I want to encourage you all to ... Bitcoin: The End Of Money As We Know It traces the history of money from the bartering societies of the ancient world to the trading floors of Wall St. The d... 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...